/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200227.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 42

                            Headlines

ACIA KL AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Beagley Suit Claims
AK STEEL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Settlement Payout Expected in 2nd Qtr.
ARAMARK: Settles Two Lawsuits Over 2018 Bonuses for $21 Million
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class

BEYOND MEAT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
BEYOND MEAT: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 30 Deadline
BLACKHAWK MINING: Stover Alleges Violation of WARN Act
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Semerdjian Sues over Failure to Provide Seats
CALIBER HOME: Faces Schick Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing

CALIFORNIA CASCADE: Faces Richards Employment Suit in Super. Ct.
CANADA: Indian Hospital Survivors Set to Get Compensation
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Court Issues Carriage Ruling in Class Action
CARLSON WAGONLIT: Settles Gunderson Suit for $150K
CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ariza et al. Say

CHERNE CONTRACTING: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Swangler Claims
CITY OF SEABROOK, TX: Faces Yancey Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
CLEARVIEW AI: NJ's App Ban May Encourage Other Gov'ts to Follow
CONAGRA BRANDS: Objector Henderson Appeals Order in Briseno Suit
CONCORDIA LUTHERAN: Underpays Nurses, Cingolani Suit Claims

CONSUMER CLUB: Sanders Call Hotel Reservation Policy "Deceptive"
CR ENGLAND: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Abram Suit Alleges
CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Winegard ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set for March 6
DELTA AIR: Lomas Sues Over Release of Jet Fuel on Populated Area

DIGNITY HEALTH: Sohal Sues over Labor Code Violations
EAGLE MASONRY: Tenemaza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
EARTH FARE: 2 Ex-Employees Sue Over Closure of 50 Grocery Stores
EAST COAST FORENSIC: Settlement Reached in Strip Search Class Suit
EILAT ASHKELON: Found Guilty of Damaging Reefs After Settlement

ELEPHANT: 5th Cir. Asks if Texas Court Can Answer Car Fee Issue
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Walker FCRA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
EXTREME CARS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Andrews Suit Alleges
FACEBOOK INC: Four Small Tech Firms File Class Action
FASTRAK: Wants to Keep Tolling Policies a Secret

FIRST INVESTORS: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
FLORIDA PANTHERS: Faces Mittenthal Suit Over Telemarketing Texts
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Notes of March 2 Deadline
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Staff, Frani and Diaz Allege
FRIENDFINDER: Has Settled Gutierrez Data Breach Lawsuit

GRAND CANYON: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
GREEN THUMB: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
H&J RESTAURANTS: Court Granted Class Certification in Jones Suit
HANNA ANDERSSON: CCPA Data Breach Class Action Litigation Begins
HCA HEALTHCARE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Facility Fees

HERON LAKE: Class Action Filed vs Association Over Attorney's Fees
HOUSTON, TX: Faces Flores et al. Suit in Harris County
ILLINOIS: Frazier Seeks to Certify Class in Suit v. DOC
INCARE METAL: Tang Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
INFOSYS LTD: Robbins Geller Appointed Class Action Lead Counsel

INFOSYS LTD: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in Class Action
INTERTEK USA: Wilson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Attorney Says Sanctions Bid "Frivolous"
IRAN: Canadian Lawyers Sue for Downed Ukrainian Plane Victims
JOHN WIELAND: Egrets Walk Condo Owners Sue over Defects

JPMORGAN CHASE: Cymbalista Sues Over Interest Due on Escrow Acct.
JUS BY JULIE: Reyes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
JUST ENERGY: Faces White Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
LANDS' END: Delta Air to Redesign Uniforms Amid Class Action
LANGSTON COMPANIES: Factory Employees Seek Proper Overtime Wages

LLR INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order for Appeal in Hill
LOGMEIN INC: Thompson Challenges Sale to Francisco and Evergreen
LUCKY'S MARKET: Former Employee Files WARN Class Action
MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin Suit Moved From California to D. New Mexico
MAJOR LEAGUE: Fantasy Baseball Player Files Class Action

MCLARENS LLC: Reyes Suit Seeks Fines for Violations of Labor Code
MDL 2311: Court Grants Revised Plan of Allocation in Antitrust Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: High-Priced Parts Warranty Problems Prompt Lawsuit
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Cajigas"
MIDLAND CREDIT: Graves Sues Over Debt Collection Letters

MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Howard Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Russell Sues in Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation
MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Court Denies Vision Power's Bid to Certify Class
MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Faces Story Employment Suit in California
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faruqi Reminds Investors of March 3 Deadline

MUSKEGON FAMILY CARE: Hamilton, Melton Sue over Abrupt Termination
MYER HOLDINGS: Cooper Grace Discuss Ruling in Patrol Pty Lawsuit
MYLAN NV: Engages in Monopoly for EpiPen, KPH Claims
NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL STAFFING: King Sues Over Unpaid Wages
NEUVOO USA: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Messages

NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: Atty. Gives Update on Mike Kelly Case
NEW ORLEANS: Lawsuit Over Bail System Pending in Supreme Court
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Over Housing Policy Settled
NEW YORK, NY: Parents File Class Action Over Lack of ABA
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Axis Asserts No Liability for ERISA Suit Coverage

NUCO2 LLC: Townhouse Restaurant Seeks to Certify Classes
O REILLY AUTO: Soto Sues Over Background Checks
OAK AT THE LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Lloyd Says
ONLINE INFORMATION: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
ONPOINT MEDICAL: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado

OPERA LTD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
OPERA LTD: Faces Class Action Over Misleading IPO Documents
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Knaak Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
PACIFIC FOODS: Mislabels Vanilla-Flavored Beverage, Papoulis Says
PENDLETON WOOLEN: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado

PETER THOMAS: Skincare Products "Deceptive," Clair et al. Say
PICOLLA VENNEZIA: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PITTSBURGH: Handcuffing of 7-Year-Old Spurs Class Action
POLARIS CLEANERS: Underpays Drivers, Arana Suit Alleges
PORTOLA PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 16 Deadline

PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Saxena White Files Class Action
PREMIER PLUMBING: Wickles Seeks to Recover Back Pay Under FLSA
QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Mar. 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RAYMOND JAMES: Nguyen Sues Over Transfer to Fee-Based Accounts
REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Thornton Labor Suit in Sacramento

RICOH USA: Removes Sarabia Suit to C.D. California
RITE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Robinson Claims
RODAN + FIELDS: Certification of Six Consumer Classes Sought
SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless People Sue Over Portable Toilet Removal
SAFE CREDIT UNION: Faces Pierce Employment Suit in California

SASOL LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
SASOL LIMITED: Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for April 6
SASOL LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of April 6 Deadline
SASOL LTD: Glancy Prongay Announces Class Action Filing
SASOL LTD: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filing

SASOL LTD: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SEPHORA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Alleges
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Escapes Most Investor Claims in Class Action
SKYLINE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Insurance Premiums, Dante et al Say
SKYLINE HEALTHCARE: Stole From Employees, Class Action Suit Claims

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Anderson FEHA Suit Moved to C.D. California
SNAP: Settles IPO Class Action for $187.5 Million
SPEEDY CASH: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Bartz Suit
STARK COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zurakov"
STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Voeks Suit

STATE FARM: Hack Sues in W.D. Kentucky Over Insurance Disputes
SUBWAY: 7th Circuit Upholds TCPA Class Action Dismissal
TESLA: Updates Warranty Coverage for Model S, X Cars Amid Lawsuit
TFORCE FINAL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Diaz Claims
UDR INC: Faces Turizo TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts

UNITED STATES: Court Hears Arguments in PACER Class Action
UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Solenberg Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
US CATHOLIC BISHOPS: Parishioner Files Class Suit Over Donations
WALTERS & WOLF: Villatoro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
WASHINGTON, DC: Class Action Over Court Oversight of DYRS Settled

WATERFALL REVENUE: Settineri Sues in Florida Over FDCPA Violation
WELLS FARGO: Settles Deferred Compensation Class Action for $79MM
WESTPAC BANKING: Bronstein Reminds Investors of March 30 Deadline
WESTPAC BANKING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 30 Deadline
WESTPAC BANKING: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 30 Deadline

WESTPAC BANKING: Kaplan Fox Investigates Business Amid Lawsuit
WESTPAC BANKING: Scott+Scott Alerts Investors of Class Action
WESTPAC CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
X FINANCIAL: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Leon Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

[*] 3rd Party Funding Extends Access to Justice Beyond Litigation
[*] Hardwick PFAS Class Action to Remain in Ohio
[*] Number of Securities Class Action Filings Set New Record
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 4

                            *********

ACIA KL AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Beagley Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY BEAGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACIA KL AUTO LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00970 (N.D. IL., Feb. 10, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

ACIA KL Auto LLC is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles
for individuals and businesses. To promote its services, ACIA KL
Auto LLC engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


AK STEEL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of AK Steel Holding Corporation
(NYSE: AKS) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of AK Steel by Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
("Cleveland-Cliffs") and Pepper Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub")
announced on Dec. 3, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
AK Steel, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Cleveland-Cliffs,
and Merger Sub, is captioned Franchi v. AK Steel Holding
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00078 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On Dec. 2, 2019, AK Steel entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cleveland-Cliffs and Merger
Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders
of AK Steel will receive 0.40 shares of Cleveland-Cliffs common
stock for each share of AK Steel common stock they own (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Cleveland-Cliff's
financial projections and the analyses performed by AK Steel's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of AK Steel common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 6, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

Contact:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel:  (888) 969-4242 (Toll Free), (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Website: https://rl-legal.com
         E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com
                 sdr@rl-legal.com
[GN]


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Silicosis Settlement Payout Expected in 2nd Qtr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David McKay, writing for miningmx, reports that the first payments
to miners who contracted the fatal lung diseases silicosis and
tuberculosis from a R5 billion class action settlement by gold
producers are expected in the second quarter of 2020, a lawyer for
the companies told Reuters.

The most far-reaching class action settlement ever reached in South
Africa followed a long legal battle by miners to win compensation
for illnesses they say they contracted over decades because of
negligence in health and safety.

The agreement was between the Occupational Lung Disease Working
Group, an organisation representing gold mining firms, such as
AngloGold Ashanti, as well as other miners such as Anglo American
and African Rainbow Minerals, and settlement classes'
representatives as well as the settlement classes' attorneys
Richard Spoor Inc, Abrahams Kiewitz Inc. and the Legal Resources
Centre.

The exact number of eligible claimants is unknown but is expected
to be less than 100,000, attorney Michael Murray told a mining
industry conference, the Mining Indaba, in Cape Town.

The class action suit was launched in 2012 on behalf of miners
suffering from silicosis, an incurable disease caused by inhaling
silica dust from gold-bearing rocks, and a settlement was agreed by
mining firms in 2018.

It causes shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest pains,
and makes people highly susceptible to tuberculosis, said Reuters.
[GN]


ARAMARK: Settles Two Lawsuits Over 2018 Bonuses for $21 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Smith, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Aramark
announced earlier this month that it will settle two lawsuits filed
by many of its managers over allegations that the company denied
their 2018 bonuses. The alleged bonus denial came after the
Philadelphia-based company "changed the rules on how the incentive
payments would be calculated without telling the" managers.

At the moment, the proposed settlement is awaiting final approval
by U.S. District Court Judge John R. Padova. After his approval,
the settlement will be finalized and payments will be made to an
estimated 4,500 manages. The managers are expected to share about
$15.5 million while the law firms involved will take home $5.25
million and an additional $50,000 to cover legal expenses.

The lawsuits were originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and accused Aramark of
violating "numerous state and common laws when it did not pay the
bonuses." Despite agreeing to the settlement, though, the company
has not admitted to wrongdoing. In a statement regarding the
proposed settlement, Aramark said, "We believe it is in the best
interest of our employees and the company to put this matter behind
us."

According to the settlement, the payments the managers will receive
amounts to the difference between their expected "fiscal 2018 bonus
and the amount of the 'special recognition award' the manager
received." In the past, those special recognition awards have
ranged anywhere between "$5,500 to $27,500 for different management
tiers." It's worth noting the money that is usually set aside for
those payments "came from money that Aramark saved as a result of
the corporate tax cuts under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act."

As part of the settlement, Aramark said that managers in what it
calls "bands 5 to 8 will receive an additional 6.5 percent of their
anticipated fiscal 2018 bonus." Additionally, "all managers subject
to the settlement, even if their onetime 'special recognition
award' was bigger than the bonus they thought they had earned, will
receive an additional $250," according to the settlement.

Forty-one managers working for the company's health-care technology
division will also receive an additional $2,000 to compensate for
canceled stock compensation after Aramark sold the division in
November 2019 for $293.7 million. It's important to note, however,
that the settlement will not cover managers who "were no longer
employed by Aramark at the end of its 2018 fiscal year, Sept. 27,
2018."

Shortly after the lawsuit was originally filed, the controversy
spurred the "abrupt retirement . . . of Aramark chief executive
Eric Foss, who decided not to pay 2018 bonuses to front-line
managers because the company did not meet a profit target set by
the board of directors." [GN]


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LORI BROWN, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00795-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "(1) all persons, (2) who Canon Business Process Services on

      behalf of Asset Acceptance sent a SCAO MC52 Form Request and

      Writ for Garnishment in a glassine window envelope, (3) from

      August 30, 2016, through August 30, 2017, (4) where the SCAO

      MC52 Form was folded by a machine, (5) and stuffed by a
      machine into a glassine window envelope";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.

Asset Acceptance is a debt buyer. Its primary business is the
purchasing of defaulted debts from lenders and subsequent
collection of those debts through normal debt collection
activities. The corporation is headquartered in Warren,
Michigan.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LEGAL
          5 E. Market St., Suite 250
          Corning, NY 14830
          Telephone: (888) 551-8685
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897-2900
          E-mail: lbtg@bthomasgolden.com

BEYOND MEAT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Beyond Meat Inc.  If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadline listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Beyond Meat Inc.  (NASDAQ:BYND)
CLASS PERIOD: 05/02/2019-01/27/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: March 30, 2020

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Beyond Meat's termination of
its supply agreement with Don Lee constituted a breach of that
agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable legal liability
and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond Meat and certain of its
employees had doctored and omitted material information from a food
safety consultants report, which the Company represented as
accurate to Don Lee; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To get additional information about the Beyond Meat Shareholder
Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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

BEYOND MEAT: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Beyond Meat, Inc.
(BYND).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/beyond-meat-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5432&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 30, 2020
Class Period: May 2, 2019 to January 27, 2020

Allegations against BYND include that: (i) Beyond Meat's
termination of its supply agreement with Don Lee constituted a
breach of that agreement, thus exposing the Company to foreseeable
legal liability and reputational harm; (ii) Beyond Meat and certain
of its employees had doctored and omitted material information from
a food safety consultant's report, which the Company represented as
accurate to Don Lee; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

Contact:

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

BLACKHAWK MINING: Stover Alleges Violation of WARN Act
------------------------------------------------------
FRANK STOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKHAWK MINING LLC; and PANTHER CREEK
MINING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00096 (S.D. W.Va., Jan.
31, 2020) seeks statutory damages, interest, costs, and fees
against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff and similarly-situated full-time affected
employees with the 60-day notice required under the WARN Act prior
to terminating and/or laying off these workers at the coal-mining
and preparation facility known as the Panther Creek Mine.

