---

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

              Tuesday, February 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 35

                            Headlines

500.COM LIMITED: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Kim Files Suit for FCDPA Violation
ALLEN COUNTY JAIL: Inmate Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Withholds Labor Cost From ACV Pay, Floyd Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Asks for Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Zamber Suit

AMERICAN HONDA: Venue of Tenzyk Action Transferred to California
AMISUB SFH: Thomas Seeks to Recover RNs' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
BILOXI HMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Henley Suit
BOBBI PERSONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Smith Alleges

C&J WELL: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Enlargement of Time Request in Coleman
CATHERINE M ZADEH: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA
CERTIFIED SAFETY: Ford Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert. Denied in Employment Bias Case

CHRISTIAN FAITH: Court Certifies Literary Agents Class in O'Brien
COMENITY LLC: Stockman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
COOK COUNTY, IL: Jones' Notice to Members of Class Approved
CREDIT CORP: Peterson Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
CSWS LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Dancers Class in Rosebar

D&H RETAIL GROUP: Tatum-Rios Files Suit under ADA
DEPENDABLE AMBULETTE: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
DESIGNER BRANDS: Peskett FACTA Suit Removed to C.D. California
DYANSYS INC: Katz Files Suit in California
ENDLESS MOUNTAINS: Viel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages

FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed Due to Accord
FAST AUTO: Final Judgment Entered in Shahbazian Consumer Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Belaire Notice May Be Utilized in Chapman Class
FIVE STAR: Court Remands Benson Fraud Case to State Court
FLINT, MI: Residents Get Court Nod to Pursue Class-Action Lawsuit

FORD MOTOR: Faces New F-150 10R80 Transmission Class Action in Pa.
FORESCOUT TECH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 2 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action
GARDNER, MA: Residents Can Sue a Municipality in a Class Action
GEICO: Alaei Files Fraud Class Suit in California

GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Boger TCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
GENERAL MOTORS: Fortmayer Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Louisiana
GEO GROUP: Court Rules on Wash. Bid to Quash Subpoenas in Nwauzor
GOHEALTH LLC: Faces Naiman Suit in Illinois Over TCPA Violation
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sabel Files Suit for Violation of FCDPA

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Moreau Suit Removed to E.D. California
HOMEDELIVERYLINK INC: Discovery Bids in Kloppel Gets Partial OK
ILLUMINA INC: Hearing on Class Action Settlement Set for April 20
INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Appellate Court Upholds Certification in Pinson
INTUIT INC: Sued by Williams for Hiding Free Tax Filing Services

IRAN: Faces Class Action Over Ukrainian Air Flight PS752 Crash
JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
JOHN GORE ORGANIZATION: Court Dismisses Castillo ADA Suit
JUUL LABS: Imani Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Oregon
KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Dismisses Aleman FLSA Suit

KERN COUNTY, CA: Finalized Class Notice in T.G. Gets Court Nod
KNAUF INSULATION: Brancaccio Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Orders Arbitration in Kammer Case
LEVI STRAUSS: Faces Wechter Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA
LIFETIME BRANDS: Cruz Files Suit in New York

LINCARE INC: Balderson May Amend Employment Discrimination Suit
M&M BEDDING: Martie Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls
MATTEL INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 24 Deadline
MAUSER USA: Valenzuela Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
MD 2724: Court Won't Stay Discovery in Generic Pharmaceuticals Suit

MDU RESOURCES: Faces Schein Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Faxes
MEDICREDIT INC: Court Reverses Class Certification in FDCPA Case
MERCY CLINIC: Ark. Flips Class Certification Denial in Vaughn Suit
METRO SANTURCE: Quintero Files Suit Over Fraud in Puerto Rico
MIDLAND FUNDING: Chun Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York

MISSION PETS: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
MW SERVICING: Refuses to Pay Worker's Final Paycheck, Moore Says
NEW HANOVER, NC: Sex Offender Lawsuit Deemed Complicated Case
NUE CO USA: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
OHIO: First Choice's Bid for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Denied

OLAM SPICES: Court Discharges Show Cause Order in Beltran Case
OLD NAVY: Faces Tripicchio Suit Over False Prices and Discounts
OUTFIELD BREW: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beal TCPA Suit
PENROSE HILL: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
POINT BLANK: Ohio State Troopers Assoc. Moves to Certify Classes

PORNHUB: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Video Subtitles
PRINCESS PEDICURE: Wammack Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Moved From Kentucky to Ohio
PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
QUALITY BUSINESS: Trask Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

REGAL CINEMAS: Certification of Class Sought in Amara TCPA Suit
SANDALS RESORTS: Court OKs FDUTPA Suit Dismissal Bid
SANTANDER BANK: Tepper Sues Over Unpaid Interest on Escrow Acct.
SARATOGA ESCAPE: Court Dismisses Murphy Action with Prejudice
SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Murray Suit Settlement Denied Initial Approval

SKYWEST INC: Meek's Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
SLEEPY'S INC: Court Denies Dismissal of Gundell Consumer Suit
SMS SYSTEMS: Kelly Moves to Certify 3 Classes of Technicians
SOUTH NASSAU: Denial of Leave to Oppose to Class Cert. Bid Upheld
STOREY COUNTY, NV: Yohey Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Leon Suit Transferred from S.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
SYSTEM ONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Weckerly Says
SYSTEM ONE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Rissler Claims
TERRITORY FOODS: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
TESLA INC: Electric Vehicles Suffer From SUA Defect, Lee Claims

TEXAS: 5th Cir. Affirms Sex Offenders' Suit Dismissal
TOTAL CARD: Faces Madlinger FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
TRADER JOE'S: Mislabels Vanilla-Flavored Cereal, Sanders Says
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 28 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Some Parts of Deportation Class Action Overturned

W.S. BADCOCK CORP: Gardenshire Files Suit for Violation of ADA
WAFFLE HOUSE: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
WINN LAW GROUP: Roecker Asserts Breach of FCDPA in California
YORK RISK: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files OT, Wage Class Action
[*] Attorney Discusses Class Counsel Role in Settlements

[*] Court Denies Class Certification in RESPA Case

                            *********

500.COM LIMITED: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in this securities class action lawsuit:

500.com Limited (WBAI)
Class Period: 4/27/2018 - 12/31/2018
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wbai/   


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

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

                            About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Kim Files Suit for FCDPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Activate Financial,
LLC. The case is styled as Hyun Kim, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Activate Financial, LLC
and NCB Management Services Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00766
(E.D., N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Activate Financial, LLC is a fully licensed, national, third-party
collections agency focused on bad debt recovery and skip tracing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALLEN COUNTY JAIL: Inmate Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
WANE reports that a class action lawsuit filed by an Allen County
Jail inmate says the facilities are "chronically and seriously
overcrowded."

Vincent Morris, an inmate of the jail since March of 2019, is being
represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The
suit is on Morris' own behalf as well as the current and future
inmates of the jail against the sheriff's office.

The suit alleges the jail operates at well beyond 100% capacity,
which is 741 beds. It also says many cells have extra beds laid on
the floor called "boats" which increases violence and unrest.
Paired with the allegations that security is lax inside certain
cell blocks and recreational time is limited, the suit says safety
of inmates is often at risk.

The class action suits describes the cause of action as violations
of the 8th and 14th Amendments, more commonly referred to as the
amendments outlawing cruel and unusual punishment as well as
guaranteeing equal rights to all people before the law.

A Civil Action Summons was sent to the sheriff as well as the
commissioner's office. Court dates have not yet been set. [GN]


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Withholds Labor Cost From ACV Pay, Floyd Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA FLOYD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00183-SAL
(D.S.C., Jan. 20, 2020), alleges that the Defendant wrongfully
deprived the Plaintiff and members of the putative class certain
money by withholding labor cost from Actual Cash Values payments on
their insurance payout.

Ms. Floyd was insured pursuant to an insurance contract whereby
Allstate agreed to insure the Floyd Home against property damage.
On Jan. 23, 2017, the Ms. Floyd dwelling suffered a fire loss.

The Plaintiff and members of the proposed class are entitled to
recover damages sufficient to make them whole for all amounts
Allstate unlawfully withheld or delayed from its ACV payments as
labor cost depreciation, including unrecovered depreciated labor
costs and interest on any withheld or delayed labor cost
depreciation withholdings pursuant to the Allstate's actions in
breaching its contractual obligation, says the complaint.

Allstate is authorized to sell property insurance policies in the
State of South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Massey, Esq.
          Summer C. Tompkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID E. MASSEY TRIAL LAWYERS
          1620 Gervais Street, Suite A
          Post Office Box 7014
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803)256-4824
          E-mail: radmassey@aol.com
                  summertompkins2010@gmail.com

               - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com

               - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Asks for Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Zamber Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Airlines, Inc., asks the Court on Feb. 7, 2017,
to schedule a hearing on its motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled
Kristian Zamber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00114-O (S.D.
Fla.).

American Airlines asserts that a hearing on its Motion to Dismiss
will likely assist the Court with two case-dispositive issues
raised in the motion: (1) whether Plaintiff Zamber lacks standing
because he has suffered no concrete, particularized injury that
could be fairly traceable to any conduct by American, and (2)
whether the Plaintiff's state law claims that relate to American's
prices and services are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.

If the Court were to grant its Motion, the entire case would
conclude, and there would be no need for the parties to engage in
expensive discovery, which will cost American more than $1 million,
the Defendant contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Shultz, Esq.
          Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: 305/740-1975
          Fax: 305/437-8158
          Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                 aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                 jkahn@leoncosgrove.com
                 jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          Michael A. Holt, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305.358.5171
          Facsimile: 305.358.7470
          Email: hocariz@shb.com
                 mholt@shb.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Venue of Tenzyk Action Transferred to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue of the case SHERYL TENZYK and
LARRY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a
California Corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants. No. 18-CV-6121(JS)(ARL). (E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs filed the class action on November 1, 2018, generally
alleging that the gear shifters in Honda's 2016, 2017, and 2018
Civic vehicles are defective. Tenzyk and Allen are both residents
and citizens of New York. They bring claims on behalf of the
national class for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of
implied warranty, and (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et seq.; claims on behalf of the
New York subclass for (4) violation of the New York General
Business Law ("NYGBL") Sec. 349, (5) violation of NYGBL Sec. 350,
(6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (7) breach
of express warranty under New York Uniform Commercial Code Law
("NYUCC") Secs. 2-313 and 2A-210 et seq.; and (8) a claim for
equitable injunctive relief and declaratory relief on behalf of the
national class.

Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda North America,
Inc. (Honda) filed a motion seeking a transfer of the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.

28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) (Section 1404) states that for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought.

Honda argues that the first-filed rule and the Section 1404 factors
favor transfer to the California Court. Plaintiffs oppose,
primarily claiming that special circumstances weigh against
transfer. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that because the
California court dismissed the similar Floyd action, transferring
this case to a forum that already has determined it lacks
jurisdiction defies logic. With respect to the other factors,
Plaintiffs cursorily argue that their New York residence makes it
convenient to litigate in the New York District Court and that the
New York District Court's with New York law also weighs against
transfer.

The "first filed" rule provides that where an action is commenced
in one federal district court and an action involving the same
issues and parties is brought in another federal court, "the court
which first has possession of the action decides it." The
first-filed rule applies to lawsuits that substantially overlap,
with parties and claims that are identical or substantially
similar.

As relevant to the instant motion, approximately 11 months prior to
filing the Tenzyk class action complaint, Plaintiffs' attorneys
filed an action against Honda in the Central District of California
(see Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-8744, 2018 WL
6118582, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2018) ("Floyd").)  Floyd's three
named plaintiffs are residents of Tennessee, Wisconsin, and
California, respectively.  The Floyd complaint mirrors the Tenzyk
Complaint, alleging gear shifter claims on behalf of a national
class for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of
MMWA, and injunctive relief and declaratory relief; and, on behalf
of state subclasses, for violations of Tennessee, Wisconsin, and
California law.  Honda filed a motion to dismiss in Floyd. The
California court dismissed the Floyd plaintiffs' claims with the
following rationale -- Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the
internal requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because
they failed to name one hundred plaintiffs.  The Floyd plaintiffs
did not amend their complaint but appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, approximately four months
before filing the Tenzyk action. The Ninth Circuit appeal is
presently pending.

Plaintiffs, who make no arguments to the contrary, concede that the
Tenzyk case is nearly identical to Floyd. And Plaintiffs agree that
the first-filed rule applies, but point to the special
circumstances exception. The special circumstance Plaintiffs
identify is that the California court has dismissed the Floyd
action, and because the transferee court has determined, albeit
erroneously, that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims, transfer
is not proper.  This argument misses the mark, the New York Court
opines.

The California court's decision contemplated that it could exercise
jurisdiction over claims in a class action if Plaintiffs met
certain requirements. The decision does not close the California
courthouse doors to these Plaintiffs. Thus, there are no special
circumstances warranting exception from the first-filed rule. To
the extent that Plaintiffs disagree with the Floyd ruling, that is
not a reason to maintain this action here: doing so would
countenance the forum shopping Plaintiffs note should be
discouraged.

The New York Court notes that the facts, issues, parties (Honda and
its consumers), and attorneys are the same in both the Floyd and
Tenzyk actions. Transfer to California, the first forum, promotes
judicial economy and diminishes possibility of inconsistent
results, the New York Court holds. Accordingly, Defendants' motion
for transfer is GRANTED, the New York Court rules.

A full-text copy of the New York District Court's November 14, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/te73rkz
from Leagle.com

Sheryl Tenzyk & Larry Allen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Tina Wolfson
- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, BRADLEY K.
KING - bking@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC & Gregory F.
Coleman - greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac
vice.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a California Corporation & Honda
North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Eric Kizirian - Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Peter T. Shapiro
-Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.


AMISUB SFH: Thomas Seeks to Recover RNs' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SASHA THOMAS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. AMISUB SFH, INC, d/b/a ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02040 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 17, 2020), seeks damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid "off-the-clock" and
"edited-out" compensable wages and for overtime compensation for
those who have worked for the Defendant as hourly-paid Registered
Nurses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Registered Nurse. She alleges that she and those similarly situated
typically worked 40 or more hours per week without being paid.

The Defendant is an acute general hospital whose function is to
provide inpatient diagnostic and therapeutic services for a variety
of medical conditions to a wide population group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District New York
issued a Decision and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
in IN RE AVON SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19 Civ. 01420 (CM)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs allege that Avon, along with Avon's former Chairman and
CEO Sherilyn S. McCoy, Avon's former Executive Vice President and
COO James S. Scully, Avon's former Executive Vice President and CFO
James S. Wilson, and the Executive Vice President and President of
Avon South Latin America, David Legher (Defendants) made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding Avon's
operations in Brazil that concealed the Company's risk of bad debt,
which induced Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to purchase
Avon's shares.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover losses from Defendants' purported
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the corresponding rule of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

All Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Where, as a matter of law, the
allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim
of entitlement to relief, the complaint should be dismissed.   

The Motion to Dismiss the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Claims is
Denied

Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections10 (b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.  
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful to use or
employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security
any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may
prescribe.

To adequately allege a violation of Section 10(b), and the
accompanying regulation Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must plead six
elements: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the
defendant (2) scienter (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation.

To state a claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must show (1) a
primary violation by the controlled person (2) control of the
primary violator by the defendant, and (3) that the defendant was,
in some meaningful sense, a culpable participant in the controlled
person's fraud.
The Defendants argue that the CAC fails to adequately allege two
elements necessary to plead a claim under Section 10(b) or Rule
10b-5: First, the CAC fails to allege any actionable misstatements
because none of the statements at issue was false or misleading;
and, second the CAC fails to plead that any Defendant acted with
scienter, the intent to deceive when each of them made the
statements at issues. And, because the CAC fails to state a claim
under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs'
derivative Section 20(a) claim must also be dismissed.

Plaintiffs Adequately Pleaded Materially False and Misleading
Statements Under Section 10(b)
The Complaint identifies three categories of fraudulent statement
or omission: (1) Defendants' failure to disclose Avon's relaxed
credit policies for new Representatives in Brazil, which exposed
the Company to a greater risk of bad debt  (2) Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with Avon's
estimated bad debt in light of the changes to the credit terms and
(3) Defendants' failure to disclose that Avon stopped training its
Representatives in Brazil, which further exposed the Company to a
greater risk of inefficient and/or disengaged Representatives.
  
The Recruiting Statements

Defendants first argue that Plaintiff fails to allege that any of
the challenged statements were contemporaneously false. But
Defendants are responsible for their statements as well as their
omissions. Plaintiffs' theory turns on the latter; they allege that
the recruiting statements misled investors because Defendants
failed to disclose that Avon's bad debt problems directly resulted
from the decision to lower credit standards" for new hires in
Brazil.

A corporation has a duty to disclose a fact in order to avoid
misleading investors if there is a substantial likelihood that the
disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the
reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix
of information available.
Accordingly, when an issuer or its officers make a disclosure
whether it be voluntary or required, there is a duty to make it
complete and accurate.

The Complaint alleged that thousands of Representatives with poor
credit histories were increasing Avon's potential debt load with
every new order. Only half of them ever paid off their debts to the
Company. Even after the February 2017 disclosures and Avon's
decision to stop hiring the Representatives that posed the highest
risk to the Company's revenue stream, it still had thousands of
delinquent accounts on its books. Therefore, even though the
company tightened its hiring criteria in early 2017, Wilson had no
basis to tell shareholders on May 4, 2017, that Avon did not expect
to see [the level of bad debt materially impacting revenue
generation.

Here: it is plausible that Avon's content-free, unverifiable
statements that their Brazilian business was generally healthy or
that a particular campaign was a success misled investors, who,
having been assured by such general statements of optimism and
encouragement for years, heard them as reflective of the true state
of affairs at the Company. When Defendants described the Brazilian
market as having a strong team in place, a reasonable investor
would not have known, or had reason to ask, whether that team was
currently presiding over the self-inflicted debt crisis that Avon
ultimately disclosed in 2017.

The Court, thus, concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
that the recruitment statements were false and misleading.

The Accounting Statements

Plaintiffs also allege that Avon (i) materially underestimated its
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (ii) misstated its bad debt
exposure during the Class Period; and (iii) violated GAAP by
recognizing revenue when product shipped to Representatives as
opposed to when it was sold.
Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that the Complaint lacks
any allegation that the accounting statements were false or
disbelieved when made, and that the allegations regarding Avon's
accounting practices are grounded in hindsight.  

Allegations that Defendants made fraudulent opinion statements are
subject to a more demanding pleading standard. For a statement of
belief or opinion to be actionable under Section 10(b), a plaintiff
must allege that (1) the speaker did not hold the belief she
professed, (2) the supporting facts she supplied were untrue, or
(3) the stated opinion, though sincerely held and otherwise true as
a matter of fact, omitted information whose omission made the
stated opinion misleading to a reasonable investor.

Again, prior to their February 16, 2017 disclosure that the
Brazilian credit criteria switch had contributed to the increase in
Avon's bad debt, Defendants were aware of many facts in conflict
not only with Avon's 2015 critical accounting estimate, but also
Scully's May 5, 2016 statement that bad debt expense increased
primarily due to that macroeconomic environment in Brazil and
Argentina and an identical statement in the Company's 2016 third
quarter 10-Q. At the end of 2015, Avon estimated its Allowance for
Doubtful Accounts based on the Company's bad debt expense in 2013,
2014 and 2015, and assured investors that the allowance is reviewed
for adequacy, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis.

None of those facts was contemporaneously disclosed. Avon left the
2015 allowance estimate untouched and blamed the debt on Brazil's
economic crisis until February of 2017, when it finally increased
the allowance to 3% of total revenue. This makes Avon's accounting
estimates and public statements regarding bad debt between the
policy change and February 16, 2017 misleading opinion statements
under Section 10(b).

Here, Plaintiffs identified numerous accounting violations relating
to the overstatement of revenues (due to the underestimation of bad
debt) during the Class period.These allegations are set forth with
sufficient particularity to support a claim of accounting fraud
against the corporate Defendant, Avon. And since the bad debt
disclosures and GAAP calculations were contained in quarterly and
annual reports certified by McCoy, Wilson, and Scully, acting with
"ultimate authority" over the disclosures in their CEO and CFO
roles, all Defendants besides Legher are appropriately considered
to have been "makers" of the accounting statements.  

Therefore, Plaintiffs have made alleged false or misleading
statements sufficient to plead a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 based on accounting fraud, says the Court.

The Training Statements

Defendants argue that the training statements are not actionable,
because: (i) there are no well-pled allegations in the Complaint to
suggest that any Defendant had information at the time of the
alleged misstatements that Representatives were not being trained
as expected and (ii) the Company actually informed its shareholders
that training was minimal on the first day of the Class period,
when Higson disclosed that a new seller coming in gets rather less
than a full week of training.

The Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the lack of
contemporaneous allegations that Defendants knew Avon Brazil had no
training program during the Class Period dooms Plaintiffs' claim
that the training statements were false and misleading. It is
undisputed that the Defendants repeatedly referenced the training
program in public statements made during the Class Period. This
means their disclosures on that topic were required to be complete
and accurate. It is also undisputed that the CWs were in a position
to know whether Avon was training its Brazilian Representatives,
and that they witnessed no such training. In other words,
Defendants highlighted the importance of investing in on-boarding,
training, and retraining representatives throughout the Class
Period, even though no such training occurred. That the Defendants
suddenly claim ignorance of the details does not negate the
inference that their statements were false when made.

Plaintiffs allege enough facts to sustain a plausible inference
that the training statements were false or misleading.

Plaintiffs Adequately Pleaded that Defendants Acted With Scienter
as Required by Section 10(b)
Defendants also fail to persuade this Court with their second
ground for dismissing the Complaint: Plaintiffs' purported lack of
cognizable scienter allegations.

In addition to alleging facts showing actionable statements and
omissions, in order to properly plead claims under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must state with particularity facts
giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the
required state of mind.  Under Section 10(b), scienter is the
requisite mental state, meaning intent to deceive, manipulate, or
defraud.

Here, Plaintiffs proceed under a recklessness theory. To qualify as
reckless, defendants' conduct must have been highly unreasonable
and an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care. An
alleged refusal to see the obvious, or to investigate the doubtful,
must be egregious to be actionable. Plaintiffs can establish
recklessness by adequately alleging that defendants knew facts or
had access to non-public information contradicting their public
statements and therefore knew or should have known they were
misrepresenting material facts.

The allegations offered by the CWs suggest that Defendants knew
facts or had access to information suggesting that their public
statements were not accurate. Plaintiffs allege that McCoy, Scully
and Legher were in charge of the decision to lower the credit
standards for hiring new Representatives in Brazil and that all
Defendants were frequently updated about the consequences of that
decision.  

Avon's alleged GAAP violations reinforce the conclusion that
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged scienter. Although insufficient
standing alone, allegations of GAAP violations or accounting
irregularities when coupled with evidence of `corresponding
fraudulent intent are sufficient to establish scienter. The facts
alleged by Plaintiffs as to Avon show a similarly cavalier attitude
towards revenue recognition, thereby providing supplemental support
for a strong inference of scienter with respect to McCoy, Scully,
and Wilson, each of whom certified Avon's GAAP calculations during
the Class Period.

In spite of all this, Defendants argue that neither Plaintiffs nor
the CWs allege that any defendant acted with an actual intent to
deceive the investing public or that any individual defendant had
access to non-public information contradicting their public
statements. These claims hang on the Defendants view that CWs must
either have direct contact with individual defendants or identify
the internal documents  known or available to Defendants in order
for their statements to establish the Defendants' states of mind
during the relevant time period.

Applying those principles to conclude that the CWs were in a
position to possess the information alleged, this Court finds that
the allegations support an inference of scienter that is both
cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference.

The Motion to Dismiss the Section 20(a) Control Person Claim is
Denied.

Section 20(a) holds liable any persons who control those found
primarily liable under the Exchange Act.   Defendants do not
dispute that the executives named as Defendants qualify as control
persons under Section 20(a). Because Plaintiffs have properly
pleaded a primary violation of Section 10(b), Plaintiffs' control
person liability claim survives as well.

Against this backdrop, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied,
rules the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wjhp2wn from
Leagle.com.

Holly Ngo, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Eduard Korsinsky  -
ek@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Carol Cecilia Villegas  -
cvillegas@labaton.com - Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Christine M. Fox -
cfox@labaton.com - Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Christopher James Kupka
- ckupka@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Gregory Mark Nespole ,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 &
Theodore Jeffrey Hawkins - thawkins@labaton.com - Labaton &
Sucharow LLP.

Manzoor Bevinal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Howard Rudman -
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

David Klungle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher James Kupka ,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.
Avon Products, Inc., Sherilyn S. McCoy & James S. Scully,
Defendants, represented by Karin A. DeMasi - kdemasi@cravath.com -
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Andrew Huynh -
acarlon@cravath.com - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

James S. Wilson, Defendant, represented by Karin A. DeMasi,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.


BILOXI HMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Henley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY HENLEY, on behalf of, Plaintiff, herself and
all others similarly situated v. BILOXI H.M.A., LLC; COMMUNITY
HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
Defendants, Civil No. 1:19cv544-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss.), Judge Halil
Suleyman Ozerden of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, Southern Division, denied without
prejudice Henley's Placeholder Motion for Class Certification filed
on Aug. 28, 2019.