Blackhawk Mining LLC specializes in coal production. The Company
acquires and operates idled coal reserves, mines, preparation
plants, and loading facilities. Blackhawk Mining operates
throughout the State of Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean W. Cook, Esq.
          Warner Law Offices, PLLC
          227 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-4460
          Facsimile: (304) 344-4508
          E-mail: scook@wvpersonalinjury.com


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Semerdjian Sues over Failure to Provide Seats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AGAVNI SEMERDJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE'S INC.; and DOES 1
THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV04317 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 31, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to provide seats to the Plaintiff and the
class, even when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use
of seats.

The Plaintiff Semerdjian was employed by the Defendants as sales
associate.

Bloomingdale's, Inc. operates as a department store. The Company
offers products such as blazers, dress shirts, pants, shorts, tops,
shoes, handbags and briefcase, jewelry and accessories, sunglasses,
watches, and apparel for kids. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247-9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com


CALIBER HOME: Faces Schick Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., DRIVING FORCE MEDIA, and
BARRY GABSTER, Case No. 4:20-cv-00617 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' repeated, automated, unsolicited
telemarketing that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The telemarketing was conducted using automated telephone dialing
systems (ATDS), a tactic among those that inspired Congress to
enact the TCPA and that most infuriate consumers to this day, the
Plaintiff contends.

In 2017, Caliber Home Loans entered into a classwide settlement of
claims of violating the TCPA. Rather than reforming, however, it
has continued to hire illegal telemarketers to fuel its sales, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. was founded in 2009. The Company's line of
business includes extending credit to business enterprises for
short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          FOUGNER LAW
          600 California Street, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 577-5829
          Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
          E-mail: jon@fougnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq,
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC
          1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234-2727
          E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com


CALIFORNIA CASCADE: Faces Richards Employment Suit in Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Cascade
Building Materials, Inc. The case is styled as Andre Richards, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Cascade
Building Materials, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00275907-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 20,
2020).

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

California Cascade Building Materials, Inc. has been an innovative
and progressive force in the manufacture and distribution of
building products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Ave.
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com


CANADA: Indian Hospital Survivors Set to Get Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
David Carrigg, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that Gail
Peterson Gus remembers well the rough, jagged, red scar down her
mother June's back. She also recalls meeting a white woman her
mother's age at a Port Alberni pool who had also had her lung
removed at a young age.

"It was a beautiful scar, clean and sharp," Gus said in an
interview. "My mom's scar was like a bad pumpkin carving. She had
been butchered."

Gus, a Tseshaht woman who lives near Port Alberni, said June Watts
spent seven years in a residential school, where she contracted
tuberculosis, then 10 years in the Nanaimo Indian Hospital that
closed in 1966. Watts died in 1992.

As the child of an "Indian hospital" survivor, Gus may be entitled
to compensation following the Federal Court of Canada's decision in
January to certify a $1.1-billion class-action lawsuit against the
federal government for its "Indian hospital" policy.

The lawsuit was brought by three law firms -- including Klein
Lawyers in Vancouver -- on behalf of hundreds of former patients of
29 "Indian hospitals" that operated between 1945 and 1981.

That includes patients from the Nanaimo Indian Hospital (the second
largest in Canada), the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital in Sardis and
the Miller Bay Indian Hospital in Prince Rupert.

According to a statement of claim filed in Ontario in January 2018,
the hospitals were established to deal with a tuberculosis outbreak
that was hitting Aboriginal communities at a greater rate than the
rest of the population. However, they were used for Indigenous
patients with any ailment.

The rules governing these facilities were different from regular
hospitals. For example, if a patient left the facility without
being formally discharged, they would be arrested. They were also
served by foreign doctors not authorized to work in regular
hospitals.

According to a 1962 government commission, "the quality of care of
Indian and Northern Health Services hospitals is not comparable
with that provided in community hospitals in the same area."

More disturbing, though, were the claims of physical, psychological
and sexual abuse that are alleged to have occurred at the
facilities. This included beating with sticks, isolation in
hospital rooms, food and drink deprivation, physical restraint, and
"forced feeding and forcibly requiring class members to eat their
own vomit."

One former patient, Ann Cecile Hardy -- a Metis woman who lives in
Edmonton -- said she spent four months at Edmonton's notorious
Charles Camsell Indian Hospital, where forced sterilization
occurred, and during that time was sexually abused by medical
technicians and witnessed other patients being sexually abused.

As part of the court process, an affidavit was filed by Simon
Fraser University professor Mary-Ellen Kelm.

In her affidavit, Kelm wrote that Indian hospitals were chronically
understaffed and "in one case in British Columbia, children were
tied to their beds in the basement Indian ward because there were
no nurses for that ward."

"The system of Indian hospitals was subject to a number of
concerning issues that relate to segregation, inadequate standards
of care, medical, pharmaceutical and surgical experimentation with
limited opportunities for informed consent, institutional practices
that were assimilatory in intent and practice and that were known
to produce alienation and compromise Indigenous communities and
families. All these concerns were systemic because they were
designed into the system." [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Court Issues Carriage Ruling in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henein Hutchison LLP on Feb. 3 disclosed that a consortium of
Ontario-based law firms is pleased to confirm that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has awarded to them carriage of a
proposed securities class action against CannTrust Holdings Inc.
and various other defendants.

The action arises out of CannTrust's alleged failure to disclose
material information regarding, among other things, the
non-compliance of its cannabis-growing facilities with applicable
laws and regulations.

The consortium to which the Court has awarded carriage is comprised
of the law firms Henein Hutchison LLP, Kalloghlian Professional
Corporation, A. Dimitri Lascaris Law Professional Corporation and
Strosberg Sasso Sutts, LLP.

Their action is brought on behalf of: (i) all investors who
acquired CannTrust's securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange from
October 1, 2018 to September 17, 2019 and (ii) all investors who
acquired CannTrust's securities in CannTrust's May 2019 prospectus
offering.

The Defendants include certain current and former officers and
directors of CannTrust, as well as CannTrust's auditor, KPMG, and
the underwriters of CannTrust's May 2019 offering, Merrill Lynch
Canada Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities ( Canada ) Inc., RBC Dominion Securities Inc., Jefferies
Securities, Inc. and Canaccord Genuity Corp.

"We look forward to bringing this case before the courts at the
earliest opportunity so that the rights of the class members can be
addressed in a fair and timely way", said Marie Henein , one of the
lawyers representing the class.

"Cases like this show the power of class actions to bring access to
justice to individuals who place their savings at risk in the stock
markets" said Dimitri Lascaris, one of Canada's leading class
action lawyers, and part of the team representing for the class of
investors.

Members of the proposed class are encouraged to consult that
website for updates regarding the progress of the litigation at
https://canntrustclassaction.ca/ [GN]


CARLSON WAGONLIT: Settles Gunderson Suit for $150K
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MATTHEW GUNDERSON, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CARLSON WAGONLIT TRAVEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; FACEBOOK,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-05803-YGR (N.D. Cal.), was settled in October last year
with the Defendant paying $150,000 as settlement payment.

According to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California's October 28, 2019 Order, a copy of which is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qutddbs from Leagle.com:

For purposes of this Order and for this Settlement only, the Court
hereby certifies the Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This Court hereby approves
the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including
payment of the Gross Settlement Amount ($150,000.00), which
includes the amounts listed herein under Paragraphs 5-8 herein, and
all other terms set forth therein, and finds that the Settlement
Agreement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Parties and Class Members and directs the Parties to effectuate the
settlement according to its terms. The amounts listed below in
Paragraphs 5-8 are included within, and not additional to, the
Gross Settlement Amount approved by this Court.

For purposes of this Order and this Settlement only, the Court
hereby confirms the appointment of Plaintiff Matthew Gunderson as
the class representative for the Class. Further, the Court finally
approves the Service Award, as fair and reasonable, to Plaintiff
Matthew Gunderson in the amount of $2,500. The Court hereby orders
the Settlement Administrator to distribute the Service Award to the
Plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement.

For purposes of this Order and this Settlement only, the Court
hereby confirms the appointment of Marcus J. Bradley of
Bradley/Grombacher, LLP as Class Counsel. Class Counsel is awarded
$37,500.00 for their reasonable attorneys' fees. Class Counsel is
awarded reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Lawsuit in
the amount of $10,000.00.

For purposes of this Order and this Settlement only, the Court
hereby confirms the appointment of ILYM Group, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator to administer the Settlement of this
matter as more specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and further finally approves Settlement Administration Costs, as
fair and reasonable, of $3,500.00.

The Court hereby orders the Settlement Administrator to distribute
the Individual Settlement Payments to Class Members in accordance
with the provisions of the Settlement.

Matthew Gunderson, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus
Joseph Bradley - mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com - Bradley
Grombacher, LLP, Kiley Lynn Grombacher  -
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - Bradley Grombacher, LLP &
Taylor Lindsey Emerson - temerson@bradleygrombacher.com -  Bradley
Grombacher, LLP.

Carlson Wagonlit Travel Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jody Ann Landry -  jlandry@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, P.C.

CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ariza et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS ARIZA; and VICTOR BRAVO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASCABEL HOSPITALITY GROUP
LLC d/b/a CASCABEL TAQUERIA; 2799 BROADWAY GROCERY LLC d/b/a
CASCABEL TAQUERIA; 229 RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a CASCABEL
TAQUERIA; DAVID CHIONG; and ELIZABETH GAUDREAU, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01192 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2020) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Cascabel Hospitality Group LLC d/b/a Casabel Taqueria is a domestic
limited liability company organized under the laws of New York. The
Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


CHERNE CONTRACTING: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Swangler Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Swangler, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cherne Contracting Corporation, and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 4:20-cv-00611 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay compensation due and
failed to pay wages timely upon termination, in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a California resident and was primarily employed
by the Defendants in Contra Costa County as a non-exempt employee.

The Defendants were involved in the construction and development of
construction projects in California, including the Chevron Richmond
Refinery Modernization Project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3579 East Foothill Blvd., No. 338
          Pasadena, CA 91107
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


CITY OF SEABROOK, TX: Faces Yancey Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Yancey, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. City of Seabrook, Texas, Case No. 4:20-cv-00588 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act relating to unpaid
overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
in a work week. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime on a workweek
basis. Instead, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were
paid overtime only if they had worked more than 80 hours in a
two-week pay period. The hours after 80 were then considered
overtime hour.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Communications
Officer.

The Defendant is a Texas municipality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Office: 817-416-5060
          Fax: 817-416-5062
          Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


CLEARVIEW AI: NJ's App Ban May Encourage Other Gov'ts to Follow
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Karp, writing for Law360, reports that the New Jersey attorney
general's recent decision to ban law enforcement in the state from
using a controversial facial recognition technology should
encourage other governments to pump the brakes and take a harder
look at police use of such software, some lawyers say.

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal told county prosecutors
in the state on Jan. 24 to immediately stop using the facial
recognition app produced by Clearview AI, a secretive New
York-based company that claims on its website to have helped law
enforcement "catch the most dangerous criminals, solve the toughest
cold cases and make communities safer."

"We are not foreclosing the use of facial recognition technology or
of any particular facial recognition service or product in the
future," the attorney general's office told Law360 in an email.
"However, we need to have a sound understanding of the practices of
any company whose technology we use, as well as any privacy issues
associated with their technology."

That the attorney general "put a moratorium on Clearview AI's
chilling, unregulated facial recognition software" is
"unequivocally good news," the American Civil Liberties Union of
New Jersey said on Twitter after the ban.

What I took away from the New Jersey attorney general's order is
that we ought to put the brakes on government uses of facial
recognition technology until we've really had this heart-to-heart
with ourselves.

Law enforcement's use of any facial recognition technology to track
down suspects is controversial, in part, because of its tendency to
misidentify women, nonbinary people and people of color, according
to the ACLU-NJ.

But while law enforcement agencies around the country do use facial
recognition technologies produced by various companies, the ban on
Clearview is due in part to the controversial way in which the
company has assembled its massive database, leading to "serious
questions about the company's practices regarding data privacy and
cybersecurity," the New Jersey attorney general said. Unlike other
companies, Clearview claims to have compiled a database of 3
billion "publicly available" images from all over the internet, all
of which police can compare to uploaded images of suspects.

"Clearview is just the tip of the iceberg -- a window into what the
future looks like if lawmakers don't draw a line in the sand now by
banning police and government agencies from using this dangerous
software," said Evan Greer, director of the advocacy group Fight
for the Future, which is working to ban facial recognition
nationwide.

Other law enforcement agencies may or may not follow the New Jersey
attorney general's lead and ban Clearview's use, but the Garden
State ban is "a productive first step in a conversation," said Eric
Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara
University School of Law.

"What I took away from the New Jersey attorney general's order is
that we ought to put the brakes on government uses of facial
recognition technology until we've really had this heart-to-heart
with ourselves -- how much do we trust the government will use
facial recognition technology only for good purposes for the rest
of time?" Goldman said.

The answer to that question could prompt steps to control or even
ban government use of the technology, including any outsourcing to
third-party vendors, Goldman added.

Clearview AI, its attorney and Kirenaga Partners, one of its
primary investors, did not respond to requests for comment. But on
Jan. 27, the company posted a new code of conduct on its otherwise
sparse website stating that "Clearview AI's search engine is
available only for law enforcement agencies and select security
professionals to use as an investigative tool, and its results
contain only public information."

The company added that the app "has built-in safeguards to ensure
these trained professionals only use it for its intended purpose."

Most facial recognition programs currently in use allow law
enforcement to compare images of suspects to databases composed of
mug shots, driver's license photographs and other government-issued
or -owned photos and are usually confined to the state they operate
in, according to Chief Inspector Jorge Campos of the Gainesville,
Florida, Police Department, which uses Clearview.

But Clearview's database, which is national in scope, includes
photographs culled from Facebook, Twitter and other social media
sites and apps, according to the company's website, which claims to
have built that database using "proprietary methods to collect
publicly available images from various sources on the internet."

Those "proprietary methods" appear to include "scraping" images
from websites like Facebook, according to Goldman.

"One of the main questions we have about Clearview is how do they
assemble the database they claim to have," Goldman told Law360.
"It's possible but improbable that someone who scraped millions of
photos off the internet did so without breaking the law. Possible,
but improbable."

Some websites like Facebook do allow third-party developers to
collect data with permission, Goldman pointed out. "So, one
possibility is that Clearview is going through the front door as
opposed to some side or back door," he said.

The company doesn't appear to have such permission from Twitter,
though, which sent Clearview a cease-and-desist letter demanding
that it stop collecting images from the social media app.

Twitter declined to comment beyond pointing to the company's terms
of service, which state that "scraping the services without the
prior consent of Twitter is expressly prohibited."

But a Ninth Circuit ruling in September may make it more difficult
for Twitter and others to keep Clearview off their platforms,
Goldman warned. That ruling in hiQ v. LinkedIn said LinkedIn could
not keep data analytics startup hiQ from scraping publicly
available member profiles for information.

While some worry about the implications the size and scope of
Clearview's database has for privacy, that scope is its attraction
for law enforcement.

Clearview aggressively markets itself to police departments and law
enforcement agencies, claiming it has contracted with as many as
600 such agencies and that its "technology has helped law
enforcement track down hundreds of at-large criminals, including
pedophiles, terrorists and sex traffickers," according to its
website.

It's unclear how many New Jersey law enforcement agencies have used
the app, and several New Jersey county prosecutors' offices and
police departments either declined to comment or did not return
requests for comment. The New Jersey governor's office also did not
respond to a request for comment.

But the police department in Gainesville, Florida, has successfully
closed "many" cases using Clearview, Campos said. The GPD has used
the app for over 2,000 searches since inking a $10,000, one-year
contract with Clearview in September, according to Campos.

A lot of people are jumping all over this and they're coming to, I
think, knee-jerk reactions as to how nefarious it is.

"In our testing . . . Clearview AI has given us more possibilities
to investigate than the other software that we demoed has done,"
Campos said.

And Clearview isn't breaking the law by scraping the internet for
images, at least in Florida, Campos claimed, since under Florida
case law, anything a person uploads to a website or app falls in
the public domain. So, people have no right to privacy regarding
those images, he said.

Campos insisted that only 5% to 8% of the searches GPD has
conducted using the app have returned matches from social media
sources, with most of those matches coming from booking photographs
and other government-produced images.

There are also checks and balances in place, he adds. Only 13
individual GPD officers have access to the system, which logs all
searches, the devices making the inquiries, and the reasons for the
searches. Each quarter, the department audits those records and
submits the information to the state.

"A lot of people are jumping all over this and they're coming to, I
think, knee-jerk reactions as to how nefarious it is," Campos said.
But Clearview is doing "overall good . . . in making these
identifications. And it's not just suspect identifications, it's
victim identifications as well."

Others besides the New Jersey attorney general have serious qualms
about Clearview, though.

A class action filed in Illinois federal court in January accuses
the company of violating the privacy and constitutional rights of
Americans, as well as Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act,
by illegally scraping their images from the internet without their
consent.

"Anyone who is taking someone's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without that person's consent is very problematic for
the basic reason that a person can't change their biometric
identifier," said Scott Drury of Loevy & Loevy, one the attorneys
who filed the suit. "You can get a new Social Security number, you
can get a new credit card number, but this is your face."

The controversy over the use of facial recognition technology on
social media was at the fore of another case on Jan. 29, as
Facebook agreed to a record $550 million settlement to resolve a
different class action brought by Illinois users who claimed the
social media giant breached BIPA by using facial recognition
without their consent as part of its tag suggestion feature.

Drury said that while the New Jersey attorney general's ban of
Clearview likely won't have an impact on his case, it might prove
important in other ways.

"It indicates that governments are becoming aware of the problem,
the real big problem, of working with a company like Clearview to
surveil Americans," he said. [GN]


CONAGRA BRANDS: Objector Henderson Appeals Order in Briseno Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector M. Todd Henderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Robert Briseno, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 31,
2020, District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney has dismissed with
prejudice the case IN RE CONAGRA FOODS, INC. ROBERT BRISENO, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Case No. CV 11-05379-CJC (AGRx), MDL No. 2291
(C.D. Cal.).

The matter came before the Court to determine whether to finally
approve the Settlement with Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc.
(formerly Conagra Foods, Inc.) as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement dated March 12, 2019, relating to the Action.

The Court has granted final approval and confirmed that the
Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Classes pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  After careful
consideration of all papers filed in the proceeding, including
evidence from the counsel regarding attorneys' fees, $978,671 in
unreimbursed expenses, and over 20,320 hours of time and effort by
the Class Counsel benefitting the Classes and resulting in the
Settlement Agreement, the Court is fully informed and determined
that the Settlement Agreement should be and was approved in the
Order Granting Final Approval.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Briseno, et al. v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 19-56297, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellees Michele Andrade, Patty Boyer, Robert Briseno,
      ConAgra Foods, Inc., Anne Cowan, Jill Crouch, Erika Heins,
      Dee Hopper-Kercheval, Rona Johnston, Alexis Justak, Brenda
      Krein, Lil Marie-Birr, Kelly McFadden, Pauline Michael,
      Necla Musat, Julie Palmer, Janeth Ruiz, Cheri Shafstall,
      Christi Toomer, Maureen Towey, Leonora Ulitsky and Anita
      Willman's answering brief is due on March 16, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT BRISENO, et al., are represented by:

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3149
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com

               - and -

          A. J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415-981-4800
          E-mail: ajd@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 714-800-7900
          E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com
                  alevitt@dlcfirm.com

Objector-Appellant M. TODD HENDERSON is represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
          1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 703-203-3848
          E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org

Defendant-Appellee CONAGRA FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Allen Brooks Gresham, II, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-315-8291
          E-mail: bgresham@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Angela M. Spivey, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: 404-881-7000
          E-mail: angela.spivey@alston.com


CONCORDIA LUTHERAN: Underpays Nurses, Cingolani Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
KARRIE CINGOLANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORDIA LUTHERAN MINISTRIES,
d/b/a VNA ALLIANCE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033-SPB (W.D.
Pa., Feb. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as nurse.

Concordia Lutheran Ministries Foundation (CLMF) operates as a
non-profit organization. The Company offers retirement living,
hospice, short-term rehabilitation, personal and memory care,
outpatient physical therapy, visiting nurses, medical equipment and
other services. CLMF serves communities in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock Avery, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com


CONSUMER CLUB: Sanders Call Hotel Reservation Policy "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANDER; and JONNA SANDER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSUMER CLUB, INC.
d/b/a GETAROOM.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01363 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 11, 2020) action to redress Defendant's violations of various
state consumer protection statutes, and to recover for the
Defendant's fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment.

According to the Complaint, the Defendant is a third-party hotel
booking company that operates online and through the telephone. The
Defendant acts as a middleman and books hotel rooms for consumers
instead of the customer booking directly with the hotel. The
Defendant's marketing deceptively misleads consumers into believing
they are booking directly with the hotel itself. When contacted by
telephone, the Defendant's representatives identify themselves as
the "reservations department." Moreover, when asked directly by
consumers if the number they dialed is the hotel itself, the
Defendant's representatives have falsely responded in the
affirmative.

After consumers receive a "confirmation" of the room reservation,
they learn, for the first time, that they actually booked through
the Defendant, and not the hotel directly. Consumers also routinely
observe that they are charged massive, undisclosed booking fees and
charged more for their rooms than the  Defendant quoted them prior
to booking. When consumers call to cancel their reservation because
they were charged more than the agreed-upon price, they are
informed -- for the first time -- that the Defendant has a no
cancellation policy and the reservation cannot be cancelled, if the
Defendant answers at all.

The Defendant's representatives do not inform consumers of the no
cancellation policy during phone calls. Similarly, when booking
online, the Defendant requires consumers to agree to the
"cancellation policy" but nowhere on the booking portal does the
Defendant disclose the "cancellation policy" is actually a no
cancellation policy. The Defendant includes a link to terms and
conditions, but the link simply links back to the reservation
confirmation page.

Thousands of consumers have complained to the Better Business
Bureau and numerous other websites regarding the same deceptive
business tactics, yet the Defendant's unlawful practices continue
unabated.

Consumer Club, Inc., doing business as Getaroom, provides internet
based services. The Company offers online hotel booking services.
Getaroom serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-1900
         E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

         Katrina Carroll, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111
         W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 750-1265
         E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

         Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
         SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
         555 Lancaster
         Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (610) 200-0581
         E-mail: jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

         Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
         CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
         150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 782-4880
         E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com


CR ENGLAND: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Abram Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNELLE ABRAM, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; and DOES 1 18 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00764 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2020), is a
collective action for wage and hour violations arising out of the
Company's failure to pay its driver employees for all hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While in route to a delivery, the Plaintiff and Class members were
required to be continuously on duty and, therefore, worked at least
16 hours (if not 24 hours). Because the Plaintiff and Class members
were paid based on the number of miles driven, their compensation
was tied to the distance traveled.

The Plaintiff contends that she and the Class members were not paid
for on duty time when not driving, including time spent on the
road, on inspections, waiting for direction from C.R. England,
waiting for completion of pick up or delivery, refueling, and
myriad other tasks required by England. For trips requiring the
driver to be on the road for over 24 hours, this resulted in
significant uncompensated on-duty time, she asserts.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a driver based out
of California in July 2018, and continues to be employed by the
Defendant, and has been paid on a per mile basis.

C.R. England, Inc. provides transportation services. The Company
offers truck driving training, satellite tracking, communication,
fleet billing, load tracking, electronic commerce, order
consolidation, route optimization, and transport modeling
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: Jhh@hatinerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Winegard ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crain Communications
Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Crain Communications Inc., agent
of Crain's New York Business, Case No. 1:20-cv-01509 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 20, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Crain Communications Inc is an American multi-industry publishing
conglomerate based in Detroit, Michigan, with 13 non-US
subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


CSC SERVICEWORKS: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set for March 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Miller, Esq. -- jdmiller@cozen.com -- and Leni Morrison
Cummins, Esq. -- lcummins@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor, in an
article for JDSupra, report that if your condo or coop utilizes CSC
ServiceWorks, Inc. (CSC) for laundry services, your condo or coop
may be able to benefit from a class action settlement if you act
now.

A class action suit against laundry machine services provider CSC
has reached a settlement. Plaintiffs accused CSC of imposing an
unlawful administrative fee on its clients in breach of their
contracts. If you had an existing laundry lease with CSC on May 1,
2017, and were assessed or subject to an administrative fee of
approximately 9.75 percent of your gross collections from May 2018
through November 22, 2019, you may be a settlement class member.

Settlement class members are entitled to receive certain benefits
including a payment, waiver of monies due, administrative fee caps,
and/or a rate freeze. Certain benefits require you to exercise your
rights by March 6, 2020. Alternatively, you may also choose to opt
out of the settlement class and pursue your own claims regarding
the administrative fees, if you opt out by March 6, 2020. [GN]


DELTA AIR: Lomas Sues Over Release of Jet Fuel on Populated Area
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE LOMAS and ROXANDA YANCOR, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00786 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2020),
seeks to recover damages owed to the Plaintiff and others arising
out of the decision of a Delta pilot to release approximately
15,000 gallons of jet fuel over a densely populated area when a
Delta airplane needed to return to the airport shortly after
takeoff.

On the morning of January 14, 2020, Shanghai-bound Delta Flight 89
took off from Los Angeles International Airport. Shortly after
takeoff, the Boeing 777-200 jet experienced a compressor stall in
one engine, requiring it to return to LAX.

According to the complaint, the 777-200 is designed and certified
to be able to fly safely with only one functional engine, so this
development did not pose any immediate danger to the passengers of
Flight 89. However, upon experiencing this problem, the pilot had
to decide what to do. The pilot elected to return to LAX and land.

While the pilot could have avoided altogether doing so or, in the
alternative, could have done so safely in any number of ways, the
pilot instead opted to undertake a course of action that saturated
numerous properties along the flight path with petroleum derived
products, including jet fuel, the Plaintiffs contends.

As a result of Delta's employees' conduct, the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated property owners, tenants, and occupants have
incurred damages from expenses that will be incurred in cleaning up
the mess that Delta made, including removing the jet fuel from the
affected surfaces, replacing those items that the fuel cannot be
removed from, and repairing those items susceptible to damage by
jet fuel, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are couple, who own a house in Los Angeles County,
California.

Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Filippo Marchino, Esq.
          Damon Rogers, Esq.
          Thomas E. Gray, Esq.
          THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C.
          625 Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 390
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (213) 599-3380
          Facsimile: (213) 599-3370
          E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com
                  DR@XLAWX.com
                  TG@XLAWX.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Sohal Sues over Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
NARINDER SOHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY HEALTH and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-582965 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., February 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code in California, including failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, and failure to
provide accurate written wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee from approximately July 20, 2015 through March 21,
2019.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Alex McIntosh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212          
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  alex@setarehlaw.com

EAGLE MASONRY: Tenemaza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO FRANCISCO TENEMAZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EAGLE MASONRY CORP., and VITO GARGANO,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00452-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), seeks to
recover damages for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed from April 2013 to Feb. 2018 by the
Defendants as a brick layer. The Plaintiff alleges he worked 66
hours or more per week during his employment but Defendants the
failed to pay appropriate wages.

The Defendants are doing business in the masonry contractors
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-263-9591


EARTH FARE: 2 Ex-Employees Sue Over Closure of 50 Grocery Stores
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Kracher, writing for News 13 WLOS, reports that thousands of
grocery store workers got bad news this week when Earth Fare
announced it would close all 50 stores, killing off jobs across the
U.S. and many here in the mountains.

But suddenly, there is some resistance.

Two employees are going to bat for more than 3,000 others.

A class-action lawsuit filed Friday, February 7, claims Earth Fare
broke a federal law intended to protect workers when large-scale
employers go out of business.

The lawsuit was filed by two women -- one from Johnson City,
Tennessee, and the other from St. Johns, Florida. Their lawsuit is
attached to Earth Fare's bankruptcy filing in hopes of getting some
financial relief before the creditors do.

"It takes a lot to step up to, you know, all the adversity that's
going on," Jeff Swart said while taking a break outside the
Asheville store, the store where he won't be working much longer.

He's heard about the legal action brought by a couple fellow
employees he does not even know.

"Two in 3,500. I wouldn't be able to do it, I wouldn't have the
backbone, I wouldn't know where to start," Swart said.

But Kelsi Cornett and Amy Hile did, finding lawyers to claim
violation of the WARN Act that requires employers with at least 100
workers to give written notice at least 60 days in advance of
layoffs.

The lawsuit seeks two months worth of unpaid wages, back holiday
and vacation time and 401(k) contributions, just to name a few.