Henley filed the Complaint in the case on Aug. 27, 2019, asserting
a single claim for declaratory relief.  Specifically, she sought a
finding that Defendants Biloxi H.M.A., LLC, doing business as Merit
Health Biloxi, Community Health Systems, Inc., and John and Jane
Does 1 Through 25, owed a duty to disclose a surcharge that is
billed to emergency care patients in advance of receiving treatment
or services that would trigger such a charge.

On Aug. 28, 2019, Henley filed the present Placeholder Motion for
Class Certification. She requests that the Court certifies a class
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated.

The Plaintiff proposes a class of all individuals who, within the
past three years, presented at a Merit Health hospital in
Mississippi and were billed a facility fee identify with the CPT
Code of 99281, 99282, 99283, 99284, or 99285.

Henley asserts that the first requirement of numerosity is
satisfied because over 155,000 patients visited the emergency
departments of Merit Health's six hospitals in the
Jackson/Vicksburg area in the year 2016 alone.  She alleges that
the Defendants' standard practice was to bill emergency room
patients in Mississippi a hidden surcharge set at one of five
levels based upon the patient's condition.  Henley's Motion
contends that the common and shared issues of the class were
whether the Defendants had a duty to disclose the surcharge prior
to providing the treatment and services that would trigger the
charge.

Henley maintains that the requirement of typicality is also present
because she was an emergency room patient who received treatment at
one of Defendants' emergency room facilities and who was billed a
Surcharge in addition to the charges for the individual items of
treatment and services provided during her visit.  Finally, Henley
reasons that she and her counsel can adequately represent the class
because of the interest shown by her and her legal representatives
who have substantial class action litigation experience.

However, Henley's Motion also requests that the Court continues the
instant motion until a discovery schedule and briefing deadlines
are established by the Court in connection with the parties'
submission of a proposed case management order.  Citing a decision
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Henley
asserts that a placeholder motion was necessary to protect the
putative class from any attempt by Defendants to "buy off the named
plaintiffs" and moot the class.  Sheasks that the merits of her
Motion not be considered by the Court until there has been an
opportunity to complete discovery on class issues and file
supplemental briefing.

The Defendants' Response in Opposition contends that Henley's
Placeholder Motion for Class Certification should be denied without
prejudice as unnecessary and premature.  They argue that pursuant
to Local Uniform Civil Rule 23, Henley should have waited to file
her Motion for Class Certification until after the entry of a case
management order.  Because Local Rule 23 sets forth the time for
filing a class certification motion, the Defendants maintain that
Henley's Placeholder Motion was unnecessary.  Further, according to
them, the rationale Henley advances for the risk that the claims
may become moot is belied by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In reply, Henley contends that the Motion for Class Certification
should be granted on the merits.

Judge Ozerden finds the Motion is premature under Local Rule 23 and
should be denied as such, with leave to refile at the time directed
by the case management order.  Local Rule 23 sets the appropriate
time to file a motion for class certification and does not
contemplate the filing of a placeholder motion.

Given these conflicting positions on whether or not discovery is
necessary, the Judge should defer judgment until after a case
management order has been entered.  At that time, the parties will
have had an opportunity to discuss the scope of discovery necessary
on class issues.

In addition, there is a pending Motion to Dismiss which is based in
part on Henley's purported lack of standing.  Because the Motion to
Dismiss is based in part on Henley's lack of standing as an
individual plaintiff, the Judge should first consider Defendant
Biloxi's Motion to Dismiss before addressing the question of class
certification.  The Plaintiff's Placeholder Motion for Class
Certification will be denied, with leave to reassert at the time
specified in the case management order.

To the extent he has not addressed any of the parties' arguments,
Judge Ozerden has considered them and determined that they would
not alter the result.  Therefore, he denied without prejudice
Henley's Motion for Class Certification, with leave to reassert at
the time specified in the case management order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7KQOEF from Leagle.com.

Kimberly Henley, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher C. Van Cleave --
christopher@vancleavelaw.com -- VAN CLEAVE LAW, PA & Barry Kramer,
LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER, pro hac vice.

Biloxi H.M.A., LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company doing
business as Merit Health Biloxi, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
R. Blackwood -- jblackwood@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS, LLP.

Biloxi H.M.A., LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Alicia N. Netterville --
anetterville@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP &
Christina M. Seanor -- cseanor@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS, LLP.

Community Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephen G. Peresich -- stephen.peresich@pmp.org --
PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT.


BOBBI PERSONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Smith Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. BOBBI PERSONAL CARE HOME, INC. and BABOUCARR O.
SENGHORE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00011-TCB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 20, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 by willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff and others
minimum wage for all hours worked, and overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, instead, paid the
Plaintiff and similarly situated persons a flat rate per day. The
Defendants employed the Plaintiff from July 2017 to March 2018 as a
Direct Care Staff.

The Defendants provide live-in healthcare services for disabled
individuals, who need continual living assistance. The Defendants
advertise Defendant Bobbi Personal Care Home, Inc. as a company
"that offers an array of services and supports necessary for our
residents to maximize their potential in order to live a successful
and natural life within the community."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 678.780.4880
          Facsimile: 478.575.2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


C&J WELL: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C&J Well Services, Inc., removed the case captioned as CESAR
RAMIREZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. C&J WELL SERVICE, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
56-2019-00536151-CU-OE-VTA (Filed Nov. 18, 2019,), from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00535 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims against the Defendants alleging
violation of the California Labor Code by failing unpaid straight
time wages and failing to pay all wages work.

C&J Well is Central Indiana's premier drilling and full service
well contractor company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: 310 315 8200
          Facsimile: 310 315 8210
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Enlargement of Time Request in Coleman
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Special Master's Request for
Extension of Time to Comply in the case captioned RALPH COLEMAN, et
al., Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal.).

The Special Master filed a request for extension of time to comply
with the court's July 3, 2019 order, which required submission of
proposed processes for regular updates to the 2018 Program Guide
and to any part of the remedy for this action found in state
regulations and/or provisions of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Department Operations Manual.


CCHCS is run by the Receiver in Plata v. Newsom, Case No. C01-1351
JST (N.D. Cal.). Plata is a class action lawsuit brought in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by prisoners with serious medical conditions.   

This separate Coleman action is a class action lawsuit brought by
prisoners with serious mental disorders. The two actions are
brought by two distinct classes of plaintiffs and are being
remedied in separate federal district courts. In this action,
remediation is supervised by a court-appointed Special Master,
while the Plata court has appointed a Receiver to implement the
remedy in that case.  

In 2006, the Coleman court and the Plata court recognized the need
for both courts to closely coordinate activities in both cases. To
that end, the courts jointly convened a status conference to
address coordination with the parties.  

The courts were both clear: coordination was intended to avoid any
surprises in the remedial proceedings in either case. The courts
also were clear that the Coleman case would not be forthwith folded
into Plata and that each court had individual obligations under
their respective decrees.  

In early 2007, the coordination process expanded to include another
class action, Perez v. Tilton, Case No. C05-05241 JSW (N.D. Cal.),
a case involving dental care in California's prisons. The order
issued by the three courts was equally clear: nothing in the
coordination process would alter or amend any reporting
requirements in the individual cases or such rights of the parties
in each action as have been or may be established by court orders.


No court orders have modified the letter or intent of the courts'
initial coordination determination in 2006. The coordination
process remains an ongoing, important element of the proceedings in
this case. Against this backdrop, defendants' failure to timely and
clearly disclose to the Special Master and to plaintiffs their
apparent intention to work under the auspices of the Plata Receiver
to incorporate mental health regulations into the HC DOM appears at
odds with the coordination process, not to mention tone deaf in
light of the recent proceedings before this court occasioned by the
Golding Report.  

As the court reminded defendants in its October 8, 2019 order,
their remedial responsibilities in this action are to this court
and its Special Master. Any remedial work on matters within the
jurisdiction of this court must, at a minimum, be fully disclosed
in the first instance to the Special Master and ultimately to this
court to ensure the needs of the plaintiff class here will be met
and any necessary coordination can be achieved.

For the second time in less than a month, the court is required to
remind defendants that their transparency with the court, the
Special Master and the plaintiffs is essential to a fair assessment
of their progress toward compliance with the approved remedy in
this case.  

The Special Master's November 15, 2019 request for enlargement of
time is, thus, DENIED.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/qou7j48   from Leagle.com.

Matthew A. Lopes, Jr, Special Master, pro se.

Ralph Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Cara Elizabeth Trapani -
CTrapani@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Jessica L.
Winter - jwinter@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Lisa
Adrienne Ells - lells@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld
LLP, Michael Bien  - mbien@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
LLP, Claudia B. Center - ccenter@aclu.org - American Civil
Liberties Union, Donald Specter - dspecter@prisonlaw.com - Prison
Law Office, Ernest Galvan  - egalvan@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Jeffrey L. Bornstein - jbornstein@rbgg.com - Rosen
Bien Galvan Grunfeld LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin - jyelin@rbgg.com -
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Marc J. Shinn-Krantz  -
MShinn-Krantz@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP, Margot
Knight Mendelson - mmendelson@prisonlaw.com - Prison Law Office,
Michael S. Nunez  - mnunez@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
& Thomas Bengt Nolan - tnolan@rbgg.com - Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP.

Jorge Andrade Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Kate Martin
Falkenstien  - kfalkenstien@reichmanjorgensen.com - Reichman
Jorgensen LLP.

Gavin Newsom, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, Department
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Elise Owens Thorn , CA
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Glenn A.
Danas , Robins Kaplan LLP, Jeffrey Thomas Fisher , CA Office Of The
Attorney General, Kyle Anthony Lewis , Office of the Attorney
General for the State of California Department Of Justice,
Nasstaran Ruhparwar , Department of Justice - Office of the
Attorney General, Robert W. Henkels , California Dept. of Justice,
Roman M. Silberfeld , Robins Kaplan LLP, Sharon A. Garske , Office
Of The Attorney General Correctional Law, Tyler Vance Heath ,
Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Damon Grant
McClain , Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General,
Paul B. Mello , Hanson Bridgett LLP & Xavier Becerra , CA Office of
the Attorney General.


CATHERINE M ZADEH: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Catherine M. Zadeh, 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. Catherine M. Zadeh, Inc., doing
business as: Zadeh, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177 (S.D. N.Y.,
Feb. 11, 2020).

Catherine M. Zadeh, Inc. is in the jewelry manufacturing business,
established and incorporated in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com




CERTIFIED SAFETY: Ford Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled Brenda Faye Ford v. CERTIFIED SAFETY, INC.,
MARATHON OIL COMPANY, and BLANCHARD REFINING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2019-85367, was removed from the Texas District Court, 80th
Judicial District, Harris County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on Feb. 11, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00458 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that Certified Safety, Marathon, and
Blanchard subjected her to unlawful race discrimination, and
retaliated against her for engaging in certain conduct, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Chapter
21 of the Texas Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Costea, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER COSTEA
          4544 Post Oak Place, Suite 350
          Houston, TX 77027

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danielle K. Herring, Esq.
          Elizabeth L. Bolt, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, Texas 77010
          Phone: 713-951-9400
          Facsimile: 713-951-9212
          Email: dherring@littler.com
                 ebolt@littler.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert. Denied in Employment Bias Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Alex Oxyer, Esq., Jennifer Riley,
Esq., and Andrew Welker, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for JD Supra, report that on January 15, 2020, in Guzman v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-CV-02606-HSG, 2020 WL 227567
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020), Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denied a
motion for class certification brought by Chipotle employees of
Mexican and/or Hispanic national origin working in the company's
California restaurants. The plaintiffs alleged that Chipotle
unlawfully subjected them to company-wide policies requiring that
they only speak English while working in the restaurants and that
employees were only eligible for promotion if they can speak
proficient English. The Court ultimately declined to certify the
class because the plaintiffs failed to show that their experiences
at the company were common to or typical of the class.

The decision is a must-read for corporate counsel on class action
litigation over workplace policies in general, and Rule 23 defenses
in particular.

Case Background

This case began when three plaintiffs brought individual and class
claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against
Chipotle pursuant to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA"). The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all current
and former employees of Hispanic and/or Mexican national origin
working in Chipotle restaurants in California, which included
approximately 43,000 employees across 400 restaurants.  Plaintiffs'
class certification motion focused on two allegations, that: (i)
Chipotle allegedly maintained a discriminatory, unwritten policy
that employees were required to only speak English while working in
the restaurants; and (ii) Chipotle maintained a promotion policy
that employees must demonstrate a subjective level of English
proficiency to be eligible for promotion to management positions.

In their motion for class certification, plaintiffs argued they
satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation requirements for class certification outlined in
Rule 23(a).  In support of their motion, plaintiffs submitted
declarations from eight former employees outlining their
experiences related to the alleged English-only and promotion
policies. All eight former employees averred that their former
managers spoke English; six asserted that they were told they could
not speak Spanish at least some of the time in the restaurants; and
six also claimed to have understood that they had to speak English
proficiently to be eligible for further promotion.

Chipotle denied the truth of plaintiffs' underlying allegations.
Further, in response to the motion, Chipotle argued that plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation requirements of Rule 23, and that plaintiffs'
proposed class definition was overbroad.  Chipotle further argued
that plaintiffs lacked the necessary Article III standing to bring
their claims because they had failed to show how they were injured
by the allegedly discriminatory policies.

The Court's Decision

In its opinion, the Court addressed Chipotle's argument that the
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The Court reaffirmed the
standard promulgated by the Ninth Circuit that putative class
representatives must present evidence to establish Article III
standing in motions for class certification and cannot rest on the
allegations in a complaint.  However, the Court found that the
affidavits accompanying the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification were sufficient to satisfy such obligations, because
they contained specific examples of alleged discrimination and
harassment.

Since Chipotle did not dispute the plaintiffs' satisfaction of the
Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement, the Court turned to the question
of commonality, which it called "the crux of this case." Id. at *8.
Plaintiffs argued that the commonality element was satisfied
because the employees in the class were subjected to the same
written and unwritten policies and, therefore, common questions of
law and fact existed regarding the legality of those policies. The
Court, however, rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding that
their own affidavits showed that the employees all had different
experiences with the alleged policies and how those policies were
implemented was dependent on the discretion of Chipotle's managers.
Thus, because individual inquiries would be required to establish
the experiences and injuries of each individual class member, the
Court concluded that the plaintiffs were unable to satisfy the
commonality requirement.

The Court also determined that the plaintiffs were unable to meet
the typicality requirement for the same rationale.  The plaintiffs
failed to offer sufficient evidence to convince the Court that the
experiences of the named plaintiffs were typical of those of the
class or that the alleged discriminatory policies existed on a
company-wide basis. Because the plaintiffs did not satisfy the
commonality or typicality requirements, the Court denied their
motion for class certification.

At the same time, the Court went on to reject Chipotle's argument
that some of the plaintiffs were not adequate representatives of
the class because, as former managers, they may have participated
actively in administering the allegedly discriminatory policies.
The Court reasoned that Chipotle had not submitted any evidence
supporting that claim or cited any legal support showing that such
participation would result in a conflict of interest.

Implications For Employers

This case is a departure from the growing trend of decisions
granting class certification motions (a trend that we addressed in
our 16th Annual Workplace Class Action Report, a summary of which
is here). The Court's ruling is also a reminder that plaintiffs
must demonstrate common questions of law and fact and that their
experiences are typical to the class to warrant class
certification. The opinion further affirms that plaintiffs may not
simply rely on the complaint's allegations to demonstrate standing
on class certification, but must support such allegations with
evidence. This case provides helpful guidance for employers seeking
to defeat class certification, particularly in the discrimination
context where employees may have differing experiences and the
implementation of company policies may be subject to some level of
discretion by employee supervisors. [GN]


CHRISTIAN FAITH: Court Certifies Literary Agents Class in O'Brien
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee issued a Memorandum and Order granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Approval
Conditional Certification in the case captioned ELISSA O'BRIEN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTIAN FAITH PUBLISHING, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00024, (M.D. Tenn.).

Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated employees
worked remotely for Defendant Christian Faith Publishing as
literary agents selling publishing services for Defendant.
Plaintiff claims that she and other literary agents were improperly
classified as independent contractors, regularly worked more than
40 hours per week, and at times were paid nothing, in violation of
the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) Court-Supervised Notice and Consent Forms and to
Order Disclosure of Current and Former Employees (Conditional
Certification).  Through the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order (1)
conditionally certifying a class of plaintiffs who worked as
literary agents for Defendant Christian Faith Publishing; (2)
directing Defendant to provide a list of last-known names,
addresses, email address, and telephone numbers for all putative
class members; and (3) equitably tolling the statute of limitations
for prospective class members during the opt-in period.  

Conditional Certification

Plaintiff states literary agents were compensated based on the
number of books they sold and were subject to charge backs if the
customer did not fulfill his payment obligations. In some weeks,
she claims, this resulted in literary agents not receiving minimum
wage or overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. Plaintiff submitted declarations from herself and Vincent
Damiano and supporting documents.  

Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to show the literary agents
are similarly situated and, therefore, does not meet the standard
for conditional certification. In addition, Defendant criticizes
the declarations as both too cookie cutter and too highly
individualized to support a finding that the literary agents are
similarly situated.

Here, Plaintiff's declaration gives ample basis for her belief that
other employees were subject to the same employment conditions and
pay structure. She has offered her own statement, which she says is
based on speaking with other literary agents, the affidavit of one
other literary agent, training and compensation documents from the
company, and a series of emails supporting the inference that the
potential class members are similarly situated.

Defendant's objection that the specific details of each employee's
hours and pay are highly individualized does not foreclose the
conditional certification of the class. Conditional certification
does not require that the potential class members be identically
situated. Indeed, at this pre-discovery notice stage, plaintiff is
only required make a modest factual showing of being similarly
situated to other putative class members.  

At this stage in the proceeding, Plaintiff's factual showing is
sufficient proof that she is similarly situated to other putative
class members, and the Court finds Plaintiff has met the fairly
lenient standard governing conditional certification.

Notification Procedure

Plaintiff asks the Court to direct Defendant to provide a list of
last-known names, email addresses, mailing addresses, and telephone
numbers for all putative class members who performed duties for
Defendant within the last three years. In addition, Plaintiff
requests Defendant include the notice with the paystubs of current
agents.

Defendant argues notice should be sent only by first-class mail and
not by email or with paystubs and that it should, therefore, only
be required to provide names and mailing addresses.

Except for Defendant's objection that including notice in
employees' paychecks is extraordinary notice that should be denied,
neither party provided reasons for or against including notice with
paystubs. The Court notes that notice is paystubs is a frequently
used method of notice and hardly extraordinary, but will leave that
issue for determination by the parties when counsel meets and
confers regarding the notice and consent protocol. If it is not
resolved, the parties may set out their positions at the objection
phase.

Plaintiff requests a 90-day opt in period to allow time to deal
with returned mail and get notices to the intended recipients.
Defendant objects to a 90-day period, arguing that 45-days
sufficient. Courts regularly set the opt-in period between 45 and
90 days and sometimes allow an even longer period.  

Given that potential class members appear to be located in various
places, the Court finds that a 90-day opt in period is not
unreasonably long and will allow potential class members 90 days to
submit notice of intent to join the class.

In sum, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification.  The Court
conditionally certifies a class of plaintiffs who worked as
literary agents for Defendant Christian Faith Publishing within the
past three years.  Defendant are directed to provide Plaintiff a
list of names, and last-known email and mailing addresses of
potential class members without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sxrdva9
from Leagle.com

Elissa O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Clinton H. Scott ,
Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, PLC & Emily Alcorn , Gilbert
McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC. 341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230,
Franklin, TN 37067

Christian Faith Publishing, Defendant, represented by Brian Pulito
-
brian.pulito@steptoe-johnson.com - Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Charles
H. Williamson - charley.williamson@wallerlaw.com - Waller, Lansden,
Dortch & Davis, LLP, Jon Beckman - jon.beckman@steptoe-johnson.com
- Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & Marcia Lynn DePaula , Steptoe & Johnson
PLLC, Summit Corporate Center, Suite 200, 1001 Corporate Drive.
Canonsburg, PA, 15317-8589


COMENITY LLC: Stockman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STOCKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COMENITY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00404 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
17, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant placed calls to his cell
phone using an automated dialer without his consent. The Plaintiff
asserts that he has, thus, suffered an injury as a result of the
Defendant's invasion of his privacy.

Comenity is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of electronic audio and
video equipment for home entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
          20 N. Clark Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Jones' Notice to Members of Class Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Mary M. Rowland grants the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to approve Notice to members of the class in the lawsuit
captioned Raymond L. Jones v. Cook County Government LE, d/b/a
Stroger Hospital Of Cook County, Case No. 1:18-cv-07577 (N.D.
Ill.).

By February 21, 2020, the Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff
a list of the putative class members with their contact
information, according to the Order.  The Defendant shall certify
that the list is up−to−date and accurate as of the date of
production.

At the status on February 18, 2020, the parties should be prepared
to set schedule for approval of the settlement.[CC]


CREDIT CORP: Peterson Files Suit Under FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Ciara Peterson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. doing business as: Tasman Credit, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00780 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

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

Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. is a "junk debt buyer" and debt
collector based in Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CSWS LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Dancers Class in Rosebar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMISHA ROSEBAR et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CSWS, LLC d/b/a OCEAN'S
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ, and SEIF EL SHARIF, Defendants,
Case No. 18 C 7081 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the
U.S.  District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and authorization to facilitate notice under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs Rosebar, Breona Smith, Kenya
Williams-Mix, Adrieana Powell, Shalayla Liddell, Jada Adams,
Princess Wellington, and Laqueshia Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Consolidated
Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendants CSWS,
doing business as Ocean's Gentlemen's Club, Deborah Diaz, and Seif
El Sharif, seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and alternatively through
common law unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs were employed as dancers at the Defendants'
gentleman's club in Bedford Park, Illinois.  They performed various
dance routines, interacted with patrons, and handled customers'
tips.  Dancers were required to work at least three days per week.
Shifts typically lasted for seven to nine hours.  Dancers were
sometimes required to work double shifts.  While at work, dancers
were required to be together most of the day, attend meetings
together, and interact at the Club.  The Defendants did not require
dancers to possess any unique skills in order to work at the Club.

The Defendants required dancers to sign a form titled "Independent
Contractor," which stated that dancers would be working "on an
independent contractor basis" and "keep tips that they received
from customers."  They did not pay dancers any wages or other forms
of compensation for their work at the Club.  Dancers were
compensated solely by way of tips (in cash or by credit card) from
customers for their work at the Club.

The Defendants did not provide dancers with any notice regarding
the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA.  They required dancers to
pay a variety of fees for each shift they worked at the Club and to
pay fines for violations of the Club's rules.  For example, the
Defendants required dancers to pay the Club a $50 House Fee/Rent
Fee/Walking-in Fee, $20 to Club Management, $20 to the house
parent, $20 to the disc jockey, and $35 to bouncers/security.  They
also fined dancers $50-$100 for being late to work, $100 for
missing work, $20 for being late to the stage, and $500 for missing
mandatory meetings.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the IWPCA and
unjust enrichment claims but allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed with
their claims under the FLSA and IMWL.  The Plaintiffs now move for
conditional certification and authorization to facilitate notice.

Judge Kendall finds that the Plaintiffs have made the "modest
factual showing" necessary to establish that they and other
potential Plaintiffs are similarly situated for conditional
approval purposes.  The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
collective all worked at a single location owned and operated by
Defendants.  Their declarations establish that they and the
proposed members performed the same job duties and were subjected
to the same working conditions and compensation structure.

Turning to the issue of notice, the Defendants also object to the
Plaintiffs' proposal to distribute notice to potential members via
text message.  According to them, the Plaintiffs have failed to
show that U.S. mail and email notice are insufficient and that
potential members are transitory, and they further argue that
receiving a text message from a former employer would be
"unnecessary and overly intrusive.

The Judge disagrees.  She holds that common sense dictates that the
transitory nature of dancing jobs makes notice via text message
entirely appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kendall granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section.

The action is conditionally certified as an FLSA Collective action
on behalf of the following putative members of the Collective: All
current and former dancers/entertainers who worked or have worked
at Ocean Gentlemen's Club in Bedford Park, Illinois at any time
from Oct. 22, 2015 to the Present.

The Defendants are directed to identify all putative members of the
proposed Collective by providing their names, last known addresses,
email addresses, telephone numbers (including mobile), dates of
birth and dates of employment, in an electronic and importable
format such as an unrestricted Excel spreadsheet within 14 days of
the entry of the Order.

The Judge approved the Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Right to
Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" form and their proposed
language for notice via text message to be sent to the putative
Collective members.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel are authorized to disseminate the approved
notice documents and language to the putative members of the
Collective via U.S. mail, e-mail, and text message, and to send a
reminder notice by the same methods halfway through the notice
period.

The putative members of the Collective are allowed 60 days from the
date the notice is mailed to join the case by returning their
written consent forms if they so choose.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/CT2PIR from Leagle.com.

Jamisha Rosebar, Plaintiff, represented by Jason T. Brown --
jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- Brown, LLC, Ching-Yuan Tony Teng, Brown,
LLC, pro hac vice & Nicholas Conlon --
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- BROWN, LLC.

Breona Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jason T. Brown, Brown,
LLC.