Earth Fare already owes millions of dollars to banks and unpaid
vendors.

Experts said what happened to this Asheville original is not a
surprise, it's just simply the way our economy works.

"As the hunch players will tell you, the pioneers take all the
arrows, but the settlers make all the money," Western Carolina
University economics professor Edward Lopez said.

What he means is Earth Fare got in early and found a niche in
organic foods. But, others eventually followed the leader and the
marketplace finally caught up.

"I've think what we've seen over the past 25 years is new ideas
have come into play, new national chains have come into our area
and the competition has gotten tougher," Lopez said.

And while Earth Fare is now a coast-to-coast chain going under,
Lopez believes the closure still hits hardest close to home.

"It's definitely a big hit to Asheville and our economy, and losing
that headquarters, losing that unique part of our signature as an
economy, it's not going to get replaced anytime soon," he said.

Four days ago, Earth Fare announced it was filing for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, stating all employees were notified under the same WARN
Act cited in the lawsuit against the company.

Effort to get a comment from Earth Fare officials were
unsuccessful. [GN]



EAST COAST FORENSIC: Settlement Reached in Strip Search Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the class-action suit launched after a
hospital-wide strip search of patients at the East Coast Forensic
Hospital in Dartmouth, N.S., in 2012 has reached a proposed
settlement.

The 33 forensic psychiatry patients who were strip-searched on Oct.
16, 2012, will be entitled to $5,000 each, according to law firm
behind the lawsuit. It was filed in 2013 against Capital Health,
which is now part of the Nova Scotia Health Authority.

The class-action suit was certified in 2015 after Justice Denise
Boudreau said administrators in facilities such as the forensic
hospital need to be able to control their operations, but that
strip searches are highly intrusive.

The searches were initiated, according to Boudreau's decision,
following a sequence of events that led to increased concerns that
illegal substances were being brought into the hospital.

According to a press release from Valent Legal, the firm
representing the class members, "it is alleged that the decision to
strip search all patients was done without reasonable grounds and
thereby in breach of their Charter rights."

The settlement must be approved by a Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
judge before the class members receive their payment.

A hearing is scheduled for March 23 in Halifax. [GN]


EILAT ASHKELON: Found Guilty of Damaging Reefs After Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Surkes, writing for Times of Israel, reports that the
state-owned Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company and others were
convicted on Jan. 30 of harming protected nature in the Red Sea
after damaging more than 2,600 corals off the southern coastal town
of Eilat.

The Israel Nature and Parks Authority provided reports and
photographs to prove the damage, citing 665 corals that were aged
around 50 and whose rehabilitation would take many years. It also
documented harm to many creatures whose lives depend on corals,
including fish and invertebrates.

EAPC's Eilat director Ze'ev Zel, a company called South Marina
Divers Ltd and its director Eyal Bar Zion were also found
culpable.

The EAPC works out of the northern pier of the Eilat Oil Port. In
January 2014, it contracted South Marina Divers to carry out works,
which included dismantling construction piles -- long cylinders
that provide support for structures built on top of them. During
the works -- for which permission should have been sought from the
Nature and Parks Authority but was not — several piles toppled
into the sea.

According to the charge sheet submitted to the Eilat Magistrate's
Court, the work, including the removal of the piles, caused
"serious damage" to life forms that were growing on them as well as
to reefs growing at their feet.

Judge Tomer Orinov rejected claims by the pipeline company and
South Marina Divers that the damage was modest and that INPA
permission was not required, instead accepting the testimony of the
INPA's Eilat District Ecologist Dr Assaf Zvuloni.

In November, the EAPC was ordered to pay NIS100 million (US$28
million) in damages over a 2014 oil spill in southern Israel,
considered to be the worst ecological disaster in the country's
history, according to the terms of a settlement reached in a class
action suit. [GN]


ELEPHANT: 5th Cir. Asks if Texas Court Can Answer Car Fee Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Fifth Circuit judge on Feb. 5 questioned why
the court shouldn't just ask the Texas Supreme Court to answer
whether, under state law, an insurer should have to pay its
policyholders sales taxes or title transfer fees for totaled cars.
The question came from U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Ho during oral
arguments in a dispute which proposed class action plaintiff
Jessica Singleton is trying to revive claims that Elephant
Insurance Co. breached its contract. [GN]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Walker FCRA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cynthia Walker,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Mississippi Power &
Light, Case No. 3:20-cv-00096-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., Feb. 20, 2020).

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
credit information to financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 928-1423
          Fax: (866) 317-2674
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


EXTREME CARS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Andrews Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTREME CARS & TRUCKS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00274 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11,
2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Extreme Cars & Trucks, Inc. is engaged in the used car dealership
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Four Small Tech Firms File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Papantonio, writing for Trofire, reports that Facebook has
been hit with a class action lawsuit by four small tech firms with
an aim of forcing Mark Zuckerberg to divest his controlling
interest in Facebook. According to the lawsuit, Facebook's
violating antitrust laws by gobbling up smaller tech companies and
then incorporating them under the umbrella of Facebook. And with
Zuckerberg controlling a majority of the company, he personally is
in violation of these laws. The lawsuit claims that Facebook uses
their leverage to either force smaller companies out of business
entirely or use their enormous wealth to buy them out, and both of
these claims are hard to dispute.

Facebook currently has a stranglehold on social media industry and
their grip is only becoming stronger. As the company continues to
expand their power, it grows and grows out of control. If antitrust
laws are not enforced, then companies like Facebook and Amazon and,
and a handful of others are going to control nearly every aspect of
the internet, and our personal lives. That's where this really
lands, the control they have over our personal lives. This lawsuit
should be the first of many to challenge their power and hopefully
their reign over social media. [GN]


FASTRAK: Wants to Keep Tolling Policies a Secret
------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for ABC 7 News, reports
that FasTrak and the Golden Gate Bridge District made a new attempt
this week to shut the public out of the courtroom during parts of a
class action trial against them. Also, the company that runs
FasTrak claims the class action lawyers have been lying to the
court and fabricating evidence for years.

This class action is growing more contentious as the testimony is
about to begin. You may recall the lawsuit claims thousands of
motorists were unfairly charged for toll evasion and penalties on
the Golden Gate Bridge. Transit agencies asked a judge to ban the
public and media from entering the courtroom during much of the
trial. They say their toll collection policies should be kept a
secret from all of us, or we might use it to cheat the system and
avoid paying tolls. Now, a new attempt to throw out the whole
case.

This all began when the Golden Gate Bridge switched to
all-electronic tolling back in 2013. The following year, a quarter
million drivers received toll evasion penalties -- five times the
previous rate.

Drivers without FasTrak were supposed to receive toll invoices in
the mail. However, class action attorneys claim thousands never
received their invoices, mostly due to address mistakes.

"I didn't get sent one notice. Ever," said motorist and class
action plaintiff Michael Saliani.

The lawsuit claims FasTrak didn't try to find the motorists, but
simply piled on penalties.

"The policy was that if the mail went out and came back as
undeliverable as addressed, they shredded the mail and imposed a
penalty." said class action attorney Adam Guttride, Esq.

Now FasTrak and the Golden Gate Bridge District say they've
improved their policies for handling tolls and disputes. However,
they want to keep those policies a secret, saying motorists might
use the information to quote "game the system" and "avoid paying
tolls and violation penalties."

To that end, the transit agencies asked a judge to ban the public
from the courtroom when confidential policies are discussed. 7 On
Your Side objected, saying public policies are supposed to be open
to the public -- not kept secret.

On Wednesday, February 5, transit agencies tried again to ban
spectators during some of the trial. The judge so far is keeping
the courtroom open, but suggested attorneys could avoid bringing up
that secret information.

Also, in a stunning move, transit lawyers filed papers accusing the
class action attorneys of misconduct and fraud. They say their
lawsuit was "a money grab" from the start, based on "falsehoods",
"fraud" and altered documents.

Gutride told the judge the allegations are baseless, intended to
stop him from preparing for trial.

So what is it that FasTrak is trying to hide from all of us? 7 On
Your Side is continuing to object to the secrecy of FasTrak
policies. Let us know what you think. [GN]

FIRST INVESTORS: Thompson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. First Investors Servicing Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00364-AT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 27, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In order to contact borrowers, FISC operates an aggressive contact
schedule which bombards borrowers with automated text messages,
even after the recipients ask FISC to "Stop" sending the messages.
The Plaintiff is one such borrower. After receiving a number of
automated messages from FISC, the Plaintiff repeatedly messaged
FISC to "Stop" sending the messages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that each time she messaged FISC to "Stop"
sending her messages, FISC told her, she "will no longer receive
text messages from First Investors," but FISC would nonetheless
proceed to send her identical subsequent automated text messages.
She adds that the telephone system FISC used to send the messages
constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system."

The Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and all others similarly
situated for FISC's unlawful behavior.

FISC is an automobile financing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


FLORIDA PANTHERS: Faces Mittenthal Suit Over Telemarketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MITTENTHAL, an individual suing on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FLORIDA PANTHERS HOCKEY CLUB, LTD., a
Florida limited partnership; PHGP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; JAKE SCHREIBER, an individual; DAVID BRUNSON, an
individual, Case No. 0:20-cv-60184-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' illegal actions in transmitting
advertising and telemarketing text messages to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and numerous others using an automatic
telephone dialing system and without anyone's prior express written
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, professional sports team owners
critically depend on fan engagement to build team and brand
loyalty, expand fan bases, fill stadium seats, maintain ratings,
and sell apparel. Eager to stay on their fans' minds, team owners
increasingly skirt their obligations under the TCPA and deploy
intrusive telephone marketing strategies to maintain the fan
engagement upon which they rely. The Panthers are one such team,
says the complaint.

The Florida Panthers are a professional ice hockey team based in
the Miami metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
          David P. Milian, Esq.
          Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
          Juan J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
                  jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com
                  cperez@careyrodriguez.com


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Notes of March 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
March 2, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Forescout
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) securities between February 7,
2019 and October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On October 10, 2019, before the market opened, Forescout reduced
third quarter 2019 revenue guidance to $90.6 million to $91.6
million, compared to prior guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8
million, due to "extended approval cycles which pushed several
deals out of the third quarter," which "was most pronounced in
EMEA."

On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
more than 37%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Forescout was experiencing significant
volatility with respect to large deals and issues related to the
timing and execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially
in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; (2) that the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results; and (3) that as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased Forescout securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 2, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit its website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

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


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Staff, Frani and Diaz Allege
---------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN FRANI and JANSEN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
HOLDINGS, INC.; FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA; FRESENIUS
USA, INC.; BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES
1-500, Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-582947 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., February 14, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business
and Professions Code in California, including failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide accurate and
itemized wage statements, and failure to provide uninterrupted meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee from the date four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint through the date of trial in this action.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. is a holding company that
provides kidney and renal care services through its subsidiaries.
The company is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Fresenius Medical Care North America is a manufacturer and
distributor of products and solutions for renal failure and chronic
kidney disease. It is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Fresenius USA, Inc. is a subsidiary company of Fresenius Medical
Care North America, which is headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.

Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc. is a kidney or renal
dialysis services provider that is located in Fullerton,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilya Filmus, Esq.
          INFINITY LAW GROUP LLP
          3450 Geary Blvd., Suite 210
          San Francisco, CA 94118
          Telephone: (415) 426-3580
          Facsimile: (415) 426-3581
          E-mail: ifilmus@infinitylawca.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Ashar Ahmed, Esq.
          INFINITY LAW GROUP LLP
          111 Deerwood Road, Suite 200
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: (415) 426-3580
          Facsimile: (415) 426-3581
          E-mail: aahmed@infinitylawca.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Chantal McCoy Payton, Esq.
          PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
          3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206
          Acton, CA 93510
          Telephone: (661) 434-1144
          Facsimile: (661) 434-1144
          E-mail: CPayton@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com

FRIENDFINDER: Has Settled Gutierrez Data Breach Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
FriendFinder Networks Inc. (FFN) announced that class litigation
over an alleged data breach filed against it in August 2018 by
Alejandro Gutierrez (case 5:18-cv-05918-BLF in the Northern
District of California) and subsequently compelled to arbitration
by FFN has been settled and terminated both in the federal court
and arbitration.

FFN denied any liability and paid no consideration whatsoever to
Mr. Gutierrez, his attorneys, and/or his purported class members.

                   About FriendFinder Networks

FriendFinder Networks Inc. is a leading internet-based social
networking and multimedia entertainment company operating several
of the most heavily visited social networking websites in the
world. The company has also won virtually every major award from
dating industry insiders and review site critics. Some of its most
notable websites include Cams.com, AdultFriendFinder.com,
FriendFinder.com, AsiaFriendFinder.com and ALT.com. For more
information please visit www.ffn.com. [GN]


GRAND CANYON: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of Grand Canyon Education, Inc., ("Grand Canyon" or
the "Company") (LOPE) from allegations that Grand Canyon might have
issued misleading information to the investing public.

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

On January 28, 2020, the investment analyst research firm Citron
Research published a report on Grand Canyon. The report referred to
Grand Canyon as "the educational Enron." The Citron Research report
claimed that Grand Canyon was improperly using a "captive,
non-reporting subsidiary to hide its liabilities," thereby
"artificially inflat[ing] the [Company's] stock price."

On this news, Grand Canyon's stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on January 28, 2020.

If you purchased Grand Canyon securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/grandcanyoneducationinc-lope-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-242/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information

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


GREEN THUMB: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Green Thumb Industries is the latest cannabis
company to face allegations that its website is not accessible to
customers with visual impairments, as the plaintiff behind a spate
of similar suits has once again brought class action claims. [GN]


H&J RESTAURANTS: Court Granted Class Certification in Jones Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEVAN JONES and all others similarly situated v. H&J
RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a TOKYO HIBACHI, Case No. 5:19-cv-00105-TBR
(W.D. Ky), the Hon. Judge Thomas B. Russell entered an order on
Feb. 13, 2020:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective action consisting of:

      "all current and former servers employed by Defendant at its

      Tokyo Hibachi restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky at any time
      since July 22, 2016";

   2. approving FLSA Notice and Consent Form and authorizing for
      distribution via U.S. Mail and email to all individuals who
      fall within the group of similarly situated employees
      defined above;

   3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff's counsel with a
      notice list in Excel format containing the names, last
      known mailing addresses, and email addresses of employees
      who fall within the group defined above;

   4. directing Plaintiff's counsel, or a third-party designated
      by Plaintiff's counsel to distribute, via U.S. Mail and
      email, the Court-authorized Notice. Each Notice shall be
      accompanied by the Consent Form and, when sent by mail, a
      pre-addressed, prepaid return envelope. No other material
      shall accompany the Notice.;

   5. directing Plaintiff's counsel to use their best efforts to
      mail all Notices on the same day so as to establish a single

      date of mailing. Plaintiff's counsel shall bear all costs
      associated with distributing the Notice and accompanying
      material in this manner, but shall be entitled to petition
      the Court for a recovery of such costs.; and

   6. directing counsel for Plaintiff to file with the Court a
      certification that the Notice has been sent consistent with
      this Order identifying the date of mailing no later than
      seven days after the Notice has been sent out via U.S. Mail
      and email.

The Court held that Plaintiff has met her burden and made the
modest factual showing required for conditional certification of a
collective action.[CC]

HANNA ANDERSSON: CCPA Data Breach Class Action Litigation Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Lazzarotti and Jason C. Gavejian, writing for The
National Law Review, reports that as reported by Bloomberg Law,
data breach class action litigation has begun under the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).  Filed in the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, a putative class action lawsuit
against Hanna Andersson, LLC and its ecommerce platform provider,
Salesforce.com, alleges negligence and a failure to maintain
reasonable safeguards, among other things, leading to a data
breach. The complaint specifically seeks recovery under the CCPA
– Cal. Civ. Code Sec.  1798.100, et seq.

The complaint alleges a familiar story – in the latter part of
2019, hackers compromised the retailer's website with malware
enabling the hackers to scrape names, billing and shipping
addresses, payment card numbers, CVV codes, and credit card
expiration dates of thousands of the retailer's customers. Hanna
Andersson notified affected persons of the breach on January 15,
2020, and the complaint was filed on February 3, 2020.

Whether the complaint alleges sufficient harm for the case to
proceed will be for the court to determine, but under the CCPA that
may not be necessary.  The new California law authorizes a private
cause of action against covered businesses if a failure to
implement reasonable safeguards to protect personal information
results in a data breach. Cal. Civ. Code Sec.  1798.150. If
successful, a plaintiff can recover statutory damages in an amount
not less than $100 and not greater than $750 per consumer per
incident or actual damages, whichever is greater, as well as
injunctive or declaratory relief and any other relief the court
deems proper.

To bring an action for statutory damages under the CCPA, consumers
must first notify the business of the alleged violation. The
business then has thirty days to cure the violation and provide the
consumer with "an express written statement that the violations
have been cured and that no further violations shall occur." It
does not appear an opportunity to cure was provided in this case.
Also, the breach reportedly occurred in 2019, before the CCPA
became effective (January 1, 2020).

Regardless of the outcome of this case, certainly one we will be
watching, it should serve as an important reminder for businesses
to ensure they have reasonable safeguards in place to protect
personal information. Under California law,

A business that owns, licenses, or maintains personal information
about a California resident shall implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the
information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized
access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.

Cal. Civ. Code Sec.  1798.81.5(b).

But, the meaning of "reasonable safeguards" is not entirely clear
in California.  One place to look is in the California Data Breach
Report (Report) former California Attorney General, Kamala D.
Harris, issued in February, 2016. According to the Report, an
organization's failure to implement all of the 20 controls set
forth in the Center for Internet Security's Critical Security
Controls constitutes a lack of reasonable security.

It is not clear that adherence to those controls will provide a
sufficient basis to defend a business from an action under the CCPA
relating to a data breach. But, those controls might be a good
place to start. It also is important to understand how those
safeguards should be applied.

First, the CCPA's private right of action for data breaches applies
with respect to personal information of consumers and employees,
applicants, officers, etc. Personal information of consumers and
employees often resides on different systems, subject to access by
different users, and collected, processed, and stored by different
third party service providers. Thus, it is important to think
broadly when safeguarding personal information that could trigger a
class action under this section.

Second, "personal information" for purposes of the "reasonable
safeguards" requirement is much narrower than the general
definition of personal information for CCPA purposes. Specifically,
the private right of action under Cal. Civ. Code Sec.  1798.150
extend only to personal information, "as defined in subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 1798.81.5." This
means:

(A)  An individual's first name or first initial and the
individual's last name in combination with any one or more of the
following data elements, when either the name or the data elements
are not encrypted or redacted:

(i) Social security number.

(ii) Driver's license number, California identification card
number, tax identification number, passport number, military
identification number, or other unique identification number issued
on a government document commonly used to verify the identity of a
specific individual.

(iii) Account number or credit or debit card number, in combination
with any required security code, access code, or password that
would permit access to an individual's financial account.

(iv) Medical information.

(v) Health insurance information.

(vi) Unique biometric data generated from measurements or technical
analysis of human body characteristics, such as a fingerprint,
retina, or iris image, used to authenticate a specific individual.
Unique biometric data does not include a physical or digital
photograph, unless used or stored for facial recognition purposes.

A similar cause of action exists under an Illinois privacy law that
you might have heard about, the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act or "BIPA." That provision has resulted in a flood of
litigation, including putative class actions, seeking to recover
statutory damages for plaintiffs who allege their biometric
information has been collected and/or disclosed in violation of the
statute. As data breaches continue to plague businesses across the
country, including those subject to the CCPA, ensuring reasonable
safeguards are in place may be the best defense. [GN]


HCA HEALTHCARE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Facility Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Meyer, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a Florida
federal judge on Feb. 3 dismissed a proposed class action against
three HCA Healthcare hospitals alleging they improperly billed
patients undisclosed surcharges for emergency department care.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman ruled that two of the three
individual plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the
lawsuit, saying the hospitals had not pursued collection action
against them and therefore they suffered no harm.

Judge Altman tossed the third plaintiff's claim as well,
determining his allegation that the emergency department facility
fees were not disclosed was false. The judge cited the hospital's
online publication of its chargemaster prices.

But the case could still go on. The third plaintiff can file an
amended complaint by Feb. 17, 2020. The hospital failed to convince
Judge Altman that the individual could never state a plausible
claim that disclosure of the facility fee via publication of
chargemaster prices is not an unfair trade practice under Florida
law.

The lawsuit, filed last May, was based on the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Florida law protects consumers from surprise, out-of-network bills,
but ED facility fees that may surprise patients aren't subject to
that statute.

"A lot of things can surprise (consumers), such as not
understanding their deductible," said Jack Hoadley, a research
professor emeritus at Georgetown University's Health Policy
Institute.

Miami attorney Walter Tache, who represented the three HCA hospital
defendants -- Poinciana Medical Center, Palms West Medical Center
and Fort Walton Beach Medical Center -- was satisfied with the
ruling. He noted that a federal court in Orlando previously
dismissed similar claims by these plaintiffs.

"We appreciate the work of both courts and continue to believe we
have appropriately disclosed our charges and complied with the
law," Tache said.

Neither HCA nor the plaintiffs' attorneys responded to requests for
comment by deadline.

Plaintiff Timothy Shaw received treatment at the ED at Palms West
Hospital in January 2019, and alleged he was billed an undisclosed
surcharge of $1,642 on a bill totaling $5,437.

Nathan Haviland received treatment at the ED at Poinciana Medical
Center in October 2016. He alleged he was billed an undisclosed
surcharge of $3,935 on a total bill of $23,865.

Keith O'Leary's minor dependent received treatment at the ED of
Fort Walton Beach Medical Center in December 2017. He alleged he
was billed a facility fee of $1,567 on a total bill of $3,669.

The complaint argued that knowledge of the undisclosed surcharge or
cover charge would be a substantial factor in patients deciding
whether to visit a hospital and proceed with treatment there.

HCA and its hospitals argued that the emergency department charges
were standard facility fees charged by hospitals and recognized by
the CMS, and that they were disclosed through publication of the
hospitals' chargemaster prices.

While ED facility fees are common practice, simply publishing them
via the chargemaster prices is not adequate disclosure to patients,
Georgetown's Hoadley said.

"That's not going to help them understand what it's going to cost,
because the chargemaster is too complicated and in emergency cases,
you're not in a position to shop for a hospital anyway," he said.
[GN]


HERON LAKE: Class Action Filed vs Association Over Attorney's Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Kenney, writing for RTV6 News, reports that an Indianapolis
woman has filed a class action lawsuit against a condominium
owners' association, alleging they erroneously charged her more
than a thousand dollars in attorney's fees.

Nicole Ashburn filed the lawsuit Jan. 28 in Marion Superior Court
against Heron Lake Condominium Owners' Association.

"I was charged for things I should not have been charged for,"
Ashburn said.

Ashburn said she took over ownership of the condo in 2017 and paid
what she thought was the correct amount for her dues.

In March 2018, the association's law firm sent a collection letter
to Ashburn.

The letter demanded Ashburn pay past due assessments/dues as well
as $125 in attorney's fees.

After Ashburn received the email, she contacted the association's
law firm Thrasher Buschmann & Voelkel and attempted to resolve the
debt, but the insisted Ashburn owed attorney's fees.

In November 2018, Ashburn attended a meeting with the firm to try
to resolve the debt and thought the issue had been resolved.

"At that point, I really thought everything was settled," Ashburn
said.

On Sept. 11, 2019, the Heron Lake Condominium Owners' Association
filed a lawsuit against Ashburn seeking to foreclosure on the
property for failure to pay $1,893.87 owed to the association.

"I was upset, and I didn't know what to do," Ashburn said.

The homeowner transaction history showed Ashburn's account was
charged the following amounts for legal fees:

          $125- July 1, 2018
          $892- September 1, 2018
          $195- November 1, 2018
          $195- January 1, 2019
           $60- January 1, 2019
       ----------
TOTAL  $1,467.00

The lawsuit accuses the association of racking up legal fees for
Ashburn before they filed the lawsuit in September 2019.

The association's Declarations and Bylaws only allow the
association to collect attorney's fees after legal action is taken
against a member.

"The Declarations and Bylaws do not provide for the collection of
attorney's fees and costs relating to pre-litigation legal work,"
the lawsuit read.

Kovacs estimates the amount of actual dues owed by Ashburn at
around $200.

"To file a foreclosure - that is an overreaction," Kovacs said.

Ashburn lawsuit is intended to be a class action because it aims to
include all members of the Heron Lake Condominium Owners'
Association who were subjected to erroneous attorney's fees from
January 2010 to present, court documents show.

"We believe there are dozens over the years that have been harmed
in the same fashion," Ashburn's attorney Pete Kovacs said. "They
were charging her attorney's fees for simply trying to work it
out."

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, fraud and deception against
the condo association.

Kovacs said homeowners deserve refunds, plus, he's asking a court
to stop the association from erroneously charging condo owners.

Ashburn still has a lien on her property and could lose her home.

"This means they can sell your house," Kovacs said. "It's a trend.
Associations are much more likely to go the foreclosure route than
they have in the past."

RTV6 reached out to Heron Lake Condominium Owners' Association for
comment.

They directed us to their attorney, Steven Earnhart, Esq. of law
firm Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel.

Earnhart declined to comment on Ashburn's lawsuit, but he said in
general, homeowners typically get at least four letters in the mail
before any legal action is taken against them.

"The last thing a neighbor wants to do is sue another neighbor,"
Earnhart said. "We really work hard to make arrangements with
folks."

Records show most lawsuits involving homeowners associations are
filed by a handful of law firms including Thrasher Buschmann &
Voelkel.

The Indianapolis law firm represents about 500 HOAs and nearly
15,000 homes in central Indiana.

Ashburn said she did not receive any notices of late due prior to
the March 2018 collection letter.

"If it happened to me, it's happened to somebody else," said
Ashburn.

A court date has not yet been set in Nicole Ashburn's lawsuit
against Heron Lake Condominium Owner's Association. [GN]


HOUSTON, TX: Faces Flores et al. Suit in Harris County
------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against the City of Houston. The
case is captioned as MARGARITA FLORES; MAGGIE RIVERA; FABIAN
FLORES; RIGOBERTO MIRANDA JR; and INGRID MIRANDA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF
HOUSTON, Defendant, Case No. 202006315-7 (Tex. Dist.,  Harris Cty.,
Jan. 29, 2020).

The Plaintiffs are represented by Muhammad Suleiman Aziz, Esq.


ILLINOIS: Frazier Seeks to Certify Class in Suit v. DOC
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBIN FRAZIER, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROB
JEFREYS, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, Case No. 1:18-cv-01991 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification on behalf of:

      "all individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department
      of Corrections who are restricted from having contact with
      and/or living with their children while on MSR because they
      have been convicted of a sex offense"; and

   2. appointing their attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the
Illinois Department of Corrections' policies concerning contact
between minor children and parents who are on Mandatory Supervised
Release for sex offenses.

The Plaintiffs claim that the challenged policies unreasonably
interfere with constitutionally protected parent-child
relationships in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.

IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government that
operates the adult state prison system.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 847-361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          Law Office of Mark G. Weinberg
          3612 N. Tripp Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: 773-283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net

INCARE METAL: Tang Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xi Tang and Zhong Ping Li, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Incare Metal Holdings, Corp., Tian
Xin Situ, and Carol "Doe," Case No. 1:20-cv-00935 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
20, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages,
declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to unpaid wages from
the Defendants for work performed for which they received no
compensation at all or less compensation than required by minimum
wage law, and to unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay a salary
greater than the minimum wage to the Plaintiffs for all hours
worked. The Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay
overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs for hours they worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek. As a result of the Defendants'
willful failure to compensate the Plaintiffs at a rate at least
one-and-one half times the regular rate of pay for work performed
in excess of forty hours per workweek, the Defendants have violated
the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed primarily as a mover/helper.

Defendant Incare Metal is a metal recycling business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Phone: (212) 349-6099
          Fax: (212) 349-6599


INFOSYS LTD: Robbins Geller Appointed Class Action Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller"), representing
the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, was appointed lead counsel for
plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of
Infosys Ltd. ("Infosys") (NYSE:INFY) securities between July 7,
2018 and October 20, 2019 (the "Class Period") for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that, during the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Infosys's
business and financial results.

Lead Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint on March 27,
2020. If you have relevant information you wish to discuss, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Steven J. Peitler of Robbins Geller at 631/367-7100
or via e-mail at SPeitler@rgrdlaw.com.

With over 200 lawyers in nine offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and is widely
recognized as a leading law firm worldwide. [GN]


INFOSYS LTD: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, representing the Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiff, was appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs in a
class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Infosys Ltd.
("Infosys") (NYSE:INFY) securities between July 7, 2018 and October
20, 2019 (the "Class Period") for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that, during the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Infosys's
business and financial results.

Lead Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint on March 27,
2020. If you have relevant information you wish to discuss, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Steven J. Peitler of Robbins Geller at 631/367-7100
or via e-mail at SPeitler@rgrdlaw.com.

Robbins Geller, with over 200 lawyers in nine offices, represents
U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history and is
widely recognized as a leading law firm worldwide. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]


INTERTEK USA: Wilson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERTEK USA, INC., and INTERTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00596 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 20, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, and the other workers like him, were typically
scheduled for 10-hour shifts, as many as 7 days a week, for weeks
at a time. But the Defendants do not pay all of these workers
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff, and other
workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Wilson worked for Intertek as an inspector.