CSWS, LLC, doing business as Ocean Gentlemen's Club, Deborah Diaz &
Seif El Sharif, Defendants, represented by Marty Jay Schwartz --
mschwartz@schainbanks.com -- Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, Thomas
John Kupchinsky Schick -- tschick@schainbanks.com -- Schain, Banks,
Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd. & Tyler J. Manic -- tmanic@schainbanks.com
-- Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz.


D&H RETAIL GROUP: Tatum-Rios Files Suit under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
D. & H. Retail Group, Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D. & H. Retail Group,
Ltd., doing business as: Big Drop, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01175 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).

D. & H. Retail Group, Ltd. is a Digital Agency that specializes in
website design, custom development, mobile apps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DEPENDABLE AMBULETTE: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nasheid Watson, on behalf of Plaintiff and on similarly situated
individuals v. DEPENDABLE AMBULETTE, INC., and YAN GVINTER, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00750 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; an
extra hour of minimum wage pay for all shifts lasting more than 10
hours; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 55 hours a week, 5
days a week; 11 hours a day. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the
overtime wages rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a week in
contravention of the FLSA and NYLL, and additionally dialed to pay
the Plaintiff "spread of hours" wages in contravention of the
NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an ambulette
driver.

The Defendant is a domestic business corporation with a place of
business located in Malverne, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 486-0011
          Email: ls@aisalalaw.com


DESIGNER BRANDS: Peskett FACTA Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Designer Brands Inc. removed the case captioned as SHARON PESKETT,
individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated
individuals v. DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No.
19STCV38324 (Filed Oct. 25, 2019), from the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Jan. 20, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00563 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts a single count for alleged violation of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Designer Brands is an American footwear retailer of designer and
name brand shoes and fashion accessories. The retailer has over 500
stores in the United States and an e-commerce Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
          HEKMAT LAW GROUP
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 888-0848
          E-mail: jhekmat@hekmatlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Brett L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRETT LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Griswold, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          SunTrust Center
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 649-4088
          E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


DYANSYS INC: Katz Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dyansys, Inc. The
case is styled as Jeffrey Katz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dyansys, Inc. and Srini
Nageshwar, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01081 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 11,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed for the Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.

Dyansys, Inc. is a Medical equipment manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ENDLESS MOUNTAINS: Viel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Viel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENDLESS MOUNTAINS WATER & ENERGY SOLAR SERVICES LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10275 (D. Mass., Feb. 12, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's sending of unsolicited marketing messages that violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

As part of its marketing strategy, the Defendant calls unsuspecting
parties on their cellular telephones with pre-recorded messages in
order to sell them goods and services. The Defendant caused
thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says
the complaint.

Through this action, the Plaintiff, who was a resident of Worcester
County, Massachusetts, seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct.

The Defendant operates an energy company, which services
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Maryland,
Virginia and Washington D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Campbell, Esq.
          250 First Ave., Unit 602
          Charlestown, MA 02129
          Email: JasonRCampbell@ymail.com

               - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.533.4092
          Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Dismissed Due to Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lee Yeakel dismissed without prejudice the pending motions
in the lawsuit styled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.).

On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order Granting
Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement and Direction of
Notice Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In light of the preliminary approval of the class-action settlement
in this cause, Judge Yeakel dismissed without prejudice:

   * the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed on
     March 12, 2019;

   * the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and
     Strike the Affidavit of Michael Averill, filed on
     May 20,2019; and

   * the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and
     Strike the Declaration and Report of Dr. James A. Roberts,
     filed on July 18, 2019.[CC]


FAST AUTO: Final Judgment Entered in Shahbazian Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has entered Final Judgment in the case,
LINDA SHAHBAZIAN and EDWIN MENDOZA, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FAST AUTO LOANS, INC., a California Corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03076-ODW
(KS) (C.D. Cal.).

On Nov., 2019, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
class action settlement and awarded the Plaintiff's attorney's
fees, costs, and service awards.  The Final judgment is therefore
ordered on the terms set forth in the Order Granting Final Approval
To Class Action Settlement, dated Nov. 8, 2019.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs and the Participating Class Members will take that which
is stated in the Class Action Settlement Agreement; and all claims
in the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed in their entirety
with prejudice as to the Defendant.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/X2ICn5 from Leagle.com.

Linda Shahbazian, individuals, and on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of others similarly situated & Edwin Mendoza, individuals,
and on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
AJ@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, Kyle
R. Nordrehaug -- KYLE@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik
De Blouw LLP, Norman B. Blumenthal, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik
De Blouw LLP, Molly DeSario, Blumental Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw
LLP, Ricardo Ramon Ehmann -- RICO@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee --
PIYA@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP &
Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -- VICTORIA@BAMLAWCA.COM -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Fast Auto Loans, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kathryn LaQuay -- klaquay@lgbfirm.com -- Landau
Gottfried & Berger LLP, Dylan B. Carp --
Dylan.Carp@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, Nicky Jatana --
Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & James H. Berry,
Jr. -- jberry@lgbfim.com -- Landau Gottfried and Berger LLP.


FEDEX GROUND: Belaire Notice May Be Utilized in Chapman Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVIS CHAPMAN and JOHN CHURCHWELL, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of
the State of California on behalf of all aggrieved employees
Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00410-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California signed a stipulation and order regarding
"Belaire" notice to proposed class members.

The stipulation provides that:

-- In order to facilitate the Plaintiffs' obtaining the personal
contact information of proposed class members from the Defendant's
records, the parties agree to utilize the notice to proposed class
members.  

-- Within seven days of the expiration of the 30-day notice period
set forth in the notice to proposed class members, the Defendant
will disclose to the Plaintiffs' counsel the contact information of
all the proposed class members who do not "opt-out" or object to
the disclosure of their contact information as set forth in said
notice.

-- Said notice is in accordance with Williams v. Superior Court,
and the "opt-out" notice process approved in Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App. 4th 554, 561
(2007).

-- The notice will be handled by a third-party administrator whose
fees will be split "50/50" by the Plaintiffs on the one hand, and
the Defendant on the other.

-- The Stipulation and Order may be executed in counterparts.  The
parties are authorized to utilize the notice to the proposed class
members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OdiagO from Leagle.com.

Travis Chapman & John Churchwell, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel
V. Santiago, Law Offices of Daniel V. Santiago, P.C. 11622 El
Camino Real1st Floor, San Diego, CA 92130

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Doing business as FedEx Home
Delivery, Defendant, represented by Brandy Thompson Cody --
bcody@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips, Christopher M. Ahearn
-- cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & Natalie
B.
Fujikawa -- nfujikawa@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips,
LLP.

FIVE STAR: Court Remands Benson Fraud Case to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the case captioned MARTHA
BENSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. FIVE STAR REALTY SERVICES, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant. No. 19 C 6253. (N.D. Ill.)

Defendant Five Star Realty Services, Inc. removed this suit from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on the ground that the
then-operative complaint purported to state a claim under the Fair
Housing Act (FHA).

The amended complaint does not state an FHA claim or any federal
claim; its only claim is under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and that claim is premised
on Five Star's alleged violation of the Cook County Human Rights
Ordinance.  

Jurisdiction over the ICFA claim does not lie under the diversity
statute, because Benson and Five Star are both citizens of
Illinois. Although Benson seeks to represent a class, jurisdiction
does not lie under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), because
neither the notice of removal which does not invoke CAFA nor the
amended complaint allege that the matter in controversy is over
$5,000,000 or that any member of the proposed class is a
non-Illinois citizen.  

Because Benson has abandoned the sole federal claim on which Five
Star predicated removal, because there is no other basis for
original subject matter jurisdiction, and because the court in its
discretion finds that the ground asserted by Five Star for
retaining jurisdiction is unpersuasive, the appropriate course is
to remand the suit to state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uscezua from Leagle.com.

Martha Benson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Sheryl Melanie Ring , Open
Communities Legal Assistance Program, 990 Grove Street, Suite 500,
Evanston, IL 60201.

Five Star Realty Services, Inc, an Illinois corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Edward Kehl -jkehl@bdlfirm.com - Bryce
Downey & Lenkov LLC & Storrs Whitworth Downey -sdowney@bdlfirm.com
- Bryce Downey & Lenkov LLC.


FLINT, MI: Residents Get Court Nod to Pursue Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WANE reports that the city of Flint and Michigan officials sought
to toss out the claims against them, arguing they should be
shielded from being sued. A lower court sided with the Flint
residents, and the Supreme Court on Jan. 21 saying it won't block
the suit. "Any reasonable official should have known that doing so
constitutes conscience-shocking conduct prohibited by the
substantive due process clause," the 6th US Circuit Court of
Appeals said in its opinion. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Faces New F-150 10R80 Transmission Class Action in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane McGlaun, writing for Ford Authority, reports that another
Ford F-150 10R80 transmission class action lawsuit has been filed.
The lawsuit alleges that occupants inside the truck can suffer
whiplash because of how hard and erratically the transmission
shifts. The 10-speed transmission in the lawsuit was jointly
developed by GM and is found in multiple cars and trucks sold by
both automakers.

The Ford 10R80 transmission lawsuit that was filed in August of
2019 was on behalf of owners in Illinois. The new 10-speed
transmission lawsuit is on behalf of owners in Pennsylvania who
formerly or currently own a 2017 to 2020 Ford F-150 truck that uses
the 10-speed. The owner who filed the lawsuit alleges that he
purchased a 2018 F-150 SuperCab in September 2018 when the truck
had 10-miles on the odometer. The owner claims that by 6,000 miles,
the truck was making loud clanking noise from the 10-speed
transmission that caused rough shifting and shift times that were
much too long.

The suit claims that the transmission caused the truck to
decelerate and created safety hazards while driving. After bringing
the truck to the dealership, he was told that there was no fix for
the issue because all F-150 trucks made the same noise. He was
allegedly told that the slipping and jerking was normal for all
10R80 transmissions. The suit says that Ford knew or should have
known about the transmission problems that cause hard shifting,
jerking, lunging, and hesitation between gears.

Ford has issued a pair of TSBs concerning the 10-speed transmission
in the 2017-2018 F-150 pickups that are for "harsh or bumpy
shifting, downshift, or engagement concerns." Those TSBs had the
dealership reprogram the powertrain control module. The plaintiff,
in this case, claims that Ford should pay damages to all affected
customers and order a recall to fix the defective transmission. The
case covers all impacted owners in Pennsylvania. [GN]


FORESCOUT TECH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in this securities class action lawsuit:

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
Class Period: 2/7/2019 - 10/9/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 2, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fsct/    

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

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

                            About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Forescout
Technologies, Inc. for violations of §§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
February 7, 2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive, are encouraged to
contact the firm before March 2, 2020.

The Schall Law Firm said 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. Forescout suffered from significant
volatility related to large customer orders and poor execution on
deals in the pipeline, especially in EMEA. These problems were
likely to have a material impact on the Company's financial
results. 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 Forescout, 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:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         info@schallfirm.com  [GN]


GARDNER, MA: Residents Can Sue a Municipality in a Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Herz, writing for WGBH, reports that in a ruling that could
reverberate beyond the specific case at issue, Massachusetts' top
court on Jan. 22 vacated a lower court's decision to dismiss a
class action lawsuit brought against the city of Gardner by a local
homeowner who alleges the city's corrosive water ruined hundreds of
hot water heating systems, including hers.

"I can tell you one thing that I think is important for everyone in
the Commonwealth about this decision, and that is that the Supreme
Judicial Court held for the first time that here in this case,
residents of a city can sue a municipality in a class action," said
Attorney Michelle Blauner, who represented the plaintiff, Gardner
resident Janice Magliacane, in the case. "[This is] groundbreaking
- and in fact, if you look at Chief Justice Ralph Gants' decision,
he said, 'It's much to our surprise this has never been decided by
us before.'"

Magliacane's suit filed against the City of Gardner, along with its
private water supply contractors, alleged it acted negligently as
it supplied corrosive water to city residents and that it knew of
issues with the water for over two decades.

Magliacane's lawsuit said damage from city water has led to her and
hundreds of other residents, property owners and businesses having
to replace heating coils, hot water heaters, furnaces or boilers.

Blauner said Magliacane spent "a few thousand dollars" replacing
heating coils in her home because they were corroded by city
water.

The lawsuit further stated that the city and one of its private
contractors incorporated in their design of two water treatment
plants that were constructed in the late 1990s the addition of a
corrosion inhibitor called orthophosphate.

It also claimed the city and the contractor asked for approval from
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to add
orthophosphate to the water "but out of neglect sold and supplied
the water without doing so."

Magliacane alleged the city hired multiple outside consultants in
later years who all advised it reduce the corrosive quality of its
water and that the city engineer and mayor denied any
responsibility for damage caused by the water, going so far as to
contradict the findings from outside consultants.

"It is our understanding that the city about six months ago started
adding orthophosphate to the water. And we believe our lawsuit was
what eventually prompted them to actually take the action that they
should have taken 20 years ago," Blauer said.

The city argued that Magliacane did not comply with the
Massachusetts Tort Claim Act when she missed a statutory deadline
by a month for sending a preliminary letter laying out her
allegations against the city.

In its ruling, the SJC denied the city's timeline argument because
Magliacane's lawsuit says a press release issued by Gardner
"fraudulently concealed the cause of her action."

The city also argued to the SJC that it had legal immunity because
the corrosive quality of its water was caused by "thousands of
years of evolution," an argument the court rejected.

"Under this rationale, the city would also be immune from liability
under the [Massachusetts Tort Claims] act if it had delivered water
to its residents that contained unsafe amounts of lead or other
contaminants dangerous to human health, provided that those
contaminants were present in the water before it was treated and
delivered," the decision read. "The flaw in this rationale, of
course, is that where a city takes responsibility for the sale and
distribution of water to its residents … The city ultimately is
responsible for the quality of water that it delivers."

"This is potentially a significant case that pokes a hole in the
shield of immunity doctrines and procedural barriers that all too
often protect municipalities from litigation, and represents a
victory for plaintiffs seeking relief through class actions in the
Commonwealth," said WGBH News legal analyst and Northeastern
University Professor of Law Daniel Medwed.

Blauner said Magliacane's class action lawsuit is asking for
financial compensation for costs residents and others incurred over
years repairing their hot water heating systems from the damage
caused by the city water.

John J. Davis, attorney for the City of Gardner in the case, did
not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case now goes back to Worcester Superior Court. [GN]


GEICO: Alaei Files Fraud Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company (GEICO). The case is styled as Mehran David
Alaei, an individual all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff v. Government Employees Insurance Company
(GEICO), a Delaware Corporation, GEICO General Insurance Company, a
Maryland Corporation and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00262-JM-WVG (S.D., Cal., Feb. 11, 2020).

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

The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Maryland. It is the second
largest auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch LLP
   1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 762-1910
   Fax: (619) 756-6991
   Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com



GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Boger TCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dan L. Boger, Plaintiff, v. General Automobile
Insurance Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-19-05094-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona granted Defendant The
General Automobile Insurance Services Inc. 's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Boger, a resident of Maryland, alleges that on June 21,
2019, he received a telemarketing call on his cell phone from
Defendant Spanish Quotes, Inc., an Arizona corporation with its
principal place of business in Phoenix, AZ.  He alleges that the
call was placed using an automatic telephone dialing system to his
cell phone number, which is registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry, and that the Plaintiff spoke with a "Shawn Jr." from "US
Auto Care," who solicited insurance services.  The Plaintiff
further alleges that the call was eventually transferred to "Elise"
at The General, a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Tennessee, who provided him with a call back number
matching The General's corporate office.

Based on that phone call, the Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint on Sept. 5, 2019, alleging that The General and Spanish
Quotes had entered into an agreement to direct automated
telemarketing calls to him and other class members without their
prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  

Pending before the Court is The General's Motion to Dismiss.  

Judge Snow finds that The General's contract with Spanish Quotes
mandates the application of the law and courts of Tennessee, not
Arizona, and The General did not enter into any agreements with
Spanish Quotes in Arizona.  The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts
in his Complaint or in his Opposition to suggest that The General's
"prior negotiations," "contemplated future consequences," "terms of
the contract," or "actual course of dealing" with Spanish Quotes
might establish minimum contacts with Arizona.

Judge Snow finds that the injury The General allegedly caused did
not occur in Arizona; nor were events that occurred in Arizona a
but -- for cause of the Plaintiff's injury.  The effects of The
General's actions as alleged in the Plaintiff's complaint do not
connect The General to Arizona beyond the fact of Spanish Quotes'
presence in Arizona.

Judge Snow concludes that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
demonstrating that the Court's exercise of jurisdiction is proper.
The Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating sufficient
minimum contacts between Defendant The General and the forum.  For
these reasons, he granted The General's Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims as to The
General.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A16Io9 from Leagle.com.

Dan L Boger, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony
Paronich , Paronich Law PC, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick,
Broderick Law PC, pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue --
mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Law Office Of Matthew McCue, pro hac
vice & Nathanael Melvin Brown -- Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com --
Brown Patent Law.

Spanish Quotes Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian Mathew
Strickman -- office@jbbslaw.com -- Burguan Clarke Law Office PLLC.

GENERAL MOTORS: Fortmayer Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned William Fortmayer and Ryan Begneaud,
individually and o/b/o persons similarly situated v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC AND LESON CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC., Case No. 801-405,
was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on Feb. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10375-NGE-DRG to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege three causes of action: (i) violation of the
Louisiana Products Liability Act; (ii) breach of express and
implied warranties; and (iii) breach of warranty in
redhibition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-582-8294
          Facsimile: 504-589-8294
          Email: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 202-624-2500
          Facsimile: 202-628-5611
          Email: ksooy@crowell.com
                 aross@crowell.com


GEO GROUP: Court Rules on Wash. Bid to Quash Subpoenas in Nwauzor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
State of Washington's Motion for Protective Order Quashing
Subpoenas for Deposition in the case captioned UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK
NWAUZOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C17-5769RJB. (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs filed the class action, alleging that Defendant GEO
Group, Inc. failed to comply with the State of Washington's Minimum
Wage Act (MWA) regarding work performed by civil detainees at the
Northwest Detention Center. The undersigned certified a class in
this case of all civil immigration detainees who participated in
the Voluntary Work Program (VWP)]at the Northwest Detention
Center.

As is relevant to this motion, GEO took three depositions during
discovery in Washington: the State's Rule 30(b)(6) designees (from
the Department of Labor and Industries [L&I] and the Governor's
Office) and the State's expert on unjust enrichment.

GEO issued five Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas in Nwauzor, seeking
testimony from L&I's Director, Joel Sacks, L&I's Deputy Director,
Elizabeth Smith, L&I's Senior Program Manager, Lezlie Perrin,
Washington Department of Health and Human Services (DSHS) Assistant
Secretary, Sean Murphy; and a Rule 30(b)(6) designee.   

The State objects to these subpoenas.  

The State now moves to quash all five subpoenas issued for Nwauzor,
arguing that they are an improper attempt to reopen discovery in
the State case. The State maintains that GEO is attempting to
retroactively correct strategic decisions it made in the Washington
case and to circumvent the Court's scheduling orders.  

GEO responded and opposes the Motion to Quash. It argues that the
depositions are timely under the Nwauzor case schedule discovery.
It argues that the State has failed to show that the depositions
will cause a specific prejudice and maintains that the information
it seeks is relevant.  

The State replies and argues that GEO's subpoenas are clear
attempts to re-open discovery against the State in Washington.  The
State points out that GEO does not dispute that it either obtained
or should have obtained the discovery during the discovery period
in Washington.    

Subpoenas for L&I Director Sacks and L&I Deputy Director Smith

The State's motion to quash the subpoenas for L&I Director Joel
Sacks and L&I Deputy Director Elizabeth Smith should granted, the
Court opines.  Both are high-ranking government officials who are
not subject to deposition absent extraordinary circumstances.  

GEO has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances
exist here, the Court finds.
GEO has failed to show that their testimony is necessary to obtain
relevant first-hand information and that the information is not
available from other sources.  GEO has not shown that the testimony
is essential to this case, Nwauzor or that their depositions would
not significantly interfere with their ability to perform their
government duties.  GEO makes no showing that the evidence sought
is not available through less burdensome means or alternative
sources.

The subpoenas for L&I Director Joel Sacks and L&I Deputy Director
Elizabeth Smith should be quashed, the Court reiterates.

Subpoena for L&I Senior Program Manager Lezlie Perrin

The State's motion to quash L&I Senior Program Manager Perrin's
deposition should be denied, the Court further opines. While GEO
has already deposed L&I in Washington and Ms. Perrin's testimony
may not be admissible or directly relevant to the claims and
defenses in this case, it may be tangentially relevant information.
GEO asserts that it has immunity from this lawsuit as one of its
affirmative defenses in this case.  

Whether an immunity defense will be available against the private
Plaintiffs in this class action case is unclear. While the showing
on her testimony's proportionality relative to the needs of the
case is thin, it is sufficient considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,
and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.

The subpoena should not be quashed, the Court maintains.

Subpoena for DSHS Assistant Secretary Sean Murphy

The State's motion to quash DSHS Assistant Secretary Murphy's
deposition should be denied, the Court also opines.  Like Ms.
Perrin, Mr. Murphy's testimony may be tangentially relevant. GEO
has also made the showing while also thin that his testimony is
proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance of
the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,
and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.

The subpoena should not be quashed, the Court maintains.

In sum, the District Court orders that the State of Washington's
Motion for Protective Order Quashing Subpoenas for Deposition is:

  -- GRANTED, IN PART: the subpoenas issued for Joel Sacks and
     Elizabeth Smith, and all areas of examination of the
     subpoena for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee that were
     touched on in the prior Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions
     in Washington, ARE QUASHED; and

  -- DENIED, IN PART: the subpoenas issued for Lezlie Perrin and
     Sean Murphy, and the remainder of the subpoena for the Rule
     30(b)(6) designee ARE NOT QUASHED; these depositions ARE
     LIMITED to three and one-half hours each.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wcy5wkg from Leagle.com

Ugochukwu Goodluck Nwauzor, Plaintiff, represented by Devin T.
Theriot-Orr – devin@opensky.law -OPEN SKY LAW PLLC, Jamal N.
Whitehead  - whitehead@sgb-law.com - SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Adam J. Berger - berger@sgb-law.com - SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Lindsay Halm -halm@sgb-law.com - SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Meena
Pallipamu Menter , MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC,  8201 164th Ave.
NE, Redmond, WA, 98052-5732 & R. Andrew Free -
lwright@burnscharest.com - LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac
vice.

Fernando Aguirre-Urbina, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Devin T. Theriot-Orr
, OPEN SKY LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead , SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Adam J. Berger , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm
, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free , LAW OFFICE OF R.
ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice.

The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by
Adrienne Scheffey -
adrienne.scheffey@akerman.com - AKERMAN LLP, pro hac vice, Allison
N. Angel -
allison.angel@akerman.com - AKERMAN LLP, pro hac vice, Ashley E.
Calhoun -
ashley.calhoun@akerman.com - AKERMAN LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher
J. Eby-
christopher.eby@akerman.com - AKERMAN LLP, pro hac vice, Colin L.
Barnacle -
colin.barnacle@akerman.com - AKERMAN LLP, pro hac vice & Joan K.
Mell , III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 204, Fircrest,
WA, 98466-6037

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by
Christopher M. Lynch , US DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.


GOHEALTH LLC: Faces Naiman Suit in Illinois Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoHealth, LLC. The
case is captioned as Sidney Naiman and Deborah Schick, on behalf of
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated v. GoHealth, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00424 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

GoHealth operates as a health insurance technology company. The
Company provides online platform that allows direct-to-consumer
sales, marketing, and customer service solutions for health
insurance providers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sabel Files Suit for Violation of FCDPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Abraham Sabel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Halsted
Financial Services LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-01216 (S.D., N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).

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

Halsted Financial Services is a global financial services firm,
providing consumer and commercial solutions.[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



HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Moreau Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Kathryn Sara Moreau, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, an
Ohio limited liability company; HCR MANORCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF
FLORIDA, LLC; a Florida limited liability company; MANORCARE HEALTH
SERVICES CITRUS HEIGHTS, a California business form unknown; HCR
MANORCARE, INC., an Ohio not-for-profit corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2019-00271161-CU-OE-GDS, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on Feb. 11, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00314-JAM-DB to
the proceeding.

The complaint is a class action alleging the following causes of
action: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure
to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Maintain
Required Records; (6) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (8) Unfair and
Unlawful Business Practices; and (9) Penalties under Labor Code
Private Attorneys' General Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415.433.1940
          Fax: 415.399.8490
          Email: aeidelhoch@littler.com

               - and -

          Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
          Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101.3577
          Phone: 619.232.0441
          Facsimile: 619.232.43
          Email: atodd-gher@littler.com
                 blmccarthy@littler.com


HOMEDELIVERYLINK INC: Discovery Bids in Kloppel Gets Partial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE KLOPPEL and ADAM WILSON, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
HOMEDELIVERYLINK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-6296-FPG-MJP
(W.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's first motion to compel discovery,
and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's second
motion to compel discovery without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Kloppel and Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, filed their Amended Complaint in
the class action suit on July 7, 2017, which alleged (1) violations
of New York Labor Law - Unlawful Wage Deductions; (2) New York
Labor Law - Illegal Kickback of Wages; (3) New York Labor Law -
Record-Keeping Requirement Violation; and (4) Unjust enrichment
against Defendants Sears Holding Corp., Sears, Roebuck & Co., and
HomeDeliveryLink.  In essence, the Plaintiffs assert that Defendant
HomeDeliveryLink misclassified them as independent contractors
rather than as employees and deducted certain expenses from their
pay while they performed delivery services for the Defendant in New
York State.

Presently before the Court are two motions to compel discovery
filed by the Defendant.  On Sept. 26, 2019, the Defendant filed its
first motion to compel discovery seeking responses to Requests 8
(information from the Plaintiffs' social media postings), 18 (tax
returns and related documents) and 22 (documents in which the
Plaintiffs have disclosed their occupation/employment status)
contained in its First Request for Production and a response to
Interrogatory 16 (seeking the Plaintiffs' "trial plan") contained
in the Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories.

As for the Defendant's Document Request 8, it argues that the
request is narrowly tailored, providing certain words to be
searched, and that it is relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims for
misclassification and the work performed by them.

Magistrate Judge Pedersen agrees with the Plaintiffs that any
information contained on their social media accounts would only be
tangentially related to the matter.  In addition, placing the
burden on the Plaintiffs to conduct these searches is not warranted
where the Defendant has nothing more than its own hope that there
might be something of relevance in the social media posts.
Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's request to compel
responses to Request 8.

As for the Defendant's Document Request 18, the Magistrate holds
that the Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating a
compelling need for the Plaintiffs' tax returns or that the
information sought cannot be obtained through other means.
However, he recognizes that whether the Plaintiffs were paid wages
is a relevant inquiry.  The Plaintiffs are directed to produce any
W-2 or 1099 forms for the period they received compensation from
the Defendant.  Accordingly, Defendant's motion to compel with
respect to document Request 18 is, therefore, denied in part and
granted in part.

As for the Document Request 22, the Defendant asserts that the
Plaintiffs' declarations to third parties that they were
self-employed is relevant to demonstrate that they have availed
themselves of the tax advantages of self-employment.  THe
Magistrate holds that whether a person is deemed an individual
contractor or an employee under New York Labor Law is a
fact-intensive inquiry, and it does not depend on how the parties
have labeled themselves.  Whether an individual identifies himself
or herself as an employee or as an individual contractor on the
requested documents can be ascertained through an interrogatory or
deposition.  Based upon the foregoing, he denied the Defendant's
motion to compel a response to document Request 22.

As for the Defendant's Interrogatory 16, it asserts that under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs are required to
provide five categories of information that essentially amounts to
a "trial plan" so that it will have information on how they intend
to prove their claims on a classwide basis.  The Magistrate holds
that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require the
Plaintiffs to provide a trial plan to the Defendant.  Further, he
has reviewed the case law cited by both parties and is not
persuaded that the Plaintiffs are required to provide the
information requested by Defendant, which amounts to a trial plan.
For these reasons, he denied the Defendant's request for the
information sought in Interrogatory 16.

On Nov. 1, 2019, the Defendant filed its second motion to compel
discovery responses to Request 7 contained in its First Request for
Production and a response from Plaintiff Adam Wilson to Request 29
contained in its Third Set of Requests for Production of
Documents.

The Request 7 seeks: "Your cell phone records, including call
detail information indicating the length and time of call, since
May 9, 2011 for days in which you performed work for HDL."  The
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs should be compelled to
produce their cell phone records for the relevant period because
the frequency, duration, and extent of such phone calls are central
to their claims for misclassification.

The Magistrate agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have
placed their cell phone records at issue due to the allegations in
the Complaint that the Defendant required them to be in contact
with its dispatchers.  However, he is also cognizant of the
Plaintiffs' right to privacy and permitting the Defendant wholesale
access to their phone records runs afoul of that right.

With these considerations in mind, the Magistrate directs the
Plaintiffs to provide the Defendant with all cell phone numbers for
the cell phones that it allegedly required them to carry.  The
Defendant can then utilize this information to review its own
records to determine how often it called those numbers.  Its
concern that this will not give it access to how often the
Plaintiffs called or received calls from Sears is not relevant,
given that Sears is no longer a party to this action.  For the
foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Defendant's granted in part and
denied in part the motion to compel with respect to Request 7.

The Request 29 seeks: "All documents and records, including
letters, e-mails, text messages or messages sent using any
social-media platform, which reflect communications between You or
any person affiliated with Kloppel Deliveries, LLC and HDL
employees since February 23, 2017."  The Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff Adam Wilson never responded to Request 29.

THe Magistrate finds that in failing to provide a response to the
document request, Plaintiff Wilson has forfeited any objections he
could have asserted to that request.  For this reason, the
Defendant's motion to compel a response to Request 29 from
Plaintiff Wilson is granted.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Pedersen (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's first motion to compel
discovery, (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
second motion to compel discovery without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/AV38QB from Leagle.com.

Mike Kloppel & Wilson Adam, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony S.
Almeida, The Sattiraju Law Firm, P.C., 116 Village Blvd. , Ste.
200, Princeton, New Jersey, pro hac vice, Benjamin J. Weber -
bjweber@llrlaw.com - Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Harold L.
Lichten - hlichten@llrlaw.com - Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro
hac vice, Ravi Sattiraju, The Sattiraju Law Frim, P.C. 116 Village
Blvd., Ste. 200, Princeton, New Jersey, Samuel A. Alba, Friedman
& Ranzenhofer, P.C., 70 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY, 14202 &
Shannon Liss-Riordan - sliss@llrlaw.com - Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C., pro hac vice.

HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew R. Brehm
-
ABREHM@SCOPELITIS.COM - Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary,
Andrew J. Butcher - ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM - Scopelitis Garvin
Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Charles Andrewscavage,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., Emily A. Quillen,
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., Jared S. Kramer,
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., 30 West Monroe
StreetSuite 600Chicago, IL 60603, pro hac vice & Rodney O.
Personius -  rop@personiusmelber.com - Personius Melber LLP.


ILLUMINA INC: Hearing on Class Action Settlement Set for April 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All persons or entities entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired a legal or beneficial ownership interest in Illumina's
common stock between July 26, 2016 through October 10, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on
April 20, 2020, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable M. James
Lorenz, United States District Judge, at the Edward J. Schwartz
Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, Courtroom 5B, San Diego, CA 92101,
for the purpose of determining, among other things:

   (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the securities class
action claims asserted in this Consolidated Action, pursuant to
which Illumina, Inc., will cause Defendants' insurers to deposit
$13,850,000.00 in cash into a Settlement Fund in exchange for the
dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice and a release
of all Released Claims against Defendants and other Released
Parties, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate;

   (2) whether the Court should grant final certification of the
Consolidated Action as a class action for settlement purposes and
confirm the appointments of Class Representatives and Lead Counsel;


   (3) whether the Consolidated Action should be dismissed on the
merits with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated June 11, 2019 (the "Settlement" or
"Stipulation");

   (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of
any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the
Consolidated Action;

   (5) whether the application for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be submitted by Lead Counsel should be approved;

   (6) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable to the
members of the Settlement Class; and

   (7) whether any application for compensatory awards to be
submitted by Plaintiffs should be approved.

The notice incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Settlement, and all capitalized terms used, but not
defined herein, shall have the same meaning as in the Settlement. A
copy of the Settlement can be obtained at
www.IlluminaSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired a legal or beneficial
interest in Illumina, Inc. common stock, from July 26, 2016 through
October 10, 2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
settlement of this Consolidated Action and you may be entitled to
share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund if you submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked or submitted online no
later than April 27, 2020, and if the information and documentation
you provide in that Proof of Claim and Release Form establishes
that you are entitled to recovery.

The Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the
Consolidated Action and the Settlement.  A detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice")
describing the Consolidated Action, the proposed Settlement, and
the rights of Settlement Class Members to appear in Court at the
Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation and/or the request by Legal Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, has been
mailed to persons or entities known to be potential Settlement
Class Members.  If you have not received the Notice and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of
charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at:
Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration,
P.O. Box 91086, Seattle, WA 98111-9186.

As further described in the Notice, if you are a Settlement Class
Member, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the
Consolidated Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form, unless you exclude yourself from the Class,
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
postmarked no later than March 23, 2020. Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, or applications for compensatory awards must be filed and
served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
postmarked no later than March 23, 2020. [GN]


INDUSTRIAL WELDING: Appellate Court Upholds Certification in Pinson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld a circuit court judgment
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
appellate case, INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLIES OF HATTIESBURG, LLC;
AIRGAS, INC.; AND AIRGAS USA, LLC, Appellants, v. JOHN PINSON AND
LARRY MURPHY ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-19-175, (Ark.).

The employee-plaintiffs filed the complaint in the Union County
Circuit Court alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment
based on Industrial Welding's failure to compensate them for earned
but unused vacation time.

For reversal, Industrial Welding argues that the circuit court
abused its discretion by granting a motion for class certification
filed by appellees John Pinson, Larry Murphy, and all others
similarly situated because they failed to meet their burdens of
proof as to the commonality, predominance, and superiority
requirements for class certification.

Industrial Welding contends that the circuit court's decision to
grant the employees' amended motion for class certification should
be reversed because, on their claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment (1) they failed to meet their burden of proof as
to the commonality requirement; (2) individual issues predominate
over any common issues, and therefore, they failed to meet their
burden of proof as to the predominance requirement; and (3) a class
action is not the superior means of resolving their contractual
dispute with Industrial Welding.

Breach-of-Contract Claim

Commonality

Industrial Welding argues that the circuit court abused its
discretion in finding that the employees met the commonality
requirement because its liability to any individual employee turns
on whether there was an enforceable contractual obligation
concerning vacation time between it and that employee.

The employees contend that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion because the issue of contractual liability is common to
all class members.

Rule 23(a)(2) requires the circuit court to determine whether there
are questions of law or fact common to the class.  Commonality is
satisfied when the defendant's acts, independent of any action by
the class members, establish a common question relating to the
entire class.  

The Appellate Court agrees with the circuit court's commonality
finding because the employee manual and the 2012 memo detailing
payment for unused vacation days are more akin to the pay grid in
City of Conway v. Shumate, 2017 Ark. 36, 511 S.W.3d 319.  The terms
of Industrial Welding's contractual obligation do not depend on
each employee's performance.  In fact, Industrial Welding's
president, Amy Miller, acknowledged in her deposition that all its
employees were treated the same with respect to when they earned
vacation time and when they either took it or were compensated for
it.  Thus, the Appellate Court holds that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion by finding that the employees have established
a common question that precedes an individualized inquiry that
would otherwise make a class impractical.
   
The Appellate Court affirms the circuit court's commonality
ruling.

Predominance

Industrial Welding next contends that because its liability, if
any, to each member of the proposed class must be established on a
case-by-case basis, the employees failed to submit any proof that
common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
questions.

Predominance is a more stringent requirement than commonality.
Predominance encompasses a requirement from Rule 23(b) that an
action may be maintained as a class action if the court finds that
the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

The Appellate Court agrees that the issue of whether Industrial
Welding breached the terms of its contracts and non-compete
agreements predominates because a common wrong has been alleged
against Industrial Welding that may be resolved before individual
issues or defenses.

The Appellate Court is unpersuaded by Industrial Welding's
assertion that this case is governed by Arkansas Department of
Veterans Affairs v. Mallett, 2015 Ark. 428, 474 S.W.3d 861, in
which the Court held that common issues did not predominate over
individual issues with respect to overtime pay. In Mallett,
employees alleged violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA) because the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA)
automatically deducted thirty minutes per day from their hours
worked to account for meal breaks even though employees were
regularly required to work through meal breaks.   

The Appellate Court noted that the group of employees there
consisted of approximately 150 individuals who held one of more
than twenty different positions.  Additionally, the "determination
of ADVA's liability under AMWA would require a highly
individualized inquiry as to each employee's hours worked during a
given week because, if the employee did not work through lunch, and
if the employee failed to work more than forty hours in a given
work week, there could be no liability on the part of ADVA.

Thus, the Appellate Court holds that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the predominance element had
been satisfied.

Superiority

Industrial Welding argues that the circuit court erred by finding
that the superiority requirement was satisfied.  It claims that a
class action is not the superior method for adjudicating this case
because the circuit court will need to hear the testimony of each
class member and consider evidence regarding his or her
understanding of the source of the contractual obligation regarding
paid vacation time and whether the class member had unused vacation
time when Airgas acquired Industrial Welding.

The Appellate Court agrees with the circuit court that the
superiority requirement is satisfied because a class action is the
more fair and efficient way to adjudicate the case. Here, it was
admitted that employees of Industrial Welding were treated the same
with respect to when they earned vacation time and when they either
took it or were compensated for it.

The Appellate Court further agrees with the circuit court's
rationale that, to the extent that employee contracts and
non-compete agreements vary amongst class members, such
differences, if there are any of significance, can be addressed
through utilization of subclasses, and the class can be decertified
after common questions have been litigated, if the circuit court
decides it is appropriate to do so.  

Thus, the Appellate Court holds the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion by determining that class certification is superior to
any other method of adjudicating these claims.

Unjust-Enrichment Claim

Industrial Welding argues that the employees also failed to meet
the commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements as to
their unjust-enrichment claim. Industrial Welding, without
additional argument or supporting authority, merely asserts that
its commonality, predominance, and superiority arguments apply to
the unjust enrichment claim in equal force as the breach of
contract claim. Thus, for the same reasons articulated as to its
breach-of-contract claims, the Supreme Court rejects Industrial
Welding's unjust-enrichment argument.

The Appellate Court therefore holds that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion in granting class certification as it relates
to the employees' unjust-enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/r7j5gnl from Leagle.com

Thomas S. Stone , 701 Ridge Rd, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071-3299, Todd
Wooten, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201
and Carl F. "Trey" Cooper III , 425 West Capitol Suite 3700, Little
Rock, AR 72201, for appellant Industrial Welding Supplies of
Hattiesburg, LLC.

McMath Woods, P.A. by: Charles Harrison and Neil Chamberlin , 711
West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, for appellees.


INTUIT INC: Sued by Williams for Hiding Free Tax Filing Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTUIT INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00320 (E.D.NY.,
Jan. 20, 2020), arises from Intuit's campaign to intentionally
divert and deceive lower income taxpayers, who are eligible to
receive free tax preparation and filing services under the United
States Internal Revenue Service's Free File program to its paid
TurboTax products.

TurboTax is the market leading tax preparation software, owned and
manufactured by Intuit that is utilized to file more than 36
million tax returns for taxpayers every year. Pursuant to an
agreement with the IRS, TurboTax and other tax preparation
providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers
based on Adjusted Gross Income the option to file their taxes.

The Agreement was specifically designed so that the IRS would not
need to create its own free online filing system. According to the
government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the
IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal
tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged
and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual
user or to the public treasury."

Intuit, however, has long been luring customers into paying for a
service that it promised the government and consumers it would give
away for free, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged by
Intuit's breach of its contractual obligations because they
qualified for free filing under the IRS Free-Filing Agreement but
were required by Intuit to pay to file their returns, says the
complaint. Because of this, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for
damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief requiring Intuit
to comply with its contractual obligations.

Intuit Inc. is an American business and financial software company
that develops and sells financial, accounting, and tax preparation
software and related services for small businesses, accountants,
and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


IRAN: Faces Class Action Over Ukrainian Air Flight PS752 Crash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Himelfarb Proszanski on Jan. 20 announced the filing of a proposed
class action against Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
and the Ukrainian Airline concerning the downing of Flight PS752.

On January 8, 2020, UIA Flight PS752 took off hours after the IRGC
fired missiles and struck US bases in Iraq. Minutes after takeoff,
IRGC missiles struck Flight PS752, causing it to crash to the
ground. There were no survivors.

The class action is on behalf of the passengers and the passengers'
families. The Aircraft was carrying 176 people on board, including
9 crew members, 15 children, 57 Canadian citizens; and 138 of the
passengers were returning to Canada. New York-based litigation
funding company, Galactic Litigation Partners LLC has agreed,
subject to court approval, to finance the class action.

Iran ultimately admitted its missile defence system shot down the
plane after initially blaming technical or mechanical error.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated it was an "unforgiveable
mistake".

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "shooting down a
civilian aircraft is horrific", "Iran must take full
responsibility" and "we expect Iran to compensate these families."
Ukrainian officials said that Iran should compensate the victims'
families.

At the time of the crash, the US Federal Aviation Administration
banned civilian aircraft from flying over the region. After the
downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, many airlines
respect FAA notices when making safety decisions. Several airlines,
including Austrian Airlines, Air France, Air India, and KLM,
rerouted their flights. Other airlines such as Emirates, Lufthansa,
Flydubai and Turkish Airlines cancelled flights to airports in Iran
and Iraq.

Flight PS752 departed despite the known risks.

Email: info@flightps752.ca
Telephone: 416-599-8080 x252

For further information: Media Contact: Tom Arndt at Himelfarb
Proszanski, 416.599-8080 x252 tom@himprolaw.com [GN]


JAMES RIVER: Silva Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Lucas Silva, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. James River Insurance
Company, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 50-02019-CA-016151-XXXX-MB,
was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida,
Palm Beach County, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Jan. 17, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80058-DMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

The lawsuit involves insurance-related issues.

James River is an excess and surplus Lines insurance company
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (404) 797-9696
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 South Biscayne Blvd. No. 2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave.
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron Leles Warren, Esq.
          Sina Bahadoran, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO US LLP
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 329-1830
          E-mail: aaron.warren@clydeco.us
                  sina.bahadoran@clydeco.us

               - and -

          Sergio A. Bueno, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT AND KISSANE
          2001 Biscayne Blvd., Apt. 3605
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 271-2837


JOHN GORE ORGANIZATION: Court Dismisses Castillo ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Evelyn
Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The John Gore Organization, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-388 (ARR) (PK). (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Evelyn Castillo, purportedly on behalf of a class, is
suing The John Gore Organization, Inc., on allegations that the
defendant's theater unlawfully discriminates on the basis of
disability.  The complaint, filed in January 2019, raises claims
under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights
Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Ms. Castillo alleges that she has diabetes mellitus, a disability
under the ADA.  The defendant, the John Gore Organization, owns and
operates the Charles Playhouse, a theater in Boston, Massachusetts.
In December 2018, the plaintiff visited the defendant's website
because she "intended to buy tickets to attend" a "concert" there.
However, the plaintiff "did not book a ticket" after seeing on the
defendant's website that the defendant had a policy prohibiting
patrons from bringing outside food into the theater.  Because she
has diabetes, the plaintiff must have specific types of snacks with
her at all times, as her blood sugar can drop suddenly, and she
must immediately eat an appropriate food item to stabilize it.
Thus, the defendant's policy banning outside food from its theater
deterred the plaintiff from visiting the theater.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), claiming that the plaintiff lacks standing.
Alternatively, the defendant has moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

According to the defendant, in December 2018, its website's
homepage contained an "accessibility" policy that invited visitors
to contact the theater about any accessibility concerns.

On review, the Court finds that the plaintiff does not have
standing under the ADA.

To allege standing under Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731
F.3d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2013), the plaintiff must allege (1) a
past injury under the ADA (2) that it was reasonable to infer that
the discriminatory treatment would continue and (3) that it was
reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of plaintiff's
visits and the proximity of defendant's establishment] to
plaintiff's home, that plaintiff intended to return to the subject
location.

The plaintiff does not plausibly allege any of these elements, and
the defendant's evidence shows that the plaintiff has not, in fact,
satisfied them.

First, the plaintiff does not plausibly allege a past injury under
the ADA. She does not allege that she ever visited the Charles
Playhouse or that the defendant physically barred her from
entering. Instead, she alleges that in or around December 2018, she
intended to attend a concert at the theater and that she did not
book a ticket after seeing the defendant's policy prohibiting
outside food. Thus, the only injury that the plaintiff could have
suffered is deterrence from visiting the theater.  

However, to have suffered an injury under the deterrence theory,
the plaintiff must have had actual knowledge of a barrier to
access.   

Here, the plaintiff could not have had actual knowledge of a
barrier to access at the Charles Playhouse, despite her claim to
the contrary.  As the undisputed record shows, in December 2018,
the theater's website homepage content appeared on one page.  The
homepage content was sequenced such that before even reaching the
theater's policy prohibiting outside food or beverage, a website
user must have first scrolled past the theater's accessibility
policy.

Second, at the time the plaintiff filed her complaint in January
2019, it was not reasonable to infer that any alleged
discriminatory treatment would continue. Between December 2018 and
at least September 2019, the substantive content, language and
sequencing of all relevant portions of the defendant's website
remained the same. Because the defendant's website invited
prospective guests to inquire about accessibility and the
possibility of additional assistance, the more reasonable inference
to be drawn was that any discrimination inflicted by the
outside-food prohibition would end when the defendant received and
responded to a request for a reasonable accommodation.

Third, when the plaintiff filed the complaint, it was not
reasonable to infer that she intended to return to - or visit in
the first place the defendant's theater. The plaintiff alleged that
she intends to take advantage of the facilities offered by
Defendant in the future once the access barriers are remedied and
intends to attend a similar event at the defendant's theater as
soon as Defendant fixes its discriminatory policies. This broad
allegation is not enough to raise a reasonable inference that she
intended to visit the defendant's theater in the future.  

Here, the plaintiff has not alleged that she made any past visits
to the defendant's theater. She stated that she did not attempt to
attend an event at the defendant's theater because she understood
Defendant's discriminatory policy and knew that such an attempt
would be futile. Nor is the theater in close proximity to the
plaintiff's home, as she resides in Kings County, New York, and the
theater is located in Boston, Massachusetts.  

Thus, as supported by the unrefuted evidence that the defendant
submitted, the plaintiff lacks standing, the Court asserts.
Because the plaintiff lacks standing, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, and the Court do not decide whether the
plaintiff has failed to state a claim.

Because the plaintiff lacks standing to bring her ADA claim, she
also lacks standing to bring her claims under state and city law.
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which the plaintiff cites in
her complaint as an alleged basis for jurisdiction does not remedy
the plaintiff's lack of standing.  

Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all of the
plaintiff's claims. Because amending the complaint would not cure
this deficiency, the Court dismisses this action in its entirety
without leave to re-plead.  

The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, the Court rules.  All
of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed, the Court orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/tg25vgj  from
Leagle.com

Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig , Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th
Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016

The John Gore Organization, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua
A. Stein , Epstein Becker & Green., P.C., 250 Park Avenue New York,
NY 10177 & Shira M. Blank  - sblank@ebglaw.com - Epstein Becker &
Green.


JUUL LABS: Imani Product Liability Suit Removed to D. Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kewmarse Imani, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC. and ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., Case No. 19CV54597, was removed from the Oregon Circuit
Court, Lane County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon on Feb. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01105-WHO to the
proceeding.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts twelve counts against JLI,
and three against Altria (noted with an asterisk): (1) Negligence;
(2) Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Strict Product
Liability--Failure to Warn; (4) Strict Product Liability--Design
Defect; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; (6) Fraudulent
Misrepresentation; (7) Oregon Unlawful Trade Practice; (8) Unjust
Enrichment; (9) Violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; (10) Violation of California False Advertising Law; (11)
Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (12) Civil
Conspiracy.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darin M. Sands, Esq.
          Mohammed N. Workicho, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Phone: 503.778.2100
          Facsimile: 503.778.2200
          Email: sandsd@lanepowell.com
                 workichom@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          James L. Dumas, Esq.
          LINDSAY HART, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
          Portland, OR 97201-5640
          Phone: 503.226.7677
          Facsimile: 503.226.7697
          Email: jdumas@lindsayhart.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Court Dismisses Aleman FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Renewed Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JOSE ALEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE MID-ATLANTIC STATES, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-00591-PX.(D. Md.).

Twenty-six Plaintiffs have brought this wage and hour case as a
collective action against their employer, Defendant Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. (Kaiser),
alleging federal and state overtime compensation violations.

Kaiser now renews its motion to dismiss the overtime collective
action for failure to state a claim.

Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
sufficiency of the complaint. The Court accepts the well-pled
allegations of the complaint as true and construes all facts and
reasonable inferences most favorably to the plaintiff. To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint's factual allegations "must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on
the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
even if doubtful in fact.  

Kaiser contends, as it did previously, that Plaintiffs fail to
allege sufficient facts to state a plausible federal and state
overtime claims.  

The Court agrees.

To make out a plausible overtime claim, a plaintiff must provide
sufficient factual allegations to support a reasonable inference
that he or she worked more than forty hours in at least one
workweek and that his or her employer failed to pay the requisite
overtime premium for those overtime hours.

Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Plaintiffs
contend that reference to their shift differential" pay rate under
their collective bargaining agreement provides sufficient facts by
which the Court can infer they worked in excess of forty hours per
work week.   

The Court fails to see the logic of this argument. The Amended
Complaint provides no facts by which this Court can infer how and
in what capacity Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a given
week. Nor does the Amended Complaint meaningfully provide a time
frame for Kaiser's alleged misconduct.

The Amended Complaint adds that the violations spanned a two-year
period, which also happens to be the allowable limitations period.
But this addition is simply more boilerplate that does not allow
this Court or Kaiser to discern the nature of the particular
claims. Without more, Kaiser is deprived of the minimal notice
necessary to defend the claims.  

Likewise, Plaintiffs' reliance on cases in which more
particularized FLSA claims survived challenge does not advance
Plaintiffs' cause.  