Intertek is an industry leader in testing, inspecting, and
certifying products, construction, and projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Attorney Says Sanctions Bid "Frivolous"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Oxman Law Group PLLC attorney said a call to
sanction her for giving a local television interview was
"frivolous," telling a Pennsylvania federal court on Feb. 3 that
her statements calling InventHelp a "fraud" simply mirrored what
her clients had already claimed in a proposed class action
complaint. In a brief opposing Pittsburg-based Invention Submission
Corp.'s motion seeking sanctions, Attorney Julie Pechersky Plitt
scoffed at the demand that she be penalized for her November 2019
interview. [GN]


IRAN: Canadian Lawyers Sue for Downed Ukrainian Plane Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Martell, writing for Reuters, reports that Canadian
lawyers, who previously successfully sued Iran, are seeking class
action status in a lawsuit on behalf of victims aboard a Ukrainian
plane shot down over Tehran last month, looking for at least C$1.5
billion ($1.1 billion) in compensation.

The suit names Iran, its supreme leader, the elite Revolutionary
Guards and others as defendants.

Iran admitted its missiles downed the Ukrainian airliner by mistake
on Jan. 8, killing all 176 people aboard, including 57 Canadians.

The lead plaintiff in the case is anonymous, preliminarily
identified as John Doe, and described as immediate family to a
victim identified as Jack Doe.

The filing says John Doe's identity must be protected because of
the risk that "his Iranian family would be put at risk of harm or
death by the Iranian regime."

The suit alleges that the downing of the plane was "an intentional
and deliberate act of terrorism."

Iranian authorities did not immediately comment on Friday, February
7, when government offices are closed.

Jonah Arnold is co-lead counsel with his father Mark Arnold, who
has represented clients in several suits against Iran, including a
2017 appeal decision that led to seizure of some Iranian assets in
Canada.

The 2017 ruling was in a case brought by U.S. victims of bombings,
killings and kidnappings that U.S. courts ruled Iran was
responsible for. But the plaintiffs could not claim the $1.7
billion in judgments in the United States.

It was not clear whether Iran has any assets remaining in Canada.
Arnold said the case would likely unfold over years, and any
judgment could be renewed and enforced in the future.

"Providing a voice for the families and seeking compensation for
them in the courts is the primary objective," Jonah Arnold said.
"When we get there, and we need to look for those assets, that's
what we'll do."

Besides Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, others named
in the lawsuit are top commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps, including the head of the unit responsible for
shooting down the plane, Amirali Hajizadeh.

Foreign states are not typically within the jurisdiction of
Canadian courts. A 2012 Canadian law limited that immunity for
countries Ottawa lists as "foreign state supporters of terrorism,"
currently Iran and Syria.

The suit was filed Jan. 24 in Toronto, but it is not clear whether
it has been served on defendants in Iran.

Arnold said the Canadian government is required to ensure that
happens, and that he has received confirmation that the suit is "en
route."

The case is Doe v Islamic Republic of Iran et al, Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, No. CV-20-635078. [GN]

JOHN WIELAND: Egrets Walk Condo Owners Sue over Defects
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, EGRETS WALK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.; PAUL ZELLER;
and MAGNUS CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated condominium unit owners v. JOHN WIELAND HOMES
AND NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.; JOHN WIELAND HOMES OF
CHARLESTON, INC; JOHN WIELAND HOMES, INC. N/K/A JOHN WIELAND HOMES
AND NEIGHBORHOODS OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BUILDER SUPPORT SERVICES OF
THE CAROLINAS, INC.; PULTE HOMES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; PULTE
HOMES COMPANY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
2020-CP-10-00836 (S.C. 9th Cir., Charleston Cty., February 14,
2020), arises from the Defendants' wrongful and/or negligent acts
or omissions in the construction, development, sale, and/or
maintenance of a residential condominium community project named
Egrets Walk Condominiums.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violate building codes due to
several construction defects discovered in the Egrets Walk
Condominium Project, including but not limited to lack of proper
flashing, lack of proper roofing installation, and water and
moisture intrusion damage.

John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc. is a
successor by statutory merger to John Wieland Homes and
Neighborhoods of South Carolina, Inc., which is in the business of
designing and building homes and residential neighborhoods.

John Wieland Homes of Charleston, Inc. is a real estate company
that designs and builds homes and residential community projects.

John Wieland Homes, Inc. is a homebuilder that is now known as John
Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of South Carolina.

Builder Support Services of the Carolinas, Inc. is a home building
services company.

Pulte Homes of South Carolina, Inc. is a homebuilder and designer
in South Carolina.

Pulte Homes Company, LLC is a home construction company and
contractor doing business in North and South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. H. Bundy, Jr., Esq.
          M. Brent McDonald, Esq.
          BUNDY MCDONALD
          1516 Old Trolley Road, 2nd Floor
          P.O. Box 50427
          Summerville, SC 29485          
          Telephone: (888) 552-1559
          E-mail: walter@bundymcdonald.com
                  brent@bundymcdonald.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Cymbalista Sues Over Interest Due on Escrow Acct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL CYMBALISTA and ARIEL CYMBALISTA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00456-RPK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 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.

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.

The Plaintiffs are husband and wife and citizens and residents of
the State of New York, residing in Nassau County. The Plaintiffs
were borrower mortgagors to mortgage loans originated by JPMC or
its affiliates in 2004 and 2011. The mortgaged property is a
single-family home and has been owner-occupied at all times during
the Class Periods.

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.

JPMorgan Chase Bank is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan,
New York. JPMorgan Chase Bank constitutes the consumer and
commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and
financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA P.C.
          P.O. Box 566, 55000 Main Road
          Southold, NY 11971
          Telephone: (631) 407-5100
          E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (646) 964-9644
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com


JUS BY JULIE: Reyes Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL REYES, FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS BONIFACIO, VICTOR
BONIFACIO, YEFRY ESTEVEZ and CHRISTOPHER POLANCO, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. JUS BY JULIE
LLC, JUS TO GO BY JULIE, LLC, JULTE MALEH, SESAR MALEH, ELLIOT
MALEH, and ALAN MALEH, Case No. 2:20-cv-00444-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York State Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs work at the Defendants' warehouse six days each
week. Their regular day off is Saturday, when the warehouse is
closed in observance of the Sabbath. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective regularly worked a day that was longer than 10 hours
from its start to its finish, including breaks. The Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
spread-of-hours pay when they worked a day that exceeded 10 hours
from start to finish, including breaks, says the complaint.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of blended juices
with retail stores located at 1212 Avenue M, in Brooklyn, New York;
2166 East 5th Street, in Brooklyn, New York; 1090 St. Johns Place,
in Brooklyn, New York; 523 Central Avenue, in Cedarhurst, New York;
and 313 Main Street, in Allenhurst, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


JUST ENERGY: Faces White Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus White, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JUST ENERGY GROUP, INC., PATRICK MCCULLOUGH and JIM
BROWN, Case No. 4:20-cv-00590 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2020), is brought
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Just Energy between
May 16, 2018, and August 19, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
decline in the Company's share price.

The Class Period commences on May 16, 2018. On that date, Just
Energy issued a press release announcing its financial results for
its fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, that it included in its Form
6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company
reported a profit of CAD $518.5 million, Base EBITDA of CAD $174.4
million and trade and other receivables of CAD $395.7 million.
Defendant Brown was the indicated contact person for the press
release.

On August 8, 2018, after the markets closed, Just Energy issued a
press release announcing its financial results for its first
quarter ended June 30, 2018. In a Form 6-K filed with the SEC on
August 14, 2018, Just Energy reported a loss for the quarter of CAD
$41.4 million and trade and other receivables of CAD $677.2
million. On November 7, 2018, after the markets closed, Just Energy
issued a press release announcing its financial results for its
second quarter ended September 30, 2018. In a Form 6-K filed with
the SEC on November 8, 2018, Just Energy reported a loss for the
quarter of CAD $21.45 million and trade and other receivables of
CAD $694.4 million.

According to the complaint, those statements were each materially
false and misleading when made as they misrepresented material
adverse facts, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them: (a) that the Company had been experiencing
customer enrolment and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas, over
the prior 12 months; (b) that the Company had not taken appropriate
reserves to its trade receivables to reflect these issues, thereby,
rendering the financial results it publicly disseminated materially
false and misleading; and (c) the Company lacked adequate financial
controls with regard to the identification of these issues
including its methodology for estimating its reserve for trade
receivables.

On July 23, 2019, before the market opened, Just Energy revealed
that: (a) Management identified customer enrolment and non-payment
issues, primarily in Texas, over the past 12 months; (b) as a
result of these issues, management determined that "more robust
operational controls were put in place, culminating in numerous
improvements being implemented during June and July 2019"; (c) "Due
to the identified issues, management is updating its provisioning
methodology used to estimate its reserve for trade receivables";
and (d) "Management expects an incremental impairment of the Texas
residential accounts receivable of approximately CAD $45 to $50
million as of June 30, 2019."

On July 23, 2019, in response to the announcement, the price of
Just Energy common stock declined from a close of $4.38 the prior
day to close at $3.72--a decline of $0.66 per share on extremely
heavy trading volume and continued to decline to $3.58 per share on
July 24, 2019, also on heavy volume. The material
misrepresentations and omissions particularized in this Complaint
directly or proximately caused or were a substantial contributing
cause of the damages sustained by the Plaintiff and other members
of the Class, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Thaddeus White purchased the securities of Just Energy at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Just Energy purports to be a retail consumer company specializing
in electricity and natural gas commodities, energy efficiency
solutions, and renewable energy options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Phone: (914) 934-9200
          Fax: (914) 934-92200

               - and –

          Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
          WITTELS LAW
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (914) 319-9945
          Fax: (914) 273-2563


LANDS' END: Delta Air to Redesign Uniforms Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Yamanouchi, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Delta Air Lines will redesign its uniforms after employees filed
lawsuits complaining about allergic reactions to the new purple
garments and thousands of flight attendants and customer service
agents opted to come to work in their own clothes instead.

Atlanta-based Delta spent millions rolling out the Zac
Posen-designed uniforms in the new "Passport Plum" color a year and
a half ago. But ever since, there have been grumblings around about
rashes, skin reactions and other symptoms, which the lawsuits say
are caused by chemicals used to make garments waterproof, wrinkle-
and stain-resistant, anti-static and high-stretch.

Delta has about 25,000 flight attendants and 12,000 airport
customer service agents. Ekrem Dimbiloglu, director of uniforms at
Delta, said the number of employees opting to wear their own
black-and-white attire instead of the uniforms "has grown into the
thousands."

"It's just too many. We've got to be a unified force," he said.

In late November, Delta simplified the process that allows
employees to wear the black-and-white attire as an alternative.
Instead of going through a procedure of reporting on-the-job
injuries with the airline's claims administrator, employees can
simply notify the company that they want to wear the alternative.

"We believe the uniform is safe, but clearly there is a group that
doesn't," Dimbiloglu said. "Having a subgroup of employees wearing
black-and-white personal attire and having another group of
employees wearing the uniforms just isn't acceptable."

He said that prompted Delta to "make a bold decision to go ahead
and redesign the uniform."

It's yet to be determined whether it will be a wholesale redesign
or more limited.

Delta aims to revamp the uniforms by December 2021, which will cost
millions of dollars. "It's not a cheap endeavor," Dimbiloglu said,
but "it's about getting it right for employees."

In the interim, Delta wants to shift some employees from
black-and-white wear by offering alternative uniform pieces. That
includes allowing those flight attendants to wear dresses, made of
a different material, that only airport agents now wear or a white
cotton blouse. The company also will produce flight attendant
uniforms for women in gray -- the same color as men's uniforms --
with no chemical finish.

The uniform revamp does not apply to Delta's baggage handlers and
other employees who work on the tarmac. Those "below-wing"
employees also have new uniforms, but in different fabrics and cuts
that have not prompted issues "in any significant way," Dimbiloglu
said.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed by Delta employees against
uniform maker Lands' End. Plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action
status, say the chemical additives and finishes are causing the
reactions.

Delta's flight attendants and customer service agents are not
unionized, but the Association of Flight Attendants union has
highlighted the uniform complaint as it pursues a campaign to
unionize the airline's flight attendants. The union said in
December it would test the uniforms.

The union said some flight attendants affected by the issue "have
lost pay and are experiencing mounting medical bills."

The issues with skin irritation and other reactions arose in spite
of the airline taking three years to develop the new uniform
collection, which included testing for allergens, adjustments
before the debut and development of alternative uniform pieces in
natural fabrics.

Dimbiloglu said Delta now has dermatologists, allergists and
toxicologists specializing in textile chemistry to help with fabric
selection and testing.

Delta "continues to have faith in Lands' End," Dimbiloglu said,
adding that "they have been great partners of ours to date." But,
he said, "We're going to listen to our employees."

He said the company will conduct employee surveys and will hold
focus groups across the country to get employees' input on how the
uniforms should be redesigned.

The Association of Flight Attendants union "applauded the step in
the right direction" but said it was "eighteen months late." The
union also recommended the uniform causing reactions be removed as
quickly as possible, and that employees with physician-diagnosed
health problems be removed from exposure while retaining pay and
benefits. [GN]


LANGSTON COMPANIES: Factory Employees Seek Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN HANDY, JELESSA WILLIAMS and CEDRIC CLARK, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
LANGSTON COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00055-KGB
(E.D. Ark., February 14, 2020) alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiffs and other employees lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated were employed by the
Defendants as hourly-paid factory employees and were classified as
hourly employees and paid an hourly rate.

Langston Companies, Inc. serves as a leading supplier of various
types of bags and other packing-related products and services,
including multiwall paper sacks, cotton bale packaging, flexible
intermediate bulk containers, and small woven polypropylene bags.
Langston operates six manufacturing facilities worldwide, including
five in the United States and one facility in West Memphis. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Daniel Ford, Esq.
           Josh Sanford, Esq.
           SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
           650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
           Little Rock, AR 72211
           Telephone: (501) 221-0088
           Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


LLR INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Order for Appeal in Hill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great
Falls Division issued an Order denying a Motion to Certify Order
for Interlocutory Review in the case captioned MELISSA HILL,
Plaintiff, v. LLR, INC. d/b/a/LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. CV 18-120-GF-BMM-KLD (D. Mont.).

LLR, Inc., and LULAROE, LLC filed timely objections to United
States Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto's recommendation to deny
LLR' Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal. LLR
initially moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Defendants argued that Hill's Montana
Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claim should be dismissed as the
MCPA expressly prohibits class actions. United States Magistrate
Judge Lynch recommended that the Court deny LLR's motion to
dismiss.