Rather, this Court views the Amended Complaint as more akin to the
barebones allegations rejected by this Court previously.
Accordingly, the FLSA claim and the state analogues must be
dismissed.

Accordingly, Kaiser's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 9, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/wy4jdyg from
Leagle.com.

Jose Aleman, Freddy Altamirano, Daniel Argaw, Dennies Awotedu,
Bobby Childers, Jr., David Dols, Dwayne Douglas, Derrick Dunn,
Roger Fields, Marciano Gonzales, Roger Henderson, Roberto Kaje,
Lawrence Krzyzaniak, Jr., Dale Lohman, Lyndon McKay, Elwood Nelson,
Manuel Reynosa, Eligio Rivera, Rakesh Sahadevan, Ernest
Satterfield, John Schneck, Jose Silva, James Skidmore, Darren
Smith, Joseph Turay & Dennis Wint, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Robert Edward Paul , Zwerdling Paul Kahn and Wolly PC,  1025
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 712, Washington, D.C. 20036.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of The Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Rafael Morell , Law Offices of Rafael E
Morell PLLC,1250 24th Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037.


KERN COUNTY, CA: Finalized Class Notice in T.G. Gets Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order approving Class Notice in the case
captioned T.G. et al., Plaintiffs, v. KERN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-0257-JLT. (E.D. Cal.)

The plaintiffs filed the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action Litigation for the Court's approval.

Review of the notice indicates it includes the revisions required
by the Court. In addition, the Notice contains the information
required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
including: the nature of the action, the class definition approved
by the Court, the claims and issues to be resolved, representation
by counsel, how a class member may comment or object to the
settlement, deadlines for responses by class members, and the
binding effect of a class judgment.

The finalized Class Notice is, therefore, APPROVED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/war5pd6  from Leagle.com.

T G, by and through his Next Friend Tanita J. & J A, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carly Jean Munson -
carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org -  Disability Rights
California, Melinda R. Bird -melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org -
Disability Rights California, Michelle Brooke Iorio
-miorio@dralegal.org - Disability Rights Advocates, Thomas Philip
Zito -tzito@dralegal.org-  Disability Rights Advocates & Neeraj
Kumar - nkumar@duanemorris.com - Disability Rights California.

P P, by and through his guardian ad litem Rebecca P., Plaintiff,
represented by Carly Jean Munson , Disability Rights California.

P P, by and through his guardian ad litem Rebecca P, Plaintiff,
represented by Melinda R. Bird , Disability Rights California,
Michelle Brooke Iorio , Disability Rights Advocates, Thomas Philip
Zito , Disability Rights Advocates & Neeraj Kumar , Disability
Rights California.

Kern County, Kern County Probation Department & T R Merickel, in
his official capacity as Chief of the Probation Department,
Defendants, represented by Kendra Layne Graham , Office Of County
Counsel Kern County Administrative Center, Margo A. Raison , Office
Of Kern County Counsel Kern County Administrative Center, Andrew
Christopher Hamilton , Kern County Counsel & Andrew C. Thomson ,
Office of County Counsel, County of Kern.

Kern County Superintendent of Schools & Mary C. Barlow, in her
official capacity of Superintendent of Schools, Defendants,
represented by Mark R. Bresee , AALRR.


KNAUF INSULATION: Brancaccio Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Richard Brancaccio, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. KNAUF
INSULATION, INC., an unknown business entity; KNAUF INSULATION USA,
an unknown business entity; KNAUF INSULATION, GMBH, an unknown
business entity; KNAUF INSULATION, an unknown business entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV00178, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Feb. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01439 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts these claims: Unpaid Overtime Wages Claim,
Unpaid Meal Period Premiums, Unpaid Rest Period Premiums, Unpaid
Minimum Wages Claim, Final Wages Claim, Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements, Failure to Maintain Records, and Attorneys'
Fees.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott J. Witlin, Esq.
          Caroline C. Dickey, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com
                 caroline.dickey@btlaw.com


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Court Orders Arbitration in Kammer Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, or in the Alternative,
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned LINEKER KAMMER,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19 CV 1861, (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff filed a putative collective and class action complaint
against Leaffilter North, LLC and Leaffilter North of
Massachusetts, LLC, asserting an FLSA claim and three state-law
claims. Plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of LeafFilter,
LLC who worked 70 hours per week during his 6-month stint, but was
only paid for 40 hours of work per week. Plaintiff asserts that
Leaffilter North misclassified him as an independent contractor
when he was in fact treated like an employee.  

Plaintiff filed an Opposition Brief arguing that LeafFilter's
reliance upon the Installer Independent Contractor Agreement is
inappropriate at the motion to dismiss phase. Actually, it was
disingenuous of Plaintiff not to mention the Agreement in the
complaint as it provides an explanation for the plethora of
Plaintiff's complaint allegations.

Plaintiff contends the Court should not compel arbitration because
the Agreement is invalid. According to Plaintiff, the Agreement is
invalid because LeafFilter North, Inc. had expired as an
incorporated entity 2 years before it entered the Agreement.

According to the Court, whether this Agreement and, thus, its
arbitration provision is valid is a threshold issue that must be
resolved before determining whether or not LeafFilter North was
really an employer and Plaintiff was really its employee -- a fact
question requiring discovery and the employment of a multi-factored
economic-reality test. There is a national policy favoring
arbitration, and the question of whether a contract containing an
arbitration provision is valid is a question for an arbitrator, not
the court.  

The Court hereby dismisses this case without prejudice in favor of
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/rqzudbp from
Leagle.com.

Lineker Kammer, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Shafran , Rudolph
Friedmann, Anthony J. Lazzaro , Lazzaro Law Firm, Chastity L.
Christy , Lazzaro Law Firm & Lori M. Griffin , Lazzaro Law Firm.

Leaffilter North, LLC & Leaffilter North of Massachusetts, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Corey D. Clay , Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronoff, Jordan J. Call , Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff & W. Eric Baisden , Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff.


LEVI STRAUSS: Faces Wechter Suit Alleging Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Wechter, on her own behalf and on behalf of other
individuals similarly situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01107-DMR
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2020), challenges the Defendants' alleged
systemic illegal employment practices that violate the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that on a routine basis the Defendants
perform background checks on her and other prospective employees
and used that information without providing proper disclosures and
authorizations in compliance with the law.

The Plaintiff applied in November 2018 to work for the Defendant by
way of an online account in California as a non-exempt, hourly
employee.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          John R. Habashy, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW, PC
          633 W. Fifth St., 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-233-5900
          Fax: 888-373-2107
          Email: john@lexiconlaw.com
                 tiffany@lexiconlaw.com


LIFETIME BRANDS: Cruz Files Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
Lifetime Brands Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lifetime Brands Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01260 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Lifetime Brands is a global provider of kitchenware, tableware and
other products used in the home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


LINCARE INC: Balderson May Amend Employment Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHANDRA BALDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LINCARE
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00666 (S.D. W.Va.), Judge
Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted Balderson's
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

Pending before the Court is Balderson's Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) permits amendment of a complaint
after a responsive pleading has been filed only by leave of court
or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave will be
freely given when justice so requires.  For reasons appearing to
the Court, Judge Johnston granted the Plaintiff's Motion.  He will
deem the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed on the date of the
Order.  He directed the Clerk to enter the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint as a new entry on the docket.

Also pending is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  As a general
rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and
renders it of no legal effect.  The Defendant challenges the
Plaintiff's class action allegations and jury demand, and these
same alleged deficiencies remain in the Amended Complaint.  Thus,
the Judge will consider the motion to dismiss to address the
amended pleading.

Judge Johnston directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to
the counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9AmQ8q from Leagle.com.

Chandra Balderson, on behalf of herself and a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Robey --
arobey@hfdrlaw.com -- HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, Katherine B.
Capito -- kcapito@hfdrlaw.com -- HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE &
Michael B. Hissam -- mhissam@hfdrlaw.com -- HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN
RITCHIE.

Lincare Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric W. Iskra --
eiskra@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE & Sarah E.
Kowalkowski -- skowalkowski@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE.


M&M BEDDING: Martie Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN MARTIE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M&M BEDDING, LLC d/b/a EASY REST ADJUSTABLE SLEEP
SYSTEMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00043 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2020), alleges
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant placed unsolicited calls
to her landline phone number, despite the fact that she never
signed up for any sweepstakes and that her phone number is
registered on the DNC, and despite her requests for the calls to
stop.

In response to these calls, the Plaintiff files this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to cease placing
unsolicited calls to consumers' telephone numbers when those
telephone numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members
of the Class and costs.

Easy Rest sells adjustable beds through distributors that are
located throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

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


MATTEL INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in this securities class action lawsuit:

Mattel, Inc. (MAT)
Class Period: 10/26/2017 - 8/8/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-mat/
   

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

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

                            About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


MAUSER USA: Valenzuela Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mauser USA, LLC and BWAY Corporation removed the case captioned
RAMON VALENZUELA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. MAUSER USA, LLC, a limited liability company; BWAY
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MAUSER PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, a
business entity unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 19CV-04847 (Filed Nov. 6, 2019), from the the Superior Court in
the State of California for the County of Merced to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 17,
2020.

The Eastern District of California assigned Case No. Case
1:20-at-00041 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages; to issue inaccurate wage statements; to pay due
wages at termination; and for unfair business practices.

Mauser USA designs, manufactures, and distributes plastic, metal,
fiber, and IBC industrial packing supplies. BWAY Corporation
provides packaging solutions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles O. Thompson, Esq.
          Philip I. Person, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415 655 1300
          Facsimile: 415 707 2010
          E-mail: thompsoncha@gtlaw.com
                  personp@gtlaw.com


MD 2724: Court Won't Stay Discovery in Generic Pharmaceuticals Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery in IN RE GENERIC
PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 16-MD-2724
(E.D. Pa.).

This multi-district litigation (MDL) case concerns allegations that
numerous pharmaceutical companies engaged in an unlawful scheme or
schemes to fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and
engage in market and customer allocations of certain generic
pharmaceutical products.  

The Court entered a Case Management Order (CMO) as Pretrial Order
No. 105 (PTO 105 or CMO), substantially approving the Report and
Recommended Order of Special Master David Marion and setting an
initial schedule for discovery, class certification, summary
judgment, and Daubert motions applicable to all cases pending in
the MDL.

Moving Defendants objected to certain provisions of the CMO and
have filed a motion in the District Court to stay discovery while
they seek a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals to argue
that the CMO does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiffs oppose the stay.

Judge Rufe opines that the CMO is Consistent with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the District Court's earlier orders.  The
protections established in PTO 70 have been expressly incorporated
into the CMO, including Paragraph 3, to which Defendants
particularly object.  Paragraph 3 of PTO 105 governs the production
of custodial files, and provides that search terms for the files
shall be established, after which Defendants shall apply the agreed
search terms to the agreed custodial files and may review the
identified documents for privilege, but may not withhold prior to
production any documents based on relevance or responsiveness.

Defendants contend that they should be permitted to withhold
documents they determine to be irrelevant or nonresponsive before
production.

The agreed custodial files are defined in the ESI Protocol as the
files of any individual of a Producing Party as identified and
agreed by the parties during a meet and confer as having
possession, custody, or control of potentially relevant
information, Documents, or ESI.  Thus, there is no dispute that
these custodial files are likely to contain relevant information,
the Court holds.  Importantly, the agreed custodial files are not
produced wholesale, instead, the files are to be searched for
specific terms.  

There is no question that the issues at stake in this action are of
considerable importance to the parties, to the shareholders of
those Defendants that are publicly-traded corporations, and to the
public at large.  The agreed custodial files are by their terms
those likely to have relevant information, the files will be
searched for specific relevant terms, and Defendants have the
opportunity to claw back confidential information.  In the context
of this litigation, where the relevance of the documents must be
determined in part by context, these procedures best serve the
purpose of the Federal Rules to secure a just determination of the
merits of the parties' claims and defenses.

The Court further notes that Moving Defendants have not made a
strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits.  The CMO was
not issued in a vacuum.  Instead, as the intricate procedural
history of this complex MDL illustrates, the CMO is the latest in a
series of rulings designed to advance discovery with due
consideration of the ongoing federal and state investigations and
the parties' legitimate interests.  The Court understands the
burdens that large volumes of discovery place on the parties, but
Defendants have not shown that reviewing information for relevance
before production, instead of through the claw back procedures
established in PTO 70 and incorporated in the CMO, is appropriate
in this litigation, where the determination of whether information
is potentially relevant requires the context of the information
within the files.

Nor have Defendants shown that they would be irreparably injured in
the absence of a stay.  To the contrary, the complexity of the MDL,
and the balancing of interests of all concerned, has resulted in a
deliberate, gradual expansion of discovery, and now that the
groundwork has been laid, a stay would.
  
The Court determined that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an
overarching antitrust conspiracy, now Plaintiffs must marshal
evidence to prove their claims and Defendants must prepare their
defenses, and the CMO provides a reasonable way forward for all
parties.

The Court therefore will not stay proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s November 14, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/t7brssk
from Leagle.com

IN RE DEFENSE LIAISON COUNSEL, Debtor, represented by CHUL PAK ,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC, JAN P. LEVINE , PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP, LAURA S. SHORES , ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP,
SAUL P. MORGENSTERN , ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP & SHERON
KORPUS , KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP.
IN RE DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS PSC, Plaintiff, represented by
DAVID F. SORENSEN , BERGER MONTAGUE PC, DIANNE M. NAST , NASTLAW
LLC, LINDA P. NUSSBAUM , NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC, MICHAEL L. ROBERTS
, ROBERTS LAW FIRM, ROBERT N. KAPLAN , KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER,
LLP, THOMAS M. SOBOL , HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, CANDICE
ENDERS , BERGER MONTAGUE PC & ROBERTA D. LIEBENBERG , FINE, KAPLAN
AND BLACK.

MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ABRAM J.
ELLIS , SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, PETER C. THOMAS , SIMPSON
THACHER & BARTLETT LLP & SARA YOUNG RAZI , SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT LLP.

JAMES N. BROWN, JR., Defendant, represented by LARRY KRANTZ ,
KRANTZ & BERMAN & CATHERINE M. RECKER , WELSH & RECKER, P.C.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by JAY OWEN ,
U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE - ANTITRUST DIV, NATHAN D. BRENNER , U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION & RYAN J. DANKS , U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITTRUST DIVISION.


MDU RESOURCES: Faces Schein Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID D. SCHEIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC., RICKEY EVANS d/b/a CERTIFIED
COMMERCIAL ROOFING, GREENLIGHT BUSINESS CREDIT, JOSHUA COSTELLO
d/b/a PAYLESS ROOFING AND REMODELING, ADVANCED INTERNET MARKETING
d/b/a CHOICE CAREER FAIRS, CHRISTOPHER DEAN WELLS d/b/a WELLS
CONSTRUCTION and FREEDOM WORKING CAPITAL, Case No. 4:20-cv-00180
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and
market their merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited fax
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he has never given the Defendants
permission to contact his cellular telephone or connect to his fax
machine, whether through the use of an autodialer or otherwise.

The Plaintiff says he was damaged by the Defendants' numerous and
persistent unwanted faxes. He adds that his privacy was wrongfully
invaded, and he has become understandably aggravated with having to
deal with the frustration of unwanted faxes forcing him to divert
attention away from his work and other activities.

MDU Resources is a U.S.-based corporation supplying essential
products and services through its regulated energy delivery and
construction materials and services businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin R. Michaels, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN R. MICHAELS, P.C.
          16000 Barkers Point Lane, Suite 208
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: 281-496-9889
          Facsimile: 281-496-4211
          E-mail: kmichaels@michaelslaw.net


MEDICREDIT INC: Court Reverses Class Certification in FDCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Hahn, Esq. -- chahn@mauricewutscher.com -- of
Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed
certification of a consumer class alleging that a debt collection
letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that certification of the
class was inappropriate because the collection letter's purported
false threats to take legal action were not capable of classwide
resolution. As such, the putative class failed to satisfy Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23's commonality, typicality, and
predominance requirements.

The case is styled Nina Flecha v. Medicredit, Incorporated, et al.

A medical patient (the "patient" or "class representative") who
failed to pay for medical care received a series of collection
letters from the medical center's voluntary debt collection service
provider regarding unpaid medical bills.

One such letter advised that the account was delinquent despite
past requests for payment, and that if it was the patient's desire
to clear its account, she "need[ed] to promptly remit the balance
in full," and concluded stating "[t]o discuss payment arrangements
call our office."

The patient did not contact the debt collector to discuss debt
repayment programs, but instead contacted the medical center which
advised that she could enter a payment plan if she made an upfront
payment -- which she could not afford. The patient claims that
during the course of these conversations, she was under the
impression that the medical center would sue her to collect the
outstanding debt.

The patient/class representative brought claims on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated (the "class members")
against the medical center's debt collector and its surety
bondholder (the "debt collector") alleging that their collection
letter violated the FDCPA by falsely threatening legal action
against her and class members even though the medical center never
intended to file suit over the unpaid medical debt.

The trial court denied the parties' cross motions for summary
judgments concluding that questions of fact remained about (1)
whether an unsophisticated consumer would construe the collection
letter to threaten legal action, and (2) whether the medical center
intended to take legal action against the patient/class
representative.

Later in the case, the class representative's motion for class
certification was granted. The Fifth Circuit subsequently granted
the debt collector's motion for leave to appeal the class
certification under Rule 23(f).

As you recall, the FDCPA prohibits the use of "false, deceptive, or
misleading representation[s] or means in connection with the
collection of any debt" (U.S.C. Sec. 1692e) and expressly forbids
debt collectors from making a "threat to take any action . . . that
is not intended to be taken." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(5).

Additionally, to certify a putative class, the class must meet all
four threshold conditions of Rule 23(a) — that "(1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" --
conditions commonly known as "numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of representation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Gen. Tel.
Co. of the Nw., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980))-- along
with one of the provisions of Rule 23(b).

Here, the class representative sought certification under Rule
23(b)(3), which additionally requires "that the questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy" -- conditions commonly known as
"predominance and superiority." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); Amchem
Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1997).

On appeal, the debt collector argued that the putative class failed
the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) as well
as the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Interpreting these provisions, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that to
establish liability under the FDCPA, the class members must prove
not only that the collection letter threatened legal action, but
that it did so despite the fact that the medical center did not
intend to pursue legal action.

Turning first to Rule 23(a)(2)'s "commonality" requirement, the
Court reviewed the standard set by the Supreme Court in Walmart v.
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011) that commonality requires more than
a shared cause of action or common allegation of fact, but a common
legal contention capable of classwide resolution. Dukes at 349-50.

Here, although every member of the putative class received the same
allegedly threatening collection letter, the FDCPA penalizes empty
threats, not all threats. Like the failed putative Title VII sex
discrimination class in Dukes, the Fifth Circuit opined that
because the record was devoid of the medical center's debt
collection lawsuit filing practices, and no evidence was submitted
evidencing its actual intent to sue the class representative or
class members, there was no "glue" here "holding the alleged
reasons for all those [letters] together" -- i.e. a uniform
intention for the medical center to file suit. Dukes at 352.

Thus, the class representative failed to demonstrate that the debt
collector's purported false threat to take legal action against the
class members was capable of classwide resolution, and failed to
carry her burden to "affirmatively demonstrate" commonality. Id. at
350.

For this reason, the Fifth Circuit held, the class representative
could not establish typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) because her
claim could not be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class"
without a common issue, nor predominance under Rule 23(b)(2)
without demonstrating common issues that "predominate over any
questions affecting only individual class members." Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n. 13
("The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to
merge.").

Noting that there was no need to separately analyze whether the
class failed under Article III standing, the Fifth Circuit noted
that standing issues exist because there are undoubtedly members
within the defined class of "all persons in Texas… who received
the [collection letter]" who ignored the letter and therefore lack
a cognizable injury under Article III.

However, the Court declined to reach the issue, because the Supreme
Court repeatedly instructed that it should first decide whether a
proposed class satisfies Rule 23, before deciding whether it
satisfies Article III, and that there is no need to answer the
latter question if the class fails under the former. See Amchem,
521 U.S. at 612 ("The class certification issues are dispositive;
because their resolution . . . is logically antecedent to the
existence of any Article III issues, it is appropriate to reach
them first.") (additional citations omitted).

Because the Fifth Circuit determined that the putative class failed
under Rule 23 and could not be certified, the order granting class
certification was reversed and remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. [GN]


MERCY CLINIC: Ark. Flips Class Certification Denial in Vaughn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion reversing a circuit
court order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the appellate case, HEATHER VAUGHN AND DAWN FRANCE, Appellants, v.
MERCY CLINIC FORT SMITH COMMUNITIES; MERCY HEALTH FORT SMITH
COMMUNITIES; AND COOPER CLINIC, P.A, Appellees. No. CV-19-217.
(Ark.)

Appellants Heather Vaughn and Dawn France appeal the Sebastian
County Circuit Court's order denying their motion for class
certification.

Appellants are former employees of appellee Cooper Clinic, P.A., a
medical provider that at one time had more than 400 employees in
ten office locations throughout the river valley in western
Arkansas. Cooper Clinic operated in the area since 1920 and
extended vacation benefits to its employees including appellants.
Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against Cooper Clinic and
Mercy with causes of action of promissory estoppel, unjust
enrichment, and breach of contract.
   
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class to consist of all
individuals who worked for Cooper Clinic for more than 1 year on
the date of their termination who were terminated by Cooper Clinic
in 2018 as part of the merger with Mercy, and who were not paid for
their unused vacation time.

At the class certification hearing, Cooper Clinic opposed the
motion for class certification and argued that the putative class
members had already been paid for their unused vacation time. The
circuit court agreed and denied the motion for class certification,
observing that the class was defined by plaintiffs to consist of
those who were not paid for their unused vacation time and that all
former employees had been paid for their unused vacation time.

Based on this payment, the circuit court determined that the
requirements of Rule 23, particularly those of numerosity and
typicality, cannot be met.

On appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court abused its
discretion by (1) finding that they did not satisfy the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Arkansas
Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) denying their motion to certify
the class based on payments made to the putative class members.

When reviewing a circuit court's class-certification order, the
Appellate Court reviews the evidence contained in the record to
determine whether it supports the circuit court's decision, and its
focus is on whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met without
regard to whether the petition will succeed on the merits or even
if it states a cause of action.

Appellants argue (1) that they met the Rule 23 requirements for
class certification -- numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy, predominance and superiority -- and (2) that the circuit
court erred in considering Cooper Clinic's payment in determining
that those requirements had not been met.  In opposing the
class-certification motion, appellees did not seriously contest
appellants' claim that they met the Rule 23 requirements.

Instead, in their response to appellants' motion, appellees argued
that Cooper Clinic's payment of the unused vacation time mooted the
class issues. In essence, the appellees contend that the class no
longer exists because of the payment of the unused vacation time.

The proposed class in this case includes individuals who worked for
Cooper Clinic for more than one year on the date of their
termination and were terminated and were not paid for their
vacation time. Reading the proposed class definition in concert
with appellants' amended complaint and demand for pre- and
post-judgment interest convinces the Appellate Court that the class
does exist and is ascertainable.

Appellants alleged in their amended complaint that compensation for
the unused vacation time was due and owing on the date of their
termination and should have been paid with their final paycheck.
Interest began to accrue, according to appellants' theory, when the
employees were terminated and were not paid for their unused
vacation time. In their brief, appellants argue that common
questions for the class include whether Cooper Clinic promised but
failed to pay its employees for unused vacation time upon the
termination of their employment.

Appellants also argue that a common question is whether Mercy is
liable to the class members for employment compensation due and
owing at the time Cooper Clinic was acquired.  The class of
individuals who were not paid for their unused vacation time at the
time of the termination of their employment with Cooper Clinic
still exists. Additionally, although the former employees have now
been paid for their unused vacation time, they have not been
compensated for pre-judgment interest.

Whether appellants are entitled to pre-judgment interest, or when
such interest charges began to accrue, may be unanswered questions,
however, those questions should not be considered at the
class-certification stage. In the absence of any consideration of
payment, appellees advance no real argument that the Rule 23
requirements are not met.

The Appellate Court concludes that the circuit court abused its
discretion by relying on payments to defeat Rule 23's requirements.


The circuit court's denial of the class certification motion is
thus reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/ugu552u from Leagle.com

Holleman & Associates, P.A. by: John Holleman and Timothy A.
Steadman , 1008 W 2nd St Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, for
appellants.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., by: Eva C. Madison  - emadison@littler.com
- for appellee Cooper Clinic, P.


METRO SANTURCE: Quintero Files Suit Over Fraud in Puerto Rico
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Santurce, Inc.
The case is styled as Pablo J. Quintero and Joannie Principe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Metro Santurce, Inc., d/b/a Pavia Hospital Santurce a
corporation, Metro Hato Rey, Inc., d/b/a Pavia Hospital Hato Rey an
Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01075 (D., P.R., Feb.
11, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed for Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Metro Santurce, Inc.  d/b/a Hospital Pavia Santurce is a hospital
in San Juan, Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher A. Davila-Rodriguez, Esq.
   Indiano & Williams, P.S.C.
   207 del Parque Street; 3rd Floor
   San Juan, PR 00912
   Tel: (787) 641-4545
   Fax: (787) 641-4544
   Email: c.davila@indianowilliams.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Chun Alleges Violation under FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Chun, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Funding, LLC and
Austin, Dalton and Associates, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00759
(E.D., N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).

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

Midland Funding, LLC is a company that buys accounts in default
(also known as bad debt).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MISSION PETS: Cruz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mission Pets, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mission Pets, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01263
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Mission Pets sells pet apparel and accessories. The company
designs, imports and distributes pet lifestyle products, including
apparel, collars, leads, harnesses, beds, and carriers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MW SERVICING: Refuses to Pay Worker's Final Paycheck, Moore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY MOORE v. MW SERVICING, LLC; WBH SERVICING, LLC; and JOSHUA
BRUNO, Case No. 2:20-cv-00217 (E.D. La., Jan. 20, 2020), is brought
as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all other current and former similarly situated
employees, who worked for the Metrowide Apartments or any other
entity owned by Joshua Bruno within three years prior to the date
of filing this lawsuit, and who were not timely paid their final
paychecks as required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Louisiana
Wage Payment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing full
payment of wages and overtime to her and the members of the
collective.

Refusing to pay a worker's final paycheck is a standard modus
operandi for the Defendants, along with the other companies owned
by Joshua Bruno, the Plaintiff alleges. She says that when an
employee quits or is fired, Bruno's companies refuse to pay the
final paycheck, as a matter of corporate policy and practice.

The Plaintiff applied to work for the Defendants in November 2019.
On November 18, 2019, the Defendants presented the Plaintiff with
an offer letter for a position as the Assistant Property Manager of
the Oakmont Apartments, an apartment complex in Algiers, Louisiana,
with approximately 340 units.

The Defendants operate apartment rental business. Joshua Bruno is
the sole owner and member of both corporate Defendants, and manages
and supervises both entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite #104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


NEW HANOVER, NC: Sex Offender Lawsuit Deemed Complicated Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Schachtman, writing for PortCityDaily, reports that the
complicated nature of a civil suit against New Hanover County
Schools, top administrators, and former teacher and convicted sex
offender Michael Kelly may lead the courts to designate the case as
'complex' and assign it a dedicated judge.

The lawsuit, filed in July, alleges that top administrators
including Superintendent Dr. Tim Markley and former Deputy
Superintendent Dr. Rick Holliday, repeatedly failed to act on
information about potential wrongdoing by Kelly; further, the suit
explicitly alleges that Holliday was aware for decades of Kelly's
inappropriate and criminal behavior and did not act to prevent that
behavior from continuing. The suit also alleges Markley was
negligent in supervising Holliday.

A complicated case
The case is complicated, with multiple plaintiffs -- a number that
could increase. Last year, North Carolina passed a law increasing
the length of time victims of sexual abuse have to file civil
suits. Current and former students who allege abuse by Kelly during
any time during his 26-year career could join the current six
plaintiffs; if a judge grants the lawsuit against New Hanover
County Schools (NCHS) class-action status, more could be included
as well.

Each plaintiff shares what attorneys call 'common questions,' but
also has individual aspects to their case, adding to the complexity
of the case.

In addition to numerous plaintiffs and defendants, there are also
numerous other agencies involved; the case will likely include
investigatory material, documents, and testimony from the private
law firm hired by NHCS, the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office,
District Attorney Ben David's office, the North Carolina Attorney
General's Office, and the State Bureau of Investigation.

The process of discovery -- assembling these documents and
materials -- for a period covering a quarter-century is bound to be
extremely challenging.

The case's complex nature is one thing both sides can agree on.
Early in January, attorneys for both NHCS and Holliday (who is not
being represented by NHCS's legal team) consented to a motion to
designate the lawsuit an 'exceptional case.'

Kelly, however, did not consent; according to the most recent
motion in Superior Court, no attorney for Kelly has made an
appearance and Kelly has not responded to any attempts by the
plaintiff's attorneys to contact him. Kelly, who currently serving
a 31-year sentence at the Pasquotank Correctional Institution in
Elizabeth City, has also not responded to requests for an interview
following his conviction and sentencing last year.

Creating an 'exceptional case'
In North Carolina, cases are handled by a rotating staff of judges.
That means that a complicated case, especially one that lasts a
year or more, would likely be argued in front of multiple judges.
While each judge can review prior motions, orders, and hearings,
with a complicated case that process can become increasingly
challenging.

For that reason, Rule 2.1 (a) cases allow the Chief Justice of the
North Carolina Supreme Court to assign a dedicated judge to oversee
a case from start to finish. A similar designation was used for the
complicated lawsuit over H2GO's assets, which also involved
multiple parties, complicated claims, and large amounts of
documentation produced during discovery. Although they are
sometimes referred to as 'complex business cases,' Rule 2.1 cases
don't necessarily have to involve business-related lawsuits, and
also include a broader category of 'exceptional civil cases'

In order to create an exception case, parties in the case petition
the senior resident Superior Court judge — in New Hanover and
Pender counties, that's Judge Phyllis Gorham.

If Gorham agrees with the argument laid out in the petition, she
will take the case to the State Supreme Court; there, Chief Justice
Cheri Beasley will decide if the case meets the requirements and,
if so, she will assign a special judge.

That judge will, in essence, shepherd the legal process for the
life of the case. [GN]


NUE CO USA: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
The Nue Co USA, 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. The Nue Co USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01176 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).

The Nue Co. makes supplements from organic foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



OHIO: First Choice's Bid for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FIRST CHOICE CHIROPRACTIC, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DeWINE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19CV2010
(N.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied
the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 30, 2019, three chiropractic care and treatment facilities,
their owners, and a patient referral service sought injunctive and
declaratory relief to stop certain provisions of Ohio's 2020-2021
Biennial Budget Bill1 from going into effect.  The Plaintiffs
challenged provisions that regulate marketing and solicitation
practices by chiropractors in Ohio.

On Oct. 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Baughman denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction.  He based his opinion
primarily on the analysis by federal courts, including the Sixth
Circuit, of similar regulations in other states. Fundamental to
that analysis is the Supreme Court's opinion in Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York that
articulated a four-part intermediate scrutiny test for assessing
the constitutionality of state-imposed regulations on commercial
speech.

The Plaintiffs' appealed his order.  Shortly thereafter, the
Defendants answered the amended complaint.  About a month later,
the parties filed a joint stipulation informing the Magistrate
Judge of their intention not to submit any further evidence or
argumentation, and asking that he proceeds to adjudicate the merits
of the First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief based upon the present record.  He does so with
the Order.  Because he denied the motion for a preliminary
injunction and no further evidence is to be provided, law and logic
require that he also denies the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory
and injunctive relief.

He holds that the record evidence fell short of the standard for a
preliminary injunction.  Permanent injunctive relief carries an
even higher standard.  On the evidence before him, the Plaintiffs
failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their
claims.  Logic and the law would then dictate that they cannot meet
the heavier burden of showing actual success on the merits with the
same evidence.  With no additional evidence to support their case
and in light of the law outlined, the Plaintiffs have failed to
meet their burden of showing they are entitled to declaratory or
injunctive relief in the case.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Baughman holds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to show that Ohio's new Budget Bill violates
their constitutional rights under either the First Amendment or the
Fourteen Amendment.  Accordingly, he denied their claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 3, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Im0qre from Leagle.com.

First Choice Chiropractic, LLC, D.C. James Fonner, Prestige
Chiropractic & Injury, LLC, D.C. Bowers Rennes, Allied Health &
Chiropractic, LLC, D.C. Ty Dahodwala & Schroeder Referral Systems,
Inc, Plaintiffs, represented by Louis E. Grube, Law Office of Paul
W. Flowers & Paul W. Flowers .

State of Ohio, Ohio General Assembly, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine &
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Defendants, represented by Michael
A. Walton, Office of the Attorney General - Constitutional Offices
& Tiffany L. Carwile, Office of the Attorney General -
Constitutional Offices.

Ohio State Chiropractic Board, Defendant, represented by Katherine
J. Bockbrader, Office of the Attorney General - Health & Human
Services.


OLAM SPICES: Court Discharges Show Cause Order in Beltran Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order discharging Show Cause Order in the case
captioned THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLAM SPICES AND
VEGETABLES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-LJO-SAB. (E.D.
Cal.)

The Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing why the
motion for preliminary approval had not been filed by the Court
imposed deadline.

Plaintiffs filed a notice and suggestion of death under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) pertaining to Plaintiff Mariana
Ramirez. The notice did not aver to whether the death was related
to the parties' failure to file the motion for preliminary approval
by the deadline. After the undersigned signed the order to show
cause, but before it was docketed, the parties filed a joint
statement regarding the death of Plaintiff Mariana Ramirez.  

According to the joint statement, counsel for Plaintiffs recently
discovered the death of Plaintiff Mariana Ramirez, who passed away.
Since becoming aware of the passing, counsel states they have made
diligent efforts to contact the next of kin and identify legal
successors or representatives of the deceased. The parties state
that her passing was unexpected and not anticipated when committing
to filing the motion for preliminary approval.

Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may
order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution
may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or
representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after
service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against
the decedent must be dismissed.

Here, Plaintiffs have filed the formal notice suggesting death on
the record and have submitted an affidavit stating the notice has
been personally served on the possible successors or
representatives of the deceased.  Therefore, it appears Plaintiffs
have complied with the initial requirements of Rule 4 and the
ninety (90) day period began on December 13, 2019. Based on the
parties' representations made in the joint statement, the Court
will discharge the order to show cause issued on December 16, 2019.


The order to show cause is DISCHARGED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r9ozpkr from Leagle.com

Thomas Beltran, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Mario Martinez, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Juan Rivera, 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 & Mariana Ramirez, 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, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -
edwin@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC & Joanna Ghosh -
joanna@lfjpc.com - Lawyers For Justice, PC.

Maria Claudia Obesto Cota, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated & Alexander
Solorio, 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,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joanna Ghosh , Lawyers For Justice, PC &
Joseph Lavi - jlavi@lelawfirm.com - Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP.

Olam Spices and Vegetables, Inc., also known as Olam West Coast,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan K. Hatmaker  -
susan@hatmakerlaw.com - Hatmaker Law Group.


OLD NAVY: Faces Tripicchio Suit Over False Prices and Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Tripicchio, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. OLD NAVY, LLC; OLD NAVY (APPAREL), LLC; OLD NAVY
HOLDINGS, LLC; GPS SERVICES, INC.; THE GAP, INC.; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01958 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., Feb.
11, 2020), is brought for injunctive relief under the New Jersey
Declaratory Judgment Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act relating
to the Defendants' advertising and displaying of fictitious
purported former prices.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in
a uniform policy of advertising and displaying fictitious purported
former prices, as well as false "sale" prices and percentage-off
discounts, in the advertising, marketing and sale of apparel and
other personal items offered for sale in their physical Old Navy
and Old Navy Outlet stores in New Jersey.

The Defendants have a uniform policy of creating and listing
arbitrary "fake" base price, which purports to be an item's former,
original, and/or regular price at which the item is customarily
sold, for every item offered for sale, according to the complaint.
The fake base prices are much higher than the prices at which the
items in question are normally and customarily sold or offered for
sale by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants use the fake base prices
to create the misleading impression in the minds of consumers that
the prices of the items in their stores have a high actual value
but are on "sale" at "discounted" prices when the Defendants offer
to sell the items at a price lower than the fake base prices. The
Plaintiff adds that the Defendants' deceptive, advertising,
marketing and sales practice regarding listing fake "regular"
prices and purported "sales" or "discounts" was, and continued to
be, systematic and pervasive at their physical Old Navy and Old
Navy Outlet stores in New Jersey for virtually every product for
which a lower purported discount price and higher purported regular
price were advertised by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff purchased goods from the Defendants' physical Old
Navy store.

The Defendants jointly operate their physical Old Navy and Old Navy
Outlet stores out of their headquarters in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
          525 Route 73 N
          Marlton, NJ 08057
          Phone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: 425.233.8650
          Fax: 425.412.7171
          Email: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com


OUTFIELD BREW: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beal TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Douglas Harpool issued an order in the lawsuit entitled
COLBY BEAL v. OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE, LLC d/b/a BUDWEISER BREW HOUSE,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04028-MDH (W.D. Mo.):

   * granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   * denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

   * denying the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
     Judgment; and

   * denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's Motion
     to Exclude the Opinion and Testimony of Plaintiff's
     Proffered Expert Dr. Michael Shamos.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint against
Outfield Brew House, LLC d/b/a Budweiser Brew House ("Brew House")
brings the following claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"): Count I--alleges that Brew House violated Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA which prohibits making a
non-emergency call, or a call without the prior express consent of
the called party, using an automatic telephone dialing system to a
cellular telephone number (the "ATDS Claim"); Count II--alleges
that Brew House violated the regulations set out in 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(d) which requires a company to institute certain
policies and procedures before calling a residential telephone
subscriber on a landline for a telemarketing purpose; and Count
III--alleges that Brew House violated Section 227(c) of the TCPA
and the regulation set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2),
which prohibits telephone solicitations, as defined by the TCPA, to
residential telephone subscribers who registered their numbers on
the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR").

As an initial matter, the Court notes, the Plaintiff's response to
summary judgment states that he does not contest summary judgment
on Counts II and III.  As a result, the Court grants summary
judgment in favor of Brew House on the Plaintiff's claims set forth
in Counts II and III.

The Plaintiff's sole remaining claim, as set forth in Count I, is
his automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") claim under the
TCPA.  Judge Harpool opines that for reasons set forth in the
Order, including both the Defendant's platforms' inability to
generate numbers and the human intervention required to send the
messages, the Court finds the platforms are not an ATDS under the
TCPA.  Hence, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the
Defendant.[CC]


PENROSE HILL: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penrose Hill, Limited is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penrose Hill, Limited doing
business as: Firstleaf, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01268 (S.D.
N.Y., Feb. 12, 2020).

Penrose Hill sells premium wine brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POINT BLANK: Ohio State Troopers Assoc. Moves to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled OHIO STATE TROOPERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS,
TREVOR KOONTZ, RYAN PURPURA, STEVEN ROHNER, ALEXANDER PATER and
LANCE DESHUK v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.; and MIGUEL PORRAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 0:18-cv-63130-RAR (S.D.
Fla.), filed withe Court their Consolidated Motion for Class
Certification.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 23.1, Plaintiffs Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc.
("OSTA"), International Union of Police Associations ("IUPA"),
Trevor Koontz, Ryan Purpura, Steven "Eric" Rohner, Alexander Pater
and Lance Deshuk (collectively "OSTA Plaintiffs"), and Miguel
Porras also filed a memorandum of law in support of the motion
seeking certification of classes.

The OSTA Plaintiffs move for certification of these Classes:

   1. The OSTA Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claims class ("FDUTPA Class")
      includes:

      All individuals and entities in the fifty United States and
      the District of Columbia (with the exception of Alabama and
      California) that purchased a new concealable
      HiLite/Perform-X, Vision/Blue Steel or Elite model vest
      with a Self-Suspending Ballistic System from Defendant or
      one of Defendant's authorized distributors or sales
      representatives from December 16, 2013 up to the date a
      Class is certified by this Court; and

   2. The individual OSTA Plaintiffs' warranty claims class
      ("OSTA Warranty Class") includes:

      All individuals and entities in Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
      Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
      Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington that
      purchased a new concealable Hi-Lite/Perform-X, Vision/Blue
      Steel or Elite model vest with a Self-Suspending Ballistic
      System from Defendant or one of Defendant's authorized
      distributors or sales representatives from December 16,
      2012 up to the date a Class is certified by this Court.

Both Classes exclude the Defendant, its affiliates, parents and
subsidiaries, all directors, officers, agents, and employees of the
Defendant, its distributors, and federal agencies.

Plaintiff Porras moves for certification of these Classes:

   1. Plaintiff Porras' warranty claims class ("California
      Warranty Class") includes:

      All individuals and entities in California that purchased a
      new concealable SSBS Vest from Defendant or one of its
      sales representatives or authorized distributors from
      February 20, 2013 up to the date a Class is certified by
      this Court; and

   2. Plaintiff Porras' UCL, FAL, and fraudulent concealment
      claims class ("UCL/FAL Class") includes:

      All individuals and entities in California that purchased a
      new concealable SSBS Vest from Defendant or one of its
      sales representatives or authorized distributors from
      February 20, 2014 up to the date a Class is certified by
      this Court.

Both Classes exclude PBE, its affiliates, parents and subsidiaries,
all directors, officers, agents, and employees of PBE, its
distributors, joint ventures and entities controlled by PBE, its
heirs, successors, assigns or other persons or entities related to,
or affiliated with PBE, and the Judge(s) assigned to this action,
and any member of their immediate families and federal agencies.

The Plaintiffs allege that PBE made material misrepresentations
about and failed to disclose that the shoulder strapping system
called the Self Suspending Ballistic System ("SSBS"), installed
uniformly in every 2012-2019 concealable SSBS Vest contains latent
defects in material, workmanship and design that result in the
vests falling apart at the shoulder/SSBS connection, exposing that
region of the body and creating a safety hazard ("SSBS Defect").
The Plaintiffs contend that the failure occurs unexpectedly,
including during the line of duty, and well within the warranty
period.

Between 2013 and 2019 PBE sold or issued to purchasers thousands of
replacement SSBS straps, including in California, (the same
defective straps that failed in the first instance) in an effort to
band-aid the problem, the Plaintiffs asserts.  They add that those
(sealed) figures exclude the large percentage of purchasers, like
the Plaintiffs, whose purchase included two sets of straps and both
failed.[CC]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          Michael Wayne Moskowitz, Esq.
          Ari Jonathan Glazer, Esq.
          MOSKOWITZ MANDELL SALIM & SIMOWITZ
          800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 491-2000
          E-mail: mmoskowitz@mmsslaw.com
                  aglazer@mmsslaw.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          E-mail: c.stamant@kanner-law.com
                  a.kanner@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          David M. Cohen, Esq., Esq.
          COMPLEX LAW GROUP, LLC
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200-3100
          E-mail: dcohen@complexlaw.com

               - and -

          Herschel M. Sigall, Esq.
          OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
          190 West Johnstown Road
          Gahanna, OH 43230
          Telephone: (614) 302-9005
          E-mail: herschelm@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Phong L. Tran, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: PhongT@johnsonfistel.com


PORNHUB: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Video Subtitles
--------------------------------------------------------
Shreya Chauhan, writing for India Times, reports that a man with
hearing impairment is suing Pornhub for what he claims is a
violation of the American Disabilities Act. Yaroslav Suris says he
feel discriminated against as certain videos on the porn website do
not carry subtitles which makes it difficult for him to follow
plots.

According to American site TMZ, Suris has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company suggesting it's a denial of access,
report America's biggest gossip site TMZ.

According to the report, Suris had this issue when he downloaded,
'Hot Step Aunt Babysits Disobedient Nephew'. He then faced similar
problems with other titles like 'Sexy Cop Gets Witness to Talk'.

And so he is suing Pornhub for violating the American Disabilities
Act. The amount of compensation he is seeking is not known yet.
[GN]


PRINCESS PEDICURE: Wammack Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE WAMMACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRINCESS PEDICURE SPAS, INC., a North Carolina
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00045 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 18, 2020),
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.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. section
227(c)(5) because the Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class
received more than one phone call/text message in a 12-month
period, says the complaint.

Princess is a wholesale distributor of consumables and equipment to
the beauty industry selling items such as nail polish and salon
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq.
          WESTBROOK LAW PLLC
          Attorney for Plaintiff
          6140 28 th St. SE, Suite 115
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          Telephone: (616) 288-9548
          E-mail: ted@westbrook-law.net

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Moved From Kentucky to Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al. The case is styled as Hardin County Fiscal Court,
Breckinridge County Fiscal Court, Green County Fiscal Court, Meade
County Fiscal Court, Ohio County Fiscal Court, on behalf of all
other similarly situated Kentucky counties v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00068, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Feb. 11, 2020.

The Clerk of the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No.
1:20-op-45063-DAP to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as personal injury: health
care/pharmaceutical personal injury product liability.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
founded by John Purdue Gray.

The other Defendants are Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick
Company, RHODES TECHNOLOGIES, Rhodes Technologies Inc., Rhodes
Pharmaceuticals L.P., Dr. Richard Sackler, Beverly Sackler, David
Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Jonathan Sackler, Kathe Sackler,
Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Cephalon,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Allergan PLC, Actavis plc,
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis
Pharma, Inc., Actavis LLC, Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo International plc, Par Pharmaceutical,
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC,
Mallinckrodt LLC, SpecGX LLC, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Noramco, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp, KVK Tech, Inc., Assertio Therapeutics, Inc.,
DepoMed Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, H.D. Smith LLC,
Anda Inc., Cardinal Health Inc., CVS Health Corporation, McKesson
Corporation, Rite Aid Corporation, Smith Drug Company, Inc.,
Kentucky CVS Pharmacy, LLC, Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.,
Kroger Company, Rite Aid of Kentukcy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart
Inc., Matthew Bevin, Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Kentucky Pharmacy Board.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Phone: (502) 244-9331
          Fax: (502) 244-9334
          Email: A.Grabhron@Grabhornlaw.Com

               - and -

          William D. Nefzger, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Phone: (502) 587-2002
          Fax: (502) 587-2006
          Email: Wil@Bccnlaw.Com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy L. Mauldin, Esq.
          BELL, ORR, AYERS & MOORE, PSC
          1010 College Street
          P.O. Box 738
          Bowling Green, KY 42102-0738
          Phone: 270.781.8111
          Facsimile: 270.781.9027
          Email: mauldin@boamlaw.com

               - and -

          James K. O'Connor, Esq.
          VENABLE
          750 Pratt Street, Ste. 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (410) 244-5217
          Fax: (410) 244-7742
          Email: jko03@venable.com

               - and -

          Paige N. Johnson, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 540-2359
          Fax: (502) 585-2207
          Email: paige.johnson@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Kirk Ogrosky, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 942-5330
          Fax: (202) 942-5999

               - and -

          Andrew J. O'Connor, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199
          Phone: (617) 951-7000
          Fax: (617) 951-7050
          Email: Andrew.O'Connor@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Sarah Byer Miller, Esq.
          Jessalyn H. Zeigler, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS
          150 Third Avenue South, Ste. 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 742-7802

               - and -

          Ryan T. Polczynski, Esq.
          E. Frederick Straub, Jr., Esq.
          WHITLOW, ROBERTS, HOUSTON & STRAUB, PLLC
          300 Broadway Street
          P.O. Box 995
          Paducah, KY 42002-0995
          Phone: (270) 443-4516
          Fax: (270) 442-1712
          Email: rpolczynski@whitlow-law.com
                 rstraub@whitlow-law.com

               - and -

          Meredith Jones Kingsley, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 881-4793
          Fax: (404) 253-8463
          Email: meredith.kingsley@alston.com

               - and -

          Benjamin C. Fultz, Esq.
          FULTZ MADDOX DICKENS
          2700 National City Tower
          101 South Fifth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 588-2000
          Fax: (502) 588-2020
          Email: bfultz@fmhd.com

               - and -

          Scott T. Dickens, Esq.
          TACHAU, MADDOX, HOVIOU & DICKENS
          2700 National City Center
          101 Fifth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202-3116
          Phone: (502) 588-2000
          Fax: (502) 588-2020

               - and -

          Christopher B. Essig, Esq.
          Scott M. Ahmad, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 558-5700
          Fax: (312) 558-5700
          Email: CEssig@winston.com
                 SAhmad@winston.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Miller, II, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Phone: (502) 423-6390
          Fax: (502) 423-6391
          Email: dmiller@qpwblaw.com

               - and -

          David Arlington, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS
          1500 San Jacinto Center
          98 San Jacinto Blvd.
          Austin, TX 78701-4039
          Phone: (512) 322-2500

               - and -

          Margaret Jane Brannon, Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY
          175 E. Main Street, Suite 500
          Lexington, KY 40588-2150
          Phone: (859) 288-2805
          Fax: (859) 288-2849

               - and -

          Steven Brian Loy, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN, PLLC
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 2100
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 231-3000
          Fax: (859) 253-1093
          Email: steven.loy@skofirm.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Bobrow, Esq.
          BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 589-5980
          Fax: (502) 561-9400
          Email: rbobrow@bsg-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Carol Dan Browning, Esq.
          Jeffrey Steven Moad, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON
          400 West Market Street, Ste. 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 681-0516
          Email: cbrowning@stites.com
                 jmoad@stites.com

               - and -

          Elisabeth S. Gray, Esq.
          MIDDLETON REUTLINGER
          401 S. Fourth Street, Suite 2600
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 625-2848
          Fax: (502) 540-2288
          Email: egray@middletonlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Thompson Richardson, Esq.
          WMR DEFENSE
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Phone: (859) 219-9090
          Fax: (859) 219-9292
          Email: melissa@WMRDefense.com

          James E. Looper, Jr., Esq.
          HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC
          424 Church Street, Suite 2950
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 313-9911

               - and -

          Charles R. Hughes, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE, LLP
          600 Quarrier Street, Suite 1600
          P.O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: (304) 347-1160
          Fax: (304) 347-2196
          Email: chughes@bowlesrice.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Arnzen, Esq.
          ARNZEN, MOLLOY & STORM
          P.O. Box 472
          600 Greenup Street
          Covington, KY 41012
          Phone: (859) 431-6100
          Fax: (859) 431-3778

               - and -

          Andrew L. Sparks, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1700
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 899-8734
          Fax: (844) 670-6009
          Email: asparks@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Brett Robert Nolan, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, KENTUCKY
          700 Capital Avenue
          Capitol Building, Suite 118
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Phone: (502) 696-5300
          Fax: (502) 564-2894
          Email: brett.nolan@ky.gov

               - and -

          S. Chad Meredith, Esq.
          Matthew F. Kuhn, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR KY
          700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 106
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Phone: (502) 564-2611
          Email: Chad.Meredith@ky.gov
                 matt.kuhn@ky.gov

               - and -

          Catherine Elaine York, Esq.
          Matthew Harold Kleinert, Esq.
          CABINET FOR HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES
          275 E. Main Street, 5W-B
          Frankfort, KY 40621
          Phone: (502) 564-7905
          Email: matthewh.kleinert@ky.gov
                 catherine.york@ky.gov
    
               - and -

          C. David Johnstone, Esq.
          John Mohammad Ghaelian, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1024 Capitol Center Drive, Ste. 200
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Phone: (502) 696-5445
          Fax: (502) 573-7150
          Email: david.johnstone@ag.ky.gov
                 john.ghaelian2@ky.gov


PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HARDIN COUNTY FISCAL COURT, ON BEHALF OF
HARDIN COUNTY, et al. v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., et al., Case No.
19-CI-940, was removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court, Franklin
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky on Sept. 29, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-op-45063-DAP to the
proceeding.