Judge Lynch based his decision, in part, on his determination that
Wittman v. CB1, Inc., 2016 WL 3093427 (D. Mont. June 1, 2016)
remained good law. This Court held in Wittman that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 preempted the MCPA's class action ban. This
Court issued an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss and
adopting, in part, and modifying, in part, Judge Lynch's Findings
and Recommendations. The Court modified Judge Lynch's
recommendation to deny LLR's Motion to Strike Class Allegations to
allow LLR to refile the motion after the close of discovery.

LLR then filed a Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal.
The case was transferred to Judge DeSoto, who entered her Findings
and Recommendations on October 9, 2019. Judge DeSoto recommended
that Defendants' motion be denied.

Defendants filed a timely objection and are therefore entitled to
de novo review of the specified findings and recommendations to
which they object. Those portions of the findings and
recommendations to which no party objected will be reviewed for
clear error.  Clear error exists if the Court is left with a
"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

Alternatively, where a party's objections constitute "perfunctory
responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a
rehashing of the same arguments" set forth in the original motion,
the Court will review the applicable portions of the findings and
recommendations for clear error.

The District Court's November 18, 2019 Order, available at
https://tinyurl.com/qmbgy46 from Leagle.com,
states that it agrees that "it is not clear that [Plaintiff] would
be wholly unable to meet 28 U.S.C. Section 1332's requirements."  

The District Court further held that Judge DeSoto noted that the
amount in controversy requirement would encompass a court's award
of punitive damages, statutory damages, and attorney fees.
Interlocutory review would not materially advance the litigation
because the amount in controversy requirement still may be met and
because class claims could remain even if the Court were to strike
class claims under the MCPA. Further, any questions regarding the
scope of the proposed class properly would be reserved for
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class.

Moreover, the Court agrees with Judge DeSoto that the circuit
courts are not in dispute on this issue; Wittman remains good law;
and LLR's insistence on applying contrary precedent from other
district courts does not compel a conclusion that substantial
grounds for a difference of opinion exist.

For these reasons, Judge DeSoto's Findings and Recommendations are
adopted in full. Defendants' Motion to Certify Order for
Interlocutory Review is DENIED.

Melissa Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Domenic A. Cossi -
domenic@westernjusticelaw.com - WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, Kelly
Iverson -  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin Tucker  - ktucker@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch LLP,
pro hac vice, Maxwell E. Kirchhoff  - max@westernjusticelaw.com -
WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES & R. Bruce Carlson -
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch LLP, pro hac vice.   

LLR, Inc., d/b/a LuLaRoe & LULAROE, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Randolph T. Moore -
rmoore@swlaw.com - SNELL & WILMER, pro hac vice, Steven T. Graham -
sgraham@swlaw.com - SNELL & WILMER, pro hac vice, Jeffery J. Oven -
joven@crowleyfleck.com - CROWLEY FLECK PLLP & Jeffrey M. Roth -
jroth@crowleyfleck.com -  CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.

LOGMEIN INC: Thompson Challenges Sale to Francisco and Evergreen
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LOGMEIN, INC., ROBERT M. CALDERONI, SARA C. ANDREWS,
STEVEN J. BENSON, ITA BRENNAN, MICHAEL J. CHRISTENSON, EDWIN J.
GILLIS, DAVID J. HENSHALL, PETER J. SACRIPANTI, and WILLIAM R.
WAGNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00129-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 27, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 stemming from a proposed transaction pursuant to which LogMeIn
will be acquired by affiliates of Francisco Partners and Evergreen
Coast Capital Corporation.

On December 17, 2019, LogMeIn's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Logan
Parent, LLC (Parent) and Logan Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub).
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, LogMeIn's
stockholders will receive $86.05 in cash for each share of LogMeIn
common stock they own.

On January 17, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.

The Plaintiff is the owner of LogMeIn common stock.

LogMeIn is a leading provider of unified communications and
collaboration, identity and access management, and customer
engagement and support solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


LUCKY'S MARKET: Former Employee Files WARN Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lucas High, writing for Daily Camera, reports that a former Lucky's
Market employee in Florida has filed a class-action lawsuit against
the Niwot-based natural-grocery chain that accuses the company of
failing to provide adequate advance notice of store closures and
layoffs.

The adversary proceeding complaint was filed by Laura Forsyth on
Feb. 3 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, the same court that is
hearing Lucky's Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.

Forsyth was an employee at the St. Petersburg, Fla., Lucky's store
until Feb. 3, when store ownership closed the location "without
providing the 60 days advance written notice required by the WARN
Act," court documents show.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires
companies to file notices with their state labor departments when
they meet certain thresholds in terms of layoffs, providing 60
days' notice.

Lucky's filed its WARN notice for the St. Petersburg store -- as
well as stores in Gainesville and Melbourne, Fla. -- with Florida
regulators on Jan. 24.

Forsyth -- represented by attorneys with law firms Lankenau Miller
LLP, The Gardner Firm PC, Wenzel Fenton Cabassas PC and Margolis
Edelstein  -- brings the complaint on "behalf of all other
similarly situated former employees of (Lucky's) who were affected
by the mass layoffs and/or plant closings at the facilities ordered
by (Lucky's on Feb. 3) and thereafter," the filing said. Calls
seeking comment from the attorneys were not returned.

Forsyth's suit estimates that there are about 1,000 former Lucky's
employees who are similarly situated and could be party to the
class-action suit. According to bankruptcy filings, the company had
roughly 3,100 employees as of last month.

The class-action suit claims damages in the form of lost wages,
retirement contributions, insurance and other benefits, and medical
expenses that would have been covered if the employee's insurance
was extended to the full 60-day WARN-notice period.

Lucky's representatives did not respond to requests for comment on
Feb. 4.

Lucky's filed for bankruptcy in late January soon after the company
informed employees that it would shutter 32 of its 39 store
locations across the country. Among the stores closing are the
Longmont and South Boulder locations.

That move came roughly a month after grocery giant Kroger Co.
(NYSE: KR) announced that it would sell its investment stake in
Lucky's, which was founded in Boulder by chefs Bo and Trish Sharon.
Bankruptcy documents show that Kroger loaned Lucky's more than $301
million dollars in recent years and had amassed a 55% stake in the
company.

In the roughly two weeks since the Lucky's closures were announced,
bidders have emerged to buy out certain closing stores:

* $7.8 million for sale of five leases and one real property asset
to Aldi, which seeks to purchase stores in Coral Springs, Orlando,
Venice, Sarasota and Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

* $1.25 million for sale of a lease in Orlando to Seabra Foods XIV
Inc.

* A motion for sale of five leases to Publix Super Markets Inc.
for stores in Clermont, Naples, Neptune Beach, Orlando and Ormond
Beach, Florida, provides contradictory information on the purchase
price. It states that the "price payable under the Agreement for
the Assets shall be Thirteen Million Seven Hundred Eighty Thousand
and No/100," but then lists $11,483,333 as the price.

* $3.7 million offered by the Sharons to acquire leases for stores
in north Boulder; Fort Collins; West Melbourne, Florida; Columbia,
Missouri; Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio; and Traverse City,
Michigan. [GN]


MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin Suit Moved From California to D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, Brenda
Kasaty, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., an Ohio Corporation,
Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01337, 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
Mexico on Feb. 20, 2020.

The New Mexico District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00144
to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury.

Magellan HRSC, Inc. was founded in 1998. The Company's line of
business includes providing management consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A. OSTROFF
          2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Phone: (619) 232-3122
          Email: sostrofflaw@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Fatemeh Sadat Mashouf, Esq.
          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          Reed Smith, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-8216
          Fax: (213) 457-8080
          Email: fmashouf@reedsmith.com
                 mcurtis@reedsmith.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Fantasy Baseball Player Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Major League Baseball has ignored the
fraudulent conduct of its teams for years because it knew a scandal
would have "a disastrous effect" on the cash cow that is fantasy
baseball, a fantasy baseball player said on Feb. 5, hitting the
league with another proposed class action in the wake of recently
uncovered cheating. [GN]


MCLARENS LLC: Reyes Suit Seeks Fines for Violations of Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shenele Reyes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. MCLARENS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV03592 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 28, 2020), seeks penalties resulting from the Defendants'
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay all final wages due at termination or
within 72 hours after separation to all employees in California,
and to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements.
She adds that the Defendants further failed to provide the
employees with wage statements in compliance with the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California.

McLarens provides insurance services. The Company offers claims
management, loss adjusting, and auditing services to pre-risk and
damage surveying. McLarens serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2311: Court Grants Revised Plan of Allocation in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marianne O. Battani of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted the unopposed motion of
End-Payor Plaintiffs ("EPPs") for approval of the proposed revised
Plan of Allocation and for authorization to disseminate
supplemental notice to the Settlement Classes in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE
PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case 12-md-02311, (E.D. Mich).

The case is IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In Re:
Heater Control Panels In Re: Occupant Safety Systems In Re:
Switches In Re: Ignition Coils In Re: Steering Angle Sensors In Re:
Electric Powered Steering Assemblies In Re: Fuel Injection Systems
In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices In Re: Air Conditioning Systems
In Re: Automotive Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products In Re:
Automotive Hoses In Re: Shock Absorbers In Re: Body Sealing
Products In Re: Interior Trim Products In Re: Automotive Brake
Hoses In Re: Exhaust Systems In Re: Ceramic Substrates In Re: Power
Window Switches In Re: Automotive Steel Tubes In Re: Side-Door
Latches. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: End-Payor Actions, Case No.
12-md-02311, Case No. 2:12-cv-00403., 2:12-cv-00603, 2:13-cv-01303,
2:13-cv-01403, 2:13-cv-01603, 2:13-cv-01903, 2:13-cv-02203,
2:13-cv-02503, 2:13-cv-02703, 2:14-cv-02903, 2:15-cv-03203,
2:15-cv-03303, 2:16-cv-03403, 2:16-cv-03503, 2:16-cv-03603,
2:16-cv-03703, 2:16-cv-03803, 2:16-cv-03903, 2:16-cv-04003,
2:17-cv-04303 (E.D. Mich.).

Judge Battani reviewed the memorandum submitted by EPPs in support
of their motion and the various declarations and submissions
relating to that motion.  The Judge also considered the July 2019
Notice Program and notice given to the Settlement Classes in
accordance with the Court's orders, and the proposed Supplemental
Notice.

The EPPs propose allocating the net settlement funds on a modified
pro rata basis, subject to the adjusted weighting of certain
purchases or leases, based on the purchases or leases of new
vehicles not for resale which contain automotive parts manufactured
or sold by a Defendant and purchases of replacement automotive
parts which contain parts manufactured or sold by a Defendant.
Under the Plan of Allocation, certain purchases or leases would be
weighted more heavily based on the evaluation by EPP's Co-Lead
Counsel of the vehicles that were specifically targeted by the
collusive conduct of the Defendants.  Such weightings are
appropriate in class action cases.  

This pro rata allocation would be modified by initially
distributing $100 to all eligible class members and then
distributing the remaining funds to all the class members whose
weighted pro rata allocation exceeds $100 (subject to their being
sufficient funds for each class member claimant to receive at least
$100).  If the net settlement funds are insufficient to allow a
minimum payment of $100 to each eligible class member claimant, the
amount to be paid to all claimants will be adjusted so that
claimants share in the net settlement funds on a pro rata basis
based on the amounts of their respective net allowed claim
amounts.

The EPPs propose to revise the Plan of Allocation to allow
Settlement Class members who purchased or leased a new qualifying
vehicle or purchased a replacement automotive part in a damages
state to be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Funds.  Under
the further revised Plan of Allocation, the Settlement Class
members would be able to seek to share in the monetary recovery
provided by a settlement based on the place of purchase or lease in
addition to their state of residence or principal place of business
at the time of such purchase or lease.

EPPs also propose to further revise the Plan of Allocation by
requiring the potential Settlement Class members who file claims
based on their place of purchase or lease to provide satisfactory
evidence demonstrating that the purchase or lease took place in a
damages state.

Finally, they propose extending the deadline for the submission of
Claim Forms from Dec. 31, 2019 to March 16, 2020.  This would
provide additional time for the notice and claims administrators to
disseminate the Supplemental Notice to the Settlement Classes.

Judge Battani finds and concludes that the revised Plan of
Allocation provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds among members of
the respective Settlement Classes with due regard having been given
to considerations of administrative convenience.

Judge Battani approved the further revised Plan of Allocation and
authorizes EPPs to disseminate the Supplemental Notice to the
Settlement Classes.  EPP Co-Lead Counsel are authorized to carry
out all steps, including dissemination of the Supplemental Notice,
as necessary to effectuate the revised Plan of Allocation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Dec. 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/x4h5tE from Leagle.com.

Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, other Wire Harness,
Instrument Panel Clusters, Fuel Senders, Heater Control Panels,
Bearings, Occupant Safety Systems, Alternators, Anti-Vibrational
Rubber Parts, Windshield Wipers, Radiators, Starters, Automotive
Lamps, Switches, Ignition Coils, Motor Generator, Steering Angle
Sensors, HID Ballasts, Inverters, Electronic Powered Steering
Assemblies, Air Flow Meters, Fan Motors, Fuel Injection Systems,
Power Window Motors, Automatic Transmission Fluid Warmers, Valve
Timing Control Devices, Electronic Throttle Bodies, Air
Conditioning Systems, Windshield Washer Systems, Automotive
Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products, Plaintiff, represented by
Bernard Persky, Robins Kaplan LLP, David H. Fink --
dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com -- Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Hollis L. Salzman, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Sheldon L. Miller, William E. Hoese, Kohn, Swift & William Reiss --
WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.

Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, other Wire Harness,
Instrument Panel Clusters, Fuel Senders, Heater Control Panels,
Bearings, Occupant Safety Systems, Alternators, Anti-Vibrational
Rubber Parts, Windshield Wipers, Radiators, Starters, Automotive
Lamps, Switches, Ignition Coils, Motor Generator, Steering Angle
Sensors, HID Ballasts, Inverters, Electronic Powered Steering
Assemblies, Air Flow Meters, Fan Motors, Fuel Injection Systems,
Power Window Motors, Automatic Transmission Fluid Warmers, Valve
Timing Control Devices, Electronic Throttle Bodies, Air
Conditioning Systems, Windshield Washer Systems, Automotive
Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products, Plaintiff, represented by
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Honigman, P.C. & Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP.

Gene J. Esshaki, Special Master, pro se.

Lucha Bott & Jude Anheluk, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony D.
Shapiro, Hagens Berman, Elaine A. Ryan, Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Fegan Scott LLC, Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Bernam Sobol Shapiro, Jeffrey B. Gittleman,
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Manfred P. Muecke, Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint, P.C., Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P.,
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steven G.
Sklaver, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Thomas E. Ahlering, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm & Gerard V. Mantese,
Mantese Honigman, P.C.