On September 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion and proposed
order seeking a temporary injunction against the Defendant and
certain other defendants that would prohibit them from (i)
transferring any assets currently located in the United States to
any location outside the United State, and (ii) effecting any
transfer of assets, including within the United States, that would
"divest the Defendant and certain other defendants from exercising
complete and unfettered discretion over the assets" without leave
of the Circuit Court.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Email: A.Grabhron@Grabhornlaw.Com
                 M.Grabhorn@Grabhornlaw.Com

               - and -

          William D. Nefzger, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Email: Wil@Bccnlaw.Com

               - and -

          Amy Feldman, Clerk
          FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
          222 St. Clair Street
          Frankfort, KY 40601

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy L. Mauldin, Esq.
          BELL, ORR, AYERS & MOORE, PSC
          1010 College Street
          P.O. Box 738
          Bowling Green, KY 42102-0738
          Phone: 270.781.8111
          Facsimile: 270.781.9027
          Email: mauldin@boamlaw.com


QUALITY BUSINESS: Trask Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY TRASK, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. QUALITY BUSINESS ENGRAVING LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, and MICHAEL NEELY, an individual, Case No.
2:20-cv-10132-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
overtime wages.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly worker
responsible for making products for the Defendants and their
customers, including signs and nameplates.

At times throughout her employment, the Plaintiff says she worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. However, she alleges, the
Defendants maintained illegal compensation policies pursuant to
which they failed and/or refused to pay  her (and others similarly
situated) time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Quality Business provides high-quality industrial name plates, name
badges, corporate awards and custom specialty items since
1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary B. Mack, Esq.
          SALVATORE PRESCOTT & PORTER, PLLC
          105 East Main Street
          Northville, MI 48167
          Telephone: (248) 679-8711
          Facsimile: (248) 773-7280
          E-mail: mack@spplawyers.com


REGAL CINEMAS: Certification of Class Sought in Amara TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PHILIP AMARA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., Case No.
8:19-cv-03125-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All persons in the United States who, at any time between
     December 19, 2015 and the present:

     (1) subscribed to a cellular telephone service; and

     (2) received, at the telephone number assigned to such
         service, more than one text message containing the word
         "REGAL" from the short-code number 61633.

According to the Motion, this Class definition tracks the
definition proposed in the Complaint, except that the definition
for which certification is sought herein does not include the third
criterion for membership in the class as proposed in the
Complaint--namely all persons "for whom Regal Cinemas, Inc. lacks
any record establishing the person's provision of 'express written
consent' to receive such messages prior to the initiation of such
messages."

The Plaintiff says he has removed this criterion pertaining to
"express written consent," which is an affirmative defense to a
claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
because the Defendant has not entered an appearance in the case,
has not asserted an "express written consent" defense to his claim
as to himself or any class member (and has thereby waived the
defense), and in any event has not presented any evidence of such
consent as to the Plaintiff or any member of the proposed class,
such that the record before the Court is totally bereft of any
evidence of "express written consent" as to him or any member of
the proposed class.

Mr. Amara also seeks leave to engage in discovery for the limited
purposes of identifying members of the Class and calculating the
statutory damages to which each Class member is entitled.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com


SANDALS RESORTS: Court OKs FDUTPA Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting Defendant UVI's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned MICHAEL McCOY, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDALS
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., d/b/a Sandals, and UNIQUE VACATIONS,
INC., d/b/a Unique Vacations, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-22462-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla.).

This cause is before the Court upon Defendant Unique Vacations,
Inc.'s (UVI) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action asserting two claims for
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA), and one claim for unjust enrichment against Defendants
for allegedly charging guests at certain Sandals resorts throughout
the Caribbean a local government tax that Defendants secretly
retained. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' marketing structure
presents consumers with a single price for a vacation package,
which Defendants represent includes all taxes, while also noting
that this price is subject to change at any time due to the
imposition of taxes or other government charges.

Both UVI and SRI filed separate Motions to Dismiss. In the instant
Motion, UVI asserts five independent bases for dismissal.

First, UVI argues that the Complaint should be dismissed under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens because Plaintiff agreed to a
binding forum-selection clause requiring that he litigate this
action in the Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI).

UVI's Motion also seeks dismissal for (1) failure to plead
fraud-based claims with particularity (2) lack of Article III
standing (3) failure to state a FDUTPA claim because the Complaint
does not allege Florida misconduct or actual damages and (4)
failure to state an unjust enrichment claim because it is
impermissibly duplicative of the FDUTPA claim and based on an
express contract.  

LEGAL STANDARD

The appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to
a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. Ordinarily, to obtain dismissal based on the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, a movant must demonstrate that (1) an
adequate alternative forum is available (2) the public and private
factors weigh in favor of dismissal and (3) the plaintiff can
reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue
inconvenience or prejudice.

In their Motion, Defendants first argue that the Complaint should
be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because
Plaintiff agreed to a binding, valid, and enforceable
forum-selection clause requiring that he litigate this action in
TCI.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that his FDUTPA and unjust
enrichment claims are beyond the scope of the forum-selection
clause. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that if the forum-selection
clause does apply, it is invalid and unenforceable, and that the
forum non conveniens factors do not warrant dismissal.  

Plaintiff's Response does not clearly set forth which of these
factors he is asserting. On the one hand, the Response notes that
the first, second, and third of these factors support invalidation.
On the other hand, Plaintiff seemingly argues that the first,
third,3 and fourth factors support invalidation in the substantive
text of his Response.  

Fraud or Overreaching

Plaintiff argues that the forum-selection clause should be
invalidated due to fraud or overreaching because, while he received
the e-mailed Invoices containing a notice of the forum-selection
clause buried in the Terms & Conditions, he was never presented
with the On Resort Guest Registration at check in on any of his
stays at the TCI Resort. Thus, Plaintiff contends that he was not
able to become meaningfully informed and agree to the
forum-selection clause.

In order to be enforceable, the forum-selection clause in a form
contract must reasonably warn the consumer that the terms and
conditions are important matters affecting legal rights. It is
undisputed that Plaintiff received the language of the
forum-selection clause.

The Invoices Plaintiff received in advance of his departures
included the following language: IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CONCERNING YOUR BOOKING THAT AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE
INCLUDED/ATTACHED AS AN IMAGE TO THIS E-MAIL — IF THE IMAGE IS
NOT BEING DISPLAYED, PLEASE ACCEPT THE IMAGE AND READ CAREFULLY
PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL AT THE RESORT.

Thus, Plaintiff was clearly put on notice that his legal rights
would be affected by the documents attached to the Invoices well
before he arrived at the TCI Resort for check in, and courts have
concluded that this advance receipt is sufficient.  

Therefore, the Court concludes that the forum-selection clause was
reasonably communicated to Plaintiff and thus was not signed as a
result of fraud or overreaching.

Inconvenience or Unfairness and Deprivation of a Remedy

Plaintiff argues that requiring this action to be litigated in TCI
would deprive him of both his day in court and of a remedy under
FDUTPA because (1) TCI courts do not permit contingency fees and
often require parties bringing suit to post a bond (2) jury trials
and class actions are rare (3) TCI does not have a comparable cause
of action under FDUTPA and (4) judgments from TCI courts do not
have extra-territorial effect, thus preventing Plaintiff from
forcing Defendants to change their alleged unfair and deceptive
business practices in the United States.

Plaintiff therefore argues that these factors, in combination,
render TCI courts inadequate and unavailable.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that to
invalidate a forum-selection clause on the ground that the
plaintiff would be deprived of their day in court because of
inconvenience or unfairness, a plaintiff must show that litigating
in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and
inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of
his day in court.

Through the information and affidavits submitted in the parties'
briefing and the arguments presented at the Hearing, it is evident
that Plaintiffs have not established that their remedy would be
altogether lost in litigating this action in TCI. Notably,
Plaintiff's arguments that class actions and jury trials are
unavailable lack support. Rather, the affidavits both parties
submitted on behalf of attorneys in TCI note that, although rare,
these mechanisms are available in TCI courts.  

Plaintiff's arguments with regard to the deprivation of his
remedies under FDUTPA are equally unpersuasive. The affidavits and
arguments presented at the Hearing establish that TCI provides
comparable alternative avenues of relief through common law tort
and contract actions. Thus, it is clear that Plaintiff's remedies
would not be altogether lost and the possibility of Plaintiff being
deprived of some relief is not sufficient to find that the foreign
forum is inadequate.

Plaintiff presents no legal support for the argument that the
combination of all of these factors renders TCI inadequate.
Further, the inability to assert a FDUTPA claim in TCI does not
render a forum-selection clause unenforceable.  

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the forum-selection clause
should be invalidated because enforcing the clause would deprive
him of his day in court or of a remedy.

Adequate Alternative Forum

The first part of this modified forum non conveniens analysis
requires the Court to determine whether an adequate and available
alternative forum exists. An alternative forum is available to the
plaintiff when the foreign court can assert jurisdiction over the
litigation sought to be dismissed.

A foreign forum is adequate when the parties will not be deprived
of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy
the same benefits as they might receive in an American court. In
addition, an adequate alternative forum exists when the defendant
is amenable to process in the foreign forum.

Nevertheless, dismissal may be improper where the remedy provided
by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory
that it is no remedy at all. Thus, to constitute an adequate forum,
the alternative forum must offer at least some relief.  

Plaintiff also argues that TCI is an inadequate alternative forum
because (1) TCI previously had issues with widespread corruption
(2) TCI is too financially dependent on the tourism revenue
generated from Defendants' resorts, thus increasing the risk that
Plaintiff will not receive a fair hearing and (3) Defendants have
historically received favorable treatment in TCI, which makes it
unlikely that Plaintiff will receive justice litigating this case
there. However, as noted above, courts are loathe to hold that
other forums are inadequate.

As such, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently substantiate his
allegations of corruption in TCI. TCI is an adequate and available
alternative forum when examining similar FDUTPA and unjust
enrichment claims as those at issue here, this Court concludes that
TCI is an adequate and available alternative forum that would
provide Plaintiff with sufficient relief.

Private and Public Interest Factors

When a valid and enforceable forum-selection clause exists, courts
conducting the modified forum non conveniens analysis should not
consider arguments about the parties private interests because when
parties agree to a forum-selection clause, they waive the right to
challenge the preselected forum as inconvenient or less convenient
for themselves or their witnesses, or for their pursuit of the
litigation.

Instead, Plaintiff's agreement to the forum-selection clause means
that the private-interest factors weigh entirely in favor of the
preselected forum. Whatever inconvenience, Plaintiff would suffer
by being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as he agreed
to do was clearly foreseeable at the time of contracting.

Turning to the local interest in having localized controversies
decided at home and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an
unrelated forum with jury duty, the Court concludes that these
factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit has long
held that jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon
the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation.
However, the burden of jury duty is a lesser weighted factor.

The events in question in the instant action did not primarily
occur in Florida such that it has a local interest in adjudicating
a localized controversy. Instead, the primary connection to Florida
is that UVI heavily markets its vacation packages in Florida, that
UVI has its principal place of business in Florida, and that future
unnamed class action participants may be Florida residents.
Therefore, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Next, the interest in having a trial in a forum that is at home
with the governing law and the interest in avoiding unnecessary
problems with conflict of laws or with the application of foreign
law both weigh in favor of litigating this action in TCI. Given the
governing and enforceable choice of law provision in the instant
case, TCI law governs the parties' dispute here.

As such, the Court concludes that these factors also weigh in favor
of dismissal.

Reinstatement of Suit in Alternative Forum

Finally, the Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate here
because Plaintiff can reinstate his lawsuit in TCI without undue
inconvenience or prejudice. Defendants have consented to
Plaintiff's exercise of jurisdiction in TCI and have stated that
they will accept service in TCI, should Plaintiff reinitiate this
action there. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently carry his
burden to overcome the practical result  that forum-selection
clauses should control except in unusual cases.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, rules the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/vtg4znt from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL MCCOY, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Abraham
Schwartzbaum - adam@moskowitz-law.com - The Moskowitz Law Firm,
Daniel Wayne Grammes , Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina, and Winkleman,
P.A., One Biscayne Tower,2 S Biscayne Blvd #1776, Miami, FL 33131,
Howard Mitchell Bushman - howard@moskowitz-law.com - The Moskowitz
Law Firm, PLLC, Jason Robert Margulies , Lipcon Margulies, Alsina &
Winkleman, P.A., Joseph M. Kaye  - joseph@moskowitz-law.com - The
Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, Marc E. Weiner , Lipcon, Margulies,
Alsina, Winkleman, One Biscayne Tower,2 S Biscayne Blvd #1776,
Miami, FL 33131, P.A., Michael A. Winkleman , Lipcon Margulies
Alsina & Winkleman, PA., One Biscayne Tower,2 S Biscayne Blvd
#1776, Miami, FL 33131.& Adam M. Moskowitz -
adams@moskowitz-law.com - The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC.

Sandals Resorts International LTD, doing business as Sandals,
Defendant, represented by Claudia Ojeda - ojedac@gtlaw.com -
GREENBERG TRAURIG, James Evans Gillenwater - gillenwaterj@gtlaw.com
- Greenberg Traurig LP, Mark Allan Salky - salkym@gtlaw.com -
Greenberg Traurig & Oscar Andres Campos - jose.campos@csklegal.com
- Cole, Scott, Kissane, PA.

Sandals Resorts International LTD, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Thomas E. Scott, Jr. - thomas.scott@csklegal.com -
Cole Scott & Kissane.

Unique Vacations Inc., doing business as Unique Vacations,
Defendant, represented by Claudia Ojeda , GREENBERG TRAURIG, James
Evans Gillenwater , Greenberg Traurig LP, Mark Allan Salky ,
Greenberg Traurig, Thomas E. Scott, Jr. , Cole Scott & Kissane &
Oscar Andres Campos -jose.campos@csklegal.com - Cole, Scott,
Kissane, PA.


SANTANDER BANK: Tepper Sues Over Unpaid Interest on Escrow Acct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TEPPER and REBECCA RUFO-TEPPER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 7:20-cv-00501-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
20, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiffs have paid tens of thousands
of dollars into an escrow account but have received no interest on
those payments, in violation to the New York General Obligation
Law.

In August 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased a single-family residence
in Westchester County, New York. In connection with that purchase,
the Plaintiffs entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant,
secured by a mortgage on the residence.

Since the time that the Plaintiffs entered into the Mortgage
Agreement, the Plaintiffs have been required to make monthly
payments to the Defendant for the pre-payment of property taxes and
insurance on the property, in addition to the regular monthly
payments of principal and interest on the loan. During all times in
which the Plaintiffs have paid funds into the escrow account held
by the Defendant, the Defendant has not paid the Plaintiffs the
interest mandated by NY Gen. Oblig. Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for damages, restitution and
reimbursement, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief,
pursuant to claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Santander Bank, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Santander Group, a
Spanish multinational bank founded in 1857. The Defendant offers a
wide range of loan products, including fixed- and adjustable-rate
mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-969-7810
          Facsimile: 888-749-7747
          E-mail: pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liskowm@thesultzerlawgroup.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


SARATOGA ESCAPE: Court Dismisses Murphy Action with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order dismissing the Class Action case captioned
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SARATOGA ESCAPE LODGES & RV RESORT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 08063-LTS-DCF (S.D.N.Y.).

The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that this
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, the
action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiff and
without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and without costs to
either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to
the calendar of the Court if settlement is not achieved within 30
days of the date of this Order.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/tnt4pog  from Leagle.com

James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Zare Khorozian -
zare@zkhorozianlaw.com - Zare Khorozian Law, LLC.

SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Murray Suit Settlement Denied Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned RODERICK MURRAY, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCELZI ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01492-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant
Scelzi Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor
Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.3, and 226.7, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and for penalties under
the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code Section
2698.

The Magistrate Judge recommended denial because the proposed class
did not meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the proposed
settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, when
considering the overly-aggressive discounting of Plaintiff's
claims, the overbreadth of the class release, the allocation of
thirty-three percent of the class settlement amount as attorney's
fees, the seemingly excessive incentive award to Plaintiff, and
other issues.

The Court, hence, ORDERS that the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement is DENIED without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vzvsnor from Leagle.com.

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

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


SKYWEST INC: Meek's Wage & Hour Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned CODY MEEK, Plaintiff, v. SKYWEST, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01012-JD (N.D. Cal.).

This is a wage-and-hour putative class action brought by plaintiff
Cody Meek, a former ramp agent at San Francisco International
Airport, against his former employers, defendants SkyWest, Inc.,
and SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (SkyWest).  

COUNTS I & II: MINIMUM WAGES AND MEAL BREAK CLAIMS

Meek's first and second claims allege a failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of California law, and missed or shorter meal
breaks.   

Meek asserts that SkyWest paid its employees as they were scheduled
to work rather than according to the times they actually worked
(i.e., they paid to the schedule) and SkyWest thus failed to pay
working hours from punch-in to punch-out, pay for meal breaks that
were either not actually able to be taken or shorter than required,
and pay for working beyond the scheduled shift when required by the
airline's needs.

Meek alleges that these practices violated several different
sections of the California Labor Code. Meek also alleges that
SkyWest violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 by automatically
deducting exactly 30 minute meal breaks when plaintiff and class
members were unable to be relieved of their duties for a full
30-minute meal break during a shift in excess of 5 hours.

SkyWest says that these claims are preempted by the RLA.  

The point is not well taken, says the Court. SkyWest relies heavily
on Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., No. 06-cv-0307 DMS (AJB),
2008 WL 5103195 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2008), and Fitz-Gerald v.
SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 411 (2007). This is odd
because those decisions pre-date by approximately a decade the
controlling opinion in Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, 898 F.3d
904 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc). Schurke provides a rule on RLA
preemption that is adverse to Sky West's position in this case.

That may be why SkyWest mentions it only once in a reply brief,
with little meaningful discussion or analysis. The apparently
intentional neglect of an on-point circuit decision is troubling
and borders on a mischaracterization of governing law. This is all
the more true because Schurke and the circuit cases that have
followed demonstrate that there is no RLA preemption of plaintiff's
first and second claims here. SkyWest and its counsel at the Jones
Day law firm are advised not to engage in such unprofessional
conduct in the future, or sanctions may be imposed.

In Schurke, the circuit determined, en banc, that a state law labor
claim is preempted by the RLA in only two circumstances. The first
is when the claim seeks purely to vindicate a right or duty created
by a collective bargaining agreement itself, that is, when the CBA
is the only source of the right the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.

The second is when the state law claim is not grounded in a CBA in
the sense just explained, but nonetheless requires interpretation
of a CBA, such that resolving the entire claim in court threatens
the proper role of grievance and arbitration.

COUNT III: OVERTIME CLAIM

The actual language of the exemption in Wage Order 9 states that
this order shall not be deemed to cover those employees who have
entered into a collective bargaining agreement under and in
accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. As such,
while it exempts SkyWest from having to comply with any obligations
imposed by Wage Order 9, it simply does not speak to employer's
obligations or employees' rights under California Labor Code
Sections 510, 511, 514 and 1194, which Meek has invoked in his
third claim for relief. Consequently, the partial summary judgment
on Meek's third claim is limited to overtime wages under Wage Order
9.

SkyWest has not presented a good reason to preclude Meek's claims
for overtime under the state Labor Code, says the Court.

COUNTS IV, V AND VI: INACCURATE WAGE STATEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION
AND WAITING TIME PENALTIES CLAIMS

Meek's fourth, fifth and sixth claims for inaccurate wage
statements, unfair competition and waiting time penalties are
derivative of his other claims. To the extent SkyWest argues they
must be dismissed because the claims on which they are based are
deficient, dismissal is denied.

COUNT VII: CLAIM FOR MINIMUM WAGES SET BY SAN FRANCISCO MINIMUM
COMPENSATION ORDINANCE

These are novel and complex questions that are poorly suited to
resolution on a motion to dismiss and without a well-developed
record. This is especially true given that the parties do not even
agree on basic issues such as whether the MCO and QSP are
respectively laws, statutes or regulations; and whether they are
two separate rules, as SkyWest contends, or the QSP is a subsection
of the MCO, as Meek contends.  

The parties' arguments about whether the 2012 Addendum to CBA
constitutes a waiver under the MCO also appear to present questions
that go beyond a permissible motion to dismiss inquiry, which is
appropriately defined here by the four corners of the complaint.

The question of whether the Court can look under Labor Code Section
1197 to the Minimum

Compensation Ordinance and the Quality Standards Program as an
applicable state or local law was not squarely presented by
SkyWest's motion and is deferred for resolution after more
comprehensive briefing by both sides on the issues raised.

For Meek's fourth claim for relief for inaccurate wage statements,
any claim for statutory penalties has been disclaimed and so is
dismissed on that basis. SkyWest's motion to dismiss is denied in
all other respects, the Court opines.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 16, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tqqn473 from
Leagle.com.

Cody Meek, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Crystal Gayle Foley -
cfoley@simmonsfirm.com - Simmons Hanly Conroy, Adam A. Edwards
-adam@gregcolemanlaw.com - Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman  - greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - Greg Coleman Law
PC, Lisa A. White -lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - Greg Coleman Law PC,
pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey - mark@gregcolemanlaw.com - Greg
Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit -
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com - SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice &
Paul J. Hanly, Jr. - phanly@simmonsfirm.com - Simmons Hanly Conry
LLC, pro hac vice.

Skywest, Inc. & Skywest Airlines, Inc, Defendants, represented by
Amanda C. Sommerfeld – asommerfeld@jonesday.com - Jones Day,
Kelsey Israel-Trummel - kelseyit@gmail.com - Jones Day, Patricia
Task Stambelos , SkyWest Airlines, Inc. & Scott Malcolm Morrison
– scottmorrison@jonesday.com - Jones Day.

Jeremy Barnes & Coryell Ross, Movants, represented by Matthew B.
George
- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.


SLEEPY'S INC: Court Denies Dismissal of Gundell Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order denying dismissal of the case captioned
Jeffrey Gundell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Sleepy's Inc., et al., Case No. 15-7365 (MAS) (DEA),
(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff commenced the putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, alleging violations of New
Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
(TCCWNA), the New Jersey Furniture Delivery Regulations (FDR), and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).  The Complaint alleges the
following claims: Count One, Violations of the TCCWNA, Count Two,
Declaratory Judgment under the UDJA and Count Three, Violations of
the FDR and the CFA.

Defendants previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint.  The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Count
Two, which alleged violations of the FDR and the CFA.  The Court
reserved on Defendant's motion as to Count One, which alleged
violations under the TCCWNA, pending a Third Circuit decision
interpreting the TCCWNA in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S.Ct. 1540 (2016).  The Court stayed the matter and ordered the
parties to file correspondence on the relevant Third Circuit
decision, upon which the Court would reopen the matter and enter an
appropriate order as to Plaintiff's claims under the TCCWNA.  

In May 2018, Plaintiff informed the Court of Spade v. Select
Comfort Corp., 181 A.3d 969 (N.J. 2018), in which the New Jersey
Supreme Court answered two certified questions of law from the
Third Circuit:

  1. Does a violation of the [FDR] alone constitute a violation of
     a clearly established right or responsibility of the seller
     under the TCCWNA and thus provides a basis for relief under
     the TCCWNA?

  2. Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply
     with the [FDR], but has not suffered any adverse consequences
    from the non-compliance, an aggrieved consumer under the
TCCWNA?

Upon receipt of Plaintiff's correspondence, the Court reopened the
matter and lifted the stay.  Thereafter, Plaintiff applied for, and
the Court granted, leave to file an amended complaint.

In March 2018, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, which
Defendants move to dismiss in its entirety.

Count Three of the Complaint alleges violations under the FDR and
the CFA.  The Court notes that it has previously denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FDR and CFA claims. Here, Defendants
offer no new evidence, no new controlling law from the New Jersey
state legislature or the New Jersey state courts, and no
illustration of manifest injustice. Plaintiff alleges violations
under the same subsections of the FDR and the same subsections of
the CFA, as he did in the Second Amended Complaint. Because none of
the traditional extraordinary circumstances exist, the Court
declines to revisit its prior decision denying Defendants' motion
to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the FDR and the CFA because it
is the law of the case.

Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' FDR and CFA claims, therefore,
is denied, the Court rules.

Count One of the Complaint alleges violations of the TCCWNA.  To
state a claim under the TCCWNA, Plaintiff must allege four
elements: (1) that the defendant was a seller; (2) that the seller
offered or entered into a written consumer contract; (3) that, at
the time the written consumer contract was signed or displayed, the
writing contained a provision that violated a clearly established
legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller; and (4)
that the plaintiff is an aggrieved consumer.  

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not articulated any violation
of the TCCWNA. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the FDR and the CFA. Because
the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged violations of
the FDR and the CFA and because any violation of state law or
regulation is a sufficient basis for a claim under the TCCWNA,
Plaintiff sufficiently pleads a TCCWNA claim.

Plaintiff alleges that, because he was not provided notice of his
right to cancel the non-conforming base, he did not do so. If
Plaintiff was, in fact, prevented from canceling the base because
of the lack of notice, he has suffered an adverse consequence. The
Court, accordingly, finds Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded he is
an aggrieved consumer under the TCCWNA.

Because Defendants did not meet their burden of showing Plaintiff
fails to state a claim under the TCCWNA, the Motion as to Count One
is denied, the Court holds.

Count Two of the Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Limitation of Liability Provision is null and void under public
policy, pursuant to the UDJA.  The UDJA is designed to settle and
afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to
rights, status and other legal relations.  To maintain a
declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff must be involved in a
justiciable controversy.

Defendants do not challenge the justiciability of Plaintiff's
claim. They only argue that the TCCWNA itself provides the remedy
that Plaintiff seeks: the limitation of liability is null and
void.

Here, Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated based on the Limitation of Liability
Provision contained in the sales receipts he received from
Defendants.  While the Court does not reach the merits of his
claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not seeking an advisory
opinion on a hypothetical issue.  The Court, therefore, denies
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's UDJA claim.

In sum, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qktr9rc  from
Leagle.com

JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF , The Wolf Law
Firm, LLC, LISA R. CONSIDINE , THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC, MARK A.
FISHER , THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC & MATTHEW SCOTT OORBEEK , THE WOLF
LAW FIRM LLC, 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101, North Brunswick,
New Jersey 08902

SLEEPY'S, LLC, MATTRESS FIRM, INC. AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
SLEEPY'S, LLC & MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Defendants, represented by N.
ARI WEISBROT - aweisbrot@foxrothschild.com - Law Office of N. Ari
Weisbrot LLC.


SMS SYSTEMS: Kelly Moves to Certify 3 Classes of Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GERALD KELLY, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. SMS SYSTEMS
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-01819-ODW-JC (C.D. Cal.),
moves the Court for an order certifying his action to proceed as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The proposed class definitions are:

   A. Technician Class:

      All persons Defendant employed in California as hourly
      field technicians, at any time during the time period
      beginning March 28, 2013 and ending when final judgment is
      entered (the "Class Period");

   B. 30-minute Monitoring Class:

      All members of the Technician Class who Defendant expected
      to act on (run) work "tickets" on the ClickMobile
      application; and

   C. 15-minute Acknowledgment Class:

      All members of the Technician Class subject to the rule
      requiring acknowledgments of repair tickets every 15
      minutes (stated in the July 18, 2016 email from John
      Marquez, Ex. 12).

Mr. Kelly alleges that during the relevant time period, Defendant
SMS had policies and practices that violated the rights of the
hourly field service technicians it employs in California (the
"Technicians," "Putative Class Members" or "PCMs") by: (1) failing
to pay them wages for all hours worked; (2) failing to provide them
with meal and rest periods according to California law; (3) failing
to pay them premium wages on workdays it failed to provide them
with meal and rest periods according to California law; (4) failing
to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and (5)
failing to timely pay them all of their earned and unpaid wages
during and after separation of employment.  These statewide acts
and omissions were in violation of both the Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001, he contends.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 22, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com


SOUTH NASSAU: Denial of Leave to Oppose to Class Cert. Bid Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC KROBATH, ETC., Respondent, v. SOUTH NASSAU
COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, ETC., Appellant, ET AL., Defendants,
2017-12641, Index No. 602113/15 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department,
affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered
Oct. 12, 2017, denying the Defendant's motion for leave to renew
its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR article 9
for class action certification.

Following the Supreme Court's granting of the Plaintiff's motion
for class action certification, the Defendant moved, inter alia,
for leave to renew its opposition to that motion.  The court denied
that branch of the hospital's motion, and the hospital appeals.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York holds that
the hospital did not provide a reasonable justification for its
failure to present the additional facts at the time the Plaintiff's
prior motion was made.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently
exercised its discretion in denying the branch of the hospital's
motion which was for leave to renew its opposition to the
Plaintiff's prior motion for class action certification.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Dec. 11, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/VqGoje from Leagle.com.

Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Roy W. Breitenbach --
rbreitenbach@garfunkelwild.com -- and Samantha N. Tomey --
stomey@garfunkelwild.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, New York, NY (Oren S. Giskan --
ogiskan@gslawny.com -- and Aliaksandra Ramanenka --
aramanenka@outtengolden.com -- of counsel), for respondent.

STOREY COUNTY, NV: Yohey Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR YOHEY, CHRIS TILLISCH, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. STOREY COUNTY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT, Case No. 3:20-cv-00037 (D. Nev., Jan. 17,
2020), asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against
the Defendant's alleged unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
rights to overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and compensation, damages,
and equitable and other relief.

Since June 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated have worked for the Defendant as firefighters, paramedics,
emergency medical technicians, rescue workers or ambulance
personnel.

The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Donaldson, Esq.
          Sue S. Matuska, Esq.
          DYER LAWRENCE, LLP
          2805 Mountain Street
          Carson City, NV 89703
          Telephone: (775) 885-1896
          Facsimile: (775) 885-8728
          E-mail: tdonaldson@dyerlawrence.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Leon Suit Transferred from S.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARDO LEON and Louie
Nevarez individually, and on behalf of a class of other similarly
situated individuals v. SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-02375, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Camden) on Jan. 19, 2020.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00657 to the proceeding.

The suit demands $5 million in damages.

Subaru of America wholesales and markets new and used cars. The
Company offers passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and other
motor vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Decker Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 915-9432
          Facsimile: (650) 618-0478

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott S. Humphreys, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 204-4400
          Facsimile: (424) 204-4350


SYSTEM ONE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Weckerly Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHELLE WECKERLY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated
v. SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00087-LPL (W.D. Pa.,
Jan. 20, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a week, but System One did not pay these workers
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek, as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint.
Instead, System One paid these workers the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek
(straight time for overtime).

The Plaintiff worked for System One as a Senior Cost Controller
from Oct. 2016 until May 2019, and has never received a guaranteed
salary.

System One is one of the largest staffing firms in the United
States serving the energy, industrial, engineering, information
technology, professional, commercial, healthcare, scientific, and
legal fields. System One has more than 8,000 employees and
consultants from more than 50 offices and hundreds of client
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: 412-766-1455
          Facsimile: 412-766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


SYSTEM ONE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Rissler Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LeAnn Rissler, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00212-MPK (W.D. Pa., Feb. 11, 2020), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act by not
properly paying the Plaintiff's overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
work more than forty hours in a workweek without additional
compensation at the rate of one and one half her regular rate of
pay for those hours worked over 40. The Defendant enacted an
illegal scheme to create the appearance of overtime wages being
paid to workers, when in fact, no additional wages were paid when
those employees worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from January 2018 to
November 2018 in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The Defendant is a nationwide staffing company that provides
services to the oil and gas and IT industries.[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

               - and -

          Sean L. Ruppert, Esq.
          RUPPERT MANES NARAHARI, LLC
          600 Grant St., Suite 4875
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 626-5626
          Facsimile: (412) 650-4845
          Email: sr@rmn-law.com


TERRITORY FOODS: Fischler Files Suit under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Territory Foods, 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. Territory Foods, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00739 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020).

Territory Foods, Inc. is engaged in the healthy meal products
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TESLA INC: Electric Vehicles Suffer From SUA Defect, Lee Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NKIE LEE; WAYNE SALLURDAY; LORI SALLURDAY; ANANDHI BHARADWAJ;
SARGON DANIEL; STEPHANIE GLEASON; LAVERNE JACKSON; and SANDY XIA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TESLA,
INC. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570 (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 20, 2020), alleges that the integrated electronic
hardware and operating software of Tesla's 2013-2020 Model S,
2016-2020 Model X, and 2018-2020 Model 3 all suffer from sudden
uncommanded acceleration defect.

The SUA Defect causes the Model X, Model S, and Model 3 to
accelerate suddenly without prompting from the driver. In other
words, these vehicles are capable of full power acceleration and
achieving high speeds even if no one presses the acceleration
pedal.

According to the complaint, the Defect has manifested many dozens
of times over the years, threatening the lives of Tesla occupants
and/or anyone within close proximity of Tesla's vehicles. In at
least one recent high-profile case, a Tesla Model 3 suddenly
accelerated, ran off a public highway, and struck an office
building, killing an office worker in the building. To add insult
to very real injury, it appears that Tesla has designed the
automobile's sensors to report after such incidents that the driver
deployed the accelerator pedal. The Plaintiffs contend that
automobile inexplicably speeds up, then, blames the driver.

The Plaintiffs argue that the SUA Defect's risks are simply
unacceptable, the computerized cover-up is even worse and, hence,
Tesla must be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs say, they do not yet know the exact
nature of the SUA Defect because Tesla vehicles are a black box by
design. They note that vicious competition among Tesla and its
Silicon Valley-based rivals causes Tesla to resist any disclosure
of its proprietary systems or software code, to the point that it
daily collects data from each individual Tesla vehicle, but refuses
to divulge any data (much less the underlying 28 software code) to
vehicle owners.

The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Tesla from further unlawful, unfair,
and/or fraudulent acts or practices, to obtain restitutionary
disgorgement of all monies and revenues Tesla has generated as a
result of such practices, and all other relief allowed under
California Business & Professions Code, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Tesla is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company
based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  sah@mccunewright.com
                  mir@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Eric B. Snyder, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: 304-345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  esnyder@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com
                  twalburg@baileyglasser.com


TEXAS: 5th Cir. Affirms Sex Offenders' Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JOHN DOES 1-7, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; STEVEN McCRAW,
Colonel, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-11620.

The Appellants, John Does One through Seven, are registered sex
offenders who appeal the dismissal for failure to state a claim of
their challenges to the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program.

The Does are men listed in the Texas sex-offender registry because
of convictions that occurred before 2017, when Chapter 62 was last
amended. The Does challenged Chapter 62 under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 on several constitutional grounds.

The district court dismissed all the Does' claims with prejudice
under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing to bring the claims against Abbott and Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  

The Does timely appealed challenging only the Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal of four of their facial challenges: that Chapter 62
violates

(1) the Due Process Clause by classifying sex offenders into three
tiers of present dangerousness with insufficient procedural due
process.

(2) the Ex Post Facto Clause by imposing additional punishment for
offenses committed before the 2017 amendments to Chapter 62.

(3) the Eighth Amendment by imposing excessive and arbitrary
punishment, and
(4) the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing additional punishment
after sentencing requirements have been completed.

Procedural Due Process Claims

The district court dismissed the Does' procedural due process
claim, citing two unpublished opinions of our court.  

The Does argue that the classification of present risk provided for
in Chapter 62 compels additional process. But they stated in their
complaint to the district court that the classifications are based
solely on the offenses of conviction and they did not argue
otherwise in district court. They have therefore waived any
argument that risk classifications are not based solely on the fact
of conviction.  

In light of this waiver, the Appellate Court considers only the
arguments before the district court on these issues and, based upon
those arguments, hold that the Does have been afforded enough due
process to be placed under Chapter 62's strictures, including
risk-level designation.  
Because the Does fail to state a plausible due process claim, the
Appellate Court affirms the district court's dismissal of that
claim.

Ex Post Facto, Eighth Amendment, and Double Jeopardy Claims

A statute can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Eighth
Amendment, or the Double Jeopardy Clause only if the statute is
punitive.  

There is no question that Chapter 62 was not intended to be
punitive. But the Does argue that its cumulative effects
retroactively imposed, qualify as punishment. The district court
concluded that although some of Chapter 62's requirements are more
burdensome than the Alaska statute in Smith v. Doe, they do not
rise to the level of harshness to constitute punishment. Abbott,
345 F. Supp. 3d at 776.

The Appellate Court agrees. Smith suggests that sex-offender
registry statutes are generally not punitive.  

Because Chapter 62 is not punitive, the Appellate Court affirms the
dismissal of the Does' ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double
jeopardy claims.

AFFIRMED.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' December 16, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/uuj3rmj from Leagle.com.

Rance Craft, Office of The Solicitor General, Po Box 12548, Mc 059,
ustin, TX, 78711-2548, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael Abrams - mabrams@kellysantini.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.

Terence Estes-Hightower, Estes-Hightower PLLC, 2001 Bryan St Ste
2110, Dallas, TX, 75201-3072, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


TOTAL CARD: Faces Madlinger FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Card, Inc. The
case is captioned as SCOTT MADLINGER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TOTAL CARD INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00659-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., Jan. 20, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Total Card provides credit card and consumer loan servicing. The
Company offers new account marketing, application processing,
customer and transaction services, security, risk, compliance, and
portfolio management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. HERSH
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


TRADER JOE'S: Mislabels Vanilla-Flavored Cereal, Sanders Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-00496
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
accurately indicate on the front label that its vanilla-flavored
cereal products contained flavor from non-vanilla sources.

Trader Joe's Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells cereal containing oat clusters, corn and multigrain flakes
and almonds purportedly flavored by vanilla under their Trader
Joe's brand (Products). The Products are available to consumers
from defendant's retail stores and are sold in boxes of 20 OZ (568
g).

The Products' front label representations include the product name
of "Vanilla Almond Clusters Cereal," a statement of identity, "A
blend of Vanilla Oat Clusters, Corn Flakes, Multigrain Flakes and
Almonds" and a bowl of the contents in milk.

The Plaintiff contends that the representations are misleading
because the Product does not contain the amount, type, strength of
vanilla with respect to other flavoring components. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the Products because it
knows consumers prefer foods that are flavored from food
ingredients instead of added flavor ingredients and that contain
enough of the characterizing food ingredients to flavor the
Products. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant's intent was to
secure economic advantage in the marketplace against competitors by
appealing to consumers who value products with sufficient amounts
of the characterizing ingredients.

The Plaintiff and class members observed and relied on the
Defendant's claims, causing them to pay more than they would have,
entitling them to damages, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in this securities class action lawsuit:

Trulieve Cannabis Corp. (TCNNF)
Class Period: 9/25/2018 - 12/17/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-tcnnf/

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

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

                            About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


UNITED STATES: Some Parts of Deportation Class Action Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Catallo, writing for WXYZ, reports that he has been the
face of the Iraqi deportation fight here in metro Detroit. Now
after a 2 1/2 year legal battle, a judge has ruled Sam Hamama can
stay with his family in West Bloomfield.

The 7 Investigators were the first to take you inside the lock-up
facility where Hamama was being held back in 2017.

"Please, please give us a chance to stay as a whole family," said
Hamama at the time.

Now he's talking exclusively with 7 Action News about his recent
victory in immigration court, where his American Dream is coming
true.

"Let me tell you, it's the best feeling in the world," said
Hamama.

For three decades, Hamama lived and worked with the constant fear
of deportation.

"On your tippy toes, you never wanted to make a mistake," said
Hamama.

That's because back in 1986, at the age of 23, Hamama did make a
mistake. He got into a road rage incident and pointed an unloaded
gun at another driver.

"I was young, foolish, and stupid," said Hamama of the crime.

He spent a year in prison, got out, and quickly turned his life
around: managing grocery stores, raising money for his Chaldean
Catholic church and helping his community.

"Sam is the American Dream. He came here when he was 11. He married
a beautiful woman, has 4 amazing charming kids, that are all going
to be positive American contributors," said immigration lawyer
Randy Samona.

But that felony conviction prevented Hamama from becoming a U.S.
citizen. His deportation order hung over his head, although it
never became a real threat until a 2017 executive order from
President Trump.

"For 30 years -- over 30 years -- the United States government has
said that Iraq is too dangerous of a place to send people. And in
2017 when it was arguably worse, suddenly the US govt was saying,
it's safe to send people back. It's absurd. It was outrageous,"
said attorney Bill Swor.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents arrested Hamama and
hundreds of others in June of 2017.

Nahrain Hamama feared deportation to Iraq would have been a death
sentence for her Christian husband. With a tattoo of a cross on his
wrist, she feared he would face torture in a country in turmoil.

"With his health condition and the way the country is in chaos,
there was nothing for him there. He would not have survived that's
for sure," said Nahrain Hamama.

In a race to beat the planes leaving for Iraq, the ACLU filed an
emergency class action lawsuit on behalf of all 1400 Iraqi
nationals trying to fight their deportation orders -- and they
named Hamama as the lead plaintiff.

A federal judge granted them a stay, giving Hamama and others time
to make their cases in immigration court.

"Giving them time for due process to happen . . . That time that
Judge [Mark] Goldsmith granted them, that has saved many, many
lives, and allowed many, many families to be together," said ACLU
Senior Staff Attorney Miriam Aukerman.

Governor Snyder later pardoned Sam Hamama. And an immigration judge
agreed that Hamama deserved a second chance to become an American
citizen.

"It was amazing," said Hamama. "I just never thought this day would
come."

"What are you most looking forward to," asked 7 Investigator
Heather Catallo.

"Voting. I think it's a right that Americans have that they don't
appreciate. For the last 32 years, since this happened I always
thought that I cheated myself by not having the opportunity to be
able to vote. It's a right that someone should appreciate. I can't
wait to vote," said Hamama.

Dozens of others have been allowed to stay, but the ACLU's fight
isn't over.

"There are many, many more who are still waiting, who were locked
up with Sam at the very beginning of this case, and still have not
had their day in court," said Aukerman.

"I would pray every day for my husband to come home, for our family
to be together again, and I pray every day for the rest of the
people. Whether they're Christians, or non-Christians, whether
they're Mexicans or Iraqis, whatever they are. I pray that all
families should be together, should stay together," said Nahrain
Hamama.

Sam Hamama has already filled out the application to start the
citizenship process.

The ACLU says dozens of other families involved in the lawsuit have
been allowed to stay in the US, but some parts of the class action
lawsuit have been overturned which means this fight could end up in
front of the Supreme Court. [GN]


W.S. BADCOCK CORP: Gardenshire Files Suit for Violation of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.S. Badcock Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lance Gardenhire, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.S. Badcock Corporation, a
Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00137-MMH-MCR
(M.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2020).

W.S. Badcock Corporation retails home furnishing products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

WAFFLE HOUSE: Wilson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merinda Wilson, Individually, and on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated current and former employees v. WAFFLE
HOUSE, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00049-GHD-RP
(N.D. Miss., Feb. 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant compensated the Plaintiff under a tip-credit
compensation plan, supposedly consisting of paying such servers
only a sub-minimum wage hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips
received by such servers during their shifts which, when added to
the sub-minimum wage pay, would amount to at least the FLSA
required hourly rate of pay of at least $7.25, according to the
complaint. However, the Defendant failed to comply and adhere to
such plan and, instead, had a common practice of failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and class members the difference between
their sub-minimum wages and $7.25 per hour, as required by the
FLSA.

In addition, the Plaintiff performed job duties in excess of 40
hours per week; however, the Defendant had a common plan and
practice of failing to compensate the Plaintiff overtime rate of
pay for all hours over 40 per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Merinda Wilson has been employed by the Defendant as a
server.

The Defendant owns and operates Waffle House restaurants in
Mississippi and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Phone: 662-429-7088
          Email: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


WINN LAW GROUP: Roecker Asserts Breach of FCDPA in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winn Law Group, APC.
The case is styled as Dylan Roecker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Winn Law Group, APC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00263-AJB-AHG (S.D., Cal., Feb. 11,
2020).

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

Winn Law Group APC is a law firm in Fullerton, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
   Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist
   501 W Broadway, Suite A144
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 992-9148
   Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com



YORK RISK: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files OT, Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against York
Risk Services Group, Inc., alleging that the company violated The
Private Attorney General Act and allegedly failed to lawfully
calculate and pay their employees the correct overtime. The class
action lawsuit against York Risk Services Group, Inc., is currently
pending in the El Dorado County Superior Court, Case No.
PC20190646.

The lawsuit filed against York Risk Services Group, Inc., alleges
the company, "(a) failed to provide PLAINTIFF and the other
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES accurate itemized wage statements, (b) failed
to properly record and provide legally required meal and rest
periods, (c) failed to pay minimum wages, (d) failed to pay
overtime wages, (e) failed to pay wages when due, and (f) failed to
reimburse employees for required expenses, all in violation of the
applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code Sections §§
201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2),
1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, and the applicable Industrial Wage
Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of
such alleged conduct."

PAGA is a mechanism by which the State of California itself can
enforce state labor laws through the employee suing under the PAGA
who do so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law
enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under
PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect
the public and not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA
is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a means of
"deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against York
Risk Services Group, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an
experienced California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct.

***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]


[*] Attorney Discusses Class Counsel Role in Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
explores the role of class counsel in class settlements.

I embark on this journey with some trepidation, because as a
defense counsel myself I have always been on the outside looking in
to the plaintiff's side of the class action settlement process.
However, I have settled enough class actions that I believe I can
speak with some authority on the issues, even if a few of the
details might get a bit blurred in the process.

As a starting point, class counsel must tackle the same tasks I
described in Part 1  -- negotiating the key terms, drafting the
agreement, and seeking court approval -- but has the lead role with
respect to the latter. Like defense counsel, class counsel need to
seek the best deal they can extract from the other side and that,
at a minimum, will pass muster when the court reviews its fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness for the class.

Unlike defense counsel, class counsel's role is complicated by the
multi-faceted interests they represent, including their own
interest in being paid. They will file not only a motion for
approval of the settlement, but also a motion for approval of their
attorneys' fees and expenses. The court will want to be satisfied
that counsel did not compromise the interests of the class by using
money that would otherwise have been available to the class to
cover their own fees. For that reason, class counsel ordinarily
will complete the negotiation of class relief before negotiating
their fees. By keeping these two aspects of the negotiation
separate, and pressing for the best deal they can accomplish for
the class before discussing their fees with defense counsel, they
can demonstrate to the court that they acted in class members' best
interests.

Before seeking court approval of the settlement, class counsel also
must get the named plaintiffs that they represent to approve it.
Although I have only represented defendants in class action
litigation, I have represented plaintiffs in other types of cases,
including a pro bono matter I handled for several years on behalf
of dozens of residents of a low income neighborhood who suffered
property damage from a common source. Ultimately, we settled that
matter on a non-class basis, working closely with a client
leadership group and communicating major developments to the rest
of our clients before arriving at final settlement terms. In the
class action context, counsel's job dealing with a single class
representative or a small group of class representatives should be
more or less the same, requiring close connections and good
relationships with the named plaintiffs through meaningful and
appropriately timed communications.

In addition to working with named plaintiffs to arrive at fair
settlement terms, class counsel may have to communicate with class
members who have questions about or objections to the proposed
settlement. Class counsel's role in communicating with such class
members is largely the same as a defendant's role when the
defendant seeks to communicate with members of a not-yet-certified
class, namely, to provide information truthfully, in a manner that
is neither misleading nor coercive. Indeed, class counsel has a
heightened responsibility to such persons because of the fiduciary
relationship that will arise from their attorney-client
relationship with class members once the class is certified.

Where more than one settlement class is proposed, class counsel
also must ensure that each class is properly represented. In some
cases, that may require designating separate class counsel for each
class or subclass, which will help avoid any questions about the
adequacy of representation for purposes of Rule 23(a)(4).  Many
class actions are brought by teams of lawyers and law firms, and
negotiations among the members of such teams regarding the
allocation of class relief and attorneys' fees can be as critical
and potentially as challenging as the negotiations between lead
counsel and the defendants.

Class counsel's ultimate responsibility is to seek approval of the
proposed settlement in order to obtain relief for the class. In my
cases, I expect class counsel to take the lead in moving both for
preliminary and final approval of the settlement, and of course
class counsel are solely responsible for getting the court to
approve their fees and expenses.  In most cases, class counsel also
bear primary responsibility for handling any appeals from the
court's final approval order, especially if the appeal challenges
the fee award.

In sum, the multi-faceted nature of class counsel's
responsibilities makes their role in the settlement process more
complex than the role of defense counsel. Class counsel who bring
experience and professionalism to bear on the various tasks are
most likely to succeed at navigating the shifting currents of the
class settlement process. [GN]


[*] Court Denies Class Certification in RESPA Case
--------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that a New York couple filed a putative class
action complaint against their servicer, alleging the company
improperly and untimely processed their mortgage assistance
applications to charge them excessive loan delinquency fees.

A federal judge previously found the couple sufficiently alleged
both actual and statutory damages, but recently rejected the
couple's motion to certify a class. [GN]




                            *********

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 ***