Jane M Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver, Anthony
D. Shapiro, Hagens Berman, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm,
Elaine A. Ryan, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC,
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Fegan Scott LLC, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Bernam Sobol Shapiro, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine, Manfred P. Muecke, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint,
P.C., Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Sheldon L. Miller,
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steven G.
Sklaver, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Thomas E. Ahlering, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Honigman, P.C.

Furukawa Electric Company, Limited & American Furukawa, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Craig D. Bachman, Lane Powell PC, David
H. Suggs, White & Case LLP, Demetra V. Frawley, White & Case LLP,
Jack E. Pace, White & Case LLP, John H. Chung, White & Case LLP,
Kenneth R. Davis, II, Lane Powell PC, Larry S. Gangnes, Lane Powell
PC, Marguerite M. Sullivan, Latham & Watkins, Peter D. Hawkes, Lane
Powell, Priya Srinivasan -- priya.d.srinivasan@whitecase.com --
White & Case LLP, Richard D. Bisio -- Richard.Bisio@kkue.com --
Kemp, Klein & Ronald S. Nixon -- ron.nixon@kkue.com -- Kemp,
Klein.

Lear Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Marovitz, Mayer
Brown LLP, Britt M. Miller, Mayer Brown LLP, Curtis D. Ripley,
Dante A. Stella, Dykema Gossett, David M. Donovan, Watts Donovan &
Tilley, Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett & Lloyd J. Tabary, II .

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Limited, Defendant, represented by
Andrea M. Price, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarer, Daniel
M. Wall, Latham & Watkins, David Daniel Cross, MORRISON FOERSTER,
Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., J. Bruce
Cross, Cross Gunter Witherspoon & Galchus, Kathleen Mary Clair,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Kelsey A. McPherson, Latham & Watkins LLP,
Marguerite M. Sullivan, Latham & Watkins, Mary G. Cooper, Cross
Gunter Witherspoon & Galchus, Rachel Talbot Osborn, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton,
P.C.

Yazaki Corporation, Defendant, represented by John V. Biernacki,
Jones Day, John M. Majoras, Jones Day, Michael R. Shumaker, Jones
Day, Michelle K. Fischer, Jones Day, Tiffany Danielle
Lipscomb-Jackson, Jones Day & Zachary D. Trotter, Jones Day.

Yazaki North America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Carmen G. McLean, Jones Day, Gregory R. Hanthorn, Jones Day, John
M. Majoras, Jones Day, Lin Wang, Jones Day, Michael R. Shumaker,
Jones Day, Michelle K. Fischer, Jones Day, Shelley R. Hebert,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Stephen J. Squeri, Jones Day, Tiffany Danielle
Lipscomb-Jackson, Jones Day & Zachary D. Trotter, Jones Day.


MERCEDES-BENZ: High-Priced Parts Warranty Problems Prompt Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that
Mercedes-Benz "high-priced parts" warranty problems have caused a
class action lawsuit that includes all consumers in California who,
within the last four years, have been owners or lessees of Mercedes
vehicles and who have paid for repairs and parts that should have
been covered under the automaker's high-priced warranted parts
7-year/70,000 mile California emissions warranty.

Mercedes says the lawsuit could include hundreds of thousands of
vehicles because it includes all Mercedes-Benz models sold in
California for over a decade.

According to the plaintiff, Mercedes fails to accurately identify
all the vehicle parts that should properly be classified as
"high-cost emissions warranty parts" under California's emission
control system warranty requirements and covered under the
California emissions warranty for 7 years or 70,000 miles.

The lawsuit also alleges Mercedes has limited parts that should be
covered under the emissions warranty in order to decrease warranty
exposure.

By not identifying all the parts that should be included as
high-cost warranted parts, Mercedes allegedly is able to limit the
emissions warranty coverage for those parts to only 3 years or
50,000 miles.

Mercedes-Benz is allegedly required to inform the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) about vehicle parts that are high-priced
warranted parts. The plaintiff says this is referred to as the
"High-Cost Warranty" or the "California Emission Control System
Warranty."

With regard to 1990 and subsequent model year vehicles, a warranted
part is defined as, "any part installed on a motor vehicle vehicle
engine by the vehicle or engine manufacturer, or installed in a
affects any regulated emission from a motor vehicle or engine which
is subject emission standards."

According to the lawsuit, this means any part that either affects a
vehicle's emissions or causes the onboard diagnostic malfunction
light to illuminate is considered a warranted part with a 50,000
mile California emissions warranty.

But the lawsuit alleges if the part is a "high-priced warranted
part, the part, labor cost of diagnosing the part failure and the
labor cost of replacing the part shall have a 7-year 70,000 mile
California emissions warranty pursuant to the High-Cost
Emissions-Related Parts Warranty."

According to the plaintiff, the automaker omits from the warranty
booklets all the parts that should be labeled as high-priced
warranted parts that should be covered under the 7-year/70,000 mile
warranty.

The plaintiff claims California consumers have to pay out-of-pocket
for these repairs which should be paid for by the automaker. This
allegedly allows Mercedes to reduce the amount of money the
automaker pays on warranty claims.

The Mercedes-Benz high-priced parts warranty lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division: Hazdovac, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Pomerantz LLP, and the Law Office
of Robert L. Starr. [GN]


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Cajigas"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00262 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MIDLAND CREDIT: Graves Sues Over Debt Collection Letters
--------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN GRAVES, Plaintiff, - against - MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01603-SRC-CLW (N.J. Super.,
Bergen Cty., February 14, 2020) is a class action by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who have
received debt collection letters from Defendant that are in
violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant has sent collection letters
through false or misleading representation in an attempt to collect
a debt to hundreds if not thousands of consumers throughout New
Jersey including the Plaintiff.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector and debt-buying
company doing business in the state of New Jersey which helps
people resolve their past-due debt obligations by providing
education and payment plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel Zemel, Esq.
           Nicholas Linker, Esq.
           Zemel Law LLC
           1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
           Clifton, NJ 07013
           Telephone: (862) 227-3106


MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Howard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL HOWARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00263 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MIDLAND CREDIT: Russell Sues in Illinois Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Krystina Russell
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital
Group, Inc., and Kohn Law Firm, Case No. 1:20-cv-00618 (N.D. Ill.,
Jan. 27, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The Company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

               - and -

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


MIDNIGHT EXPRESS: Court Denies Vision Power's Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VISION POWER, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and GREGG WILLIAMS, individually v. MIDNIGHT EXPRESS POWER
BOATS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:18-cv-61700-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class of:

     "all persons who purchased center console speedboats from
      Midnight Express, including the Open 34' and all other
      variations of speedboats that have the same center console
      design"; and

   2. denying appointment of Plaintiffs as Lead Counsel.[CC]

MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Faces Story Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milgard Manufacturing
Incorporated. The case is captioned as Joseph Story, On behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Milgard Manufacturing
Incorporated, a Washington corporation and Does 1-50, Case
34-2020-00274315-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 28,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Milgard manufactures windows and doors products. The Company offers
wood, fiberglass, vinyl, aluminum, sound control doors and
windows.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kwanporn Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faruqi Reminds Investors of March 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Mohawk Industries, Inc. (NYSE: MHK) ("Mohawk"
or the "Company") of the March 3, 2020 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.

If you invested in Mohawk stock or options between April 28, 2017
and July 25, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
click here: www.faruqilaw.com/MHK. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

Contact:

         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all those who purchased
Mohawk securities between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al,. No. 20-cv-00005 was
filed on January 3, 2020 and has been assigned to Judge Eleanor L.
Ross.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements about the Company's sales growth and demand for its
Conventional Flooring Products. Despite the Company's accounts
receivable and inventory levels increasing during the Class Period,
Defendants assuaged investor concerns by misleading them to believe
that those increases were the result of external factors like
rising raw material costs and inflation. But in reality, Mohawk was
engaging in channel-stuffing to artificially inflate its sales and
revenues. Defendants failed to disclose that Mohawk was stuffing
its distribution channels with Conventional Flooring Products,
which made the Company's sales growth and financial performance
appear far better than they were. As a result of these
misrepresentations, shares of Mohawk's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Specifically, on July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the
Company reported disappointing financial results for the second
quarter of 2018, with earnings that were well below both Wall
Street estimates and the Company's previous guidance range. The
following morning, in a conference call with analysts and
investors, Mohawk also disclosed deteriorating margins which it
attributed, in part, to significant production cuts the Company
imposed to normalize inventory. Specifically, the Company revealed
that it "produced less [Conventional Flooring Products] than [it]
sold to reduce inventory." Similarly, Mohawk also revealed that it
"reduced [its] production volumes more than [the Company] had
thought" and that the Company "came into the year with higher
inventories than [it] wanted to have."

On this news, Mohawk's stock fell from a closing price of $217.37
per share on July 25, 2018 to $179.31 on July 26, 2018-a $38.06 or
17.51% drop.

Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company
reported sales and earnings for the third quarter of 2018 that
substantially missed analysts' estimates and the Company's previous
guidance range, with sales growth in all segments lower than
estimates. Company executives attributed Mohawk's poor financial
results, in part, to further manufacturing reductions that were
required during the period to control inventory buildup.

On this news, Mohawk's stock fell from a closing price of $151.07
per share on October 25, 2018 to $115.03 on October 26, 2018-a
$36.04 or 23.86% drop.

On July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported that
sales in its Flooring NA segment were down 7% and revealed that the
Company was again reducing production to control inventory levels
and match its supply with customer demand.

The Company also revealed that increased competition and excess
inventory had impacted its financial results, particularly in its
Global Ceramic segment. The Company announced that "lower demand"
for certain Conventional Flooring Products created excess inventory
which impacted the Company's sales and margins. The Company further
revealed that there was a "big buildup in inventory in ceramic" in
the sales channel, which had negatively impacted the Company's
sales. Accordingly, the Company provided a weak earnings forecast
for the third quarter of 2019, which was well below analysts'
estimates.

As a result of these disclosures, Mohawk's stock fell from a
closing price of $156.36 per share on July 25, 2019 to $128.84 on
July 26, 2019-a $27.52 or 17.60% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Mohawk's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

MUSKEGON FAMILY CARE: Hamilton, Melton Sue over Abrupt Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon L. Hamilton and Karisha Melton, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Muskegon Family Care,
Defendant. Case No. 1:20-cv-00141 (W.D. Mich., February 16, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant has terminated without notice the
employment of approximately 150 full-time employees including the
Plaintiffs.

The Defendant fails to provide 60 days' advance written notice to
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated former employees as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Hamilton and Melton also seek payment for unpaid vacation owed to
them, pursuant to Defendant's written policy regarding the accrual
and payment of paid time off.

Muskegon Family Care is a Michigan corporation that serves as a
community health center to improve the overall health and wellness
of the community by promoting the physical, emotional and spiritual
well-being of the families through comprehensive healthcare and
other supportive services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           René S. Roupinian, Esq.
           Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
           RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
           500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
           New York, NY 10110
           Telephone: (212) 221-1747
           Facsimile: (212) 221-1747


MYER HOLDINGS: Cooper Grace Discuss Ruling in Patrol Pty Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Corkhill, Esq. -- andrew.corkhill@cgw.com.au ; Adelaide
Hayes, Esq. -- Adelaide.Hayes@cgw.com.au ; and Charles Sweeney,
Esq. -- charles.sweeney@cgw.com.au -- of Cooper Grace Ward, in an
article for Lexology, report that the Myer case is a landmark case
for two reasons. First, it is the first Australian securities class
action to proceed to judgement. Second, the Federal Court of
Australia has accepted 'market-based causation', which has long
been debated in Australia. The decision increases the risk of
shareholder class actions for publicly listed companies, as, if
market-based causation is accepted, plaintiffs will no longer need
to establish individual reliance when pursuing a company for
breaching its obligations of continuous disclosure. Ironically,
market-based causation also assisted Myer in winning this case, as
we will explain.

The difficulty in proving reliance has historically been a
significant hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome, particularly in a
class action. For example, how can a class of shareholders be
proven to have read and relied on a particular market release
containing the relevant representation in forming their decisions
to trade?

Introduction

Patrol Pty Ltd as trustee for Amies Superannuation Fund v Myer
Holdings Limited [2019] FCA 1747 involves shareholders of Myer
Holdings Limited seeking compensation for misrepresentations made
by the company about its financial standing. In its judgment, the
Federal Court applied 'market-based causation' to determine that
shareholders did not need to establish individual reliance when
considering breaches of the obligation to disclose material
information. The decision increases publicly listed companies'
exposure to securities class actions.

The dispute

The facts

The case involved representations made in 2015FY by Myer regarding
the company's 2015FY net profit after tax (NPAT).

On September 11, 2014, Myer announced an NPAT for the 2015FY of
$98.5 million. Myer's former CEO, Mr. Bernie Brookes, also
disclosed to the market that the outlook in 2015FY included
anticipated sales and profit growth in excess of Myer's NPAT in the
previous financial year (the Representations).

Six months later, Myer subsequently announced that it was
downgrading its NPAT for 2015FY to be between $75-80 million
(excluding one-off costs).

The claim

The applicant's claim was primarily in relation to section 674 of
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ASX listing rule 3.1. Those
provisions provide an obligation for ASX listed companies to
disclose information concerning the company that a reasonable
person would expect to have a material effect on the value of its
securities. The applicant also claimed that Myer's conduct
constituted misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of
section 1041H of the Corporations Act.

The applicant sought compensation on behalf of all persons who
acquired ordinary shares in Myer between September 11, 2014 and
March 19, 2015. The applicant's claim had two parts:

   1. Myer did not have reasonable grounds on which to make the
Representations.

   2. Myer, being a company listed on the ASX, had breached its
obligation to inform the market that the Representations were
misleading, as soon as it became aware of this fact.

The applicant established that Myer had breached section 674 and
ASX Listing Rule 3.1, with Justice Beach finding that, as at 21
November 2014, Myer should have disclosed to the market that its
NPAT for FY15 was not likely to be materially above the FY14 NPAT.
The Court further found that Myer should have updated the market on
six other separate occasions since 21 December 2014. By failing to
update the market, Myer had also engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct in contravention of section 1041H of the Corporations Act.

However, even though the applicant established a contravention of
the listing rules, there was no evidence to establish that those
contraventions caused any loss or damage to the applicant.

The adoption of market-based causation

Market-based causation in the Myer case

The applicant, TPT Patrol Pty Ltd as trustee for Amies
Superannuation Fund, brought the proceeding on its own behalf, and
on behalf all persons who acquired ordinary shares in Myer between
September 11, 2014 and March 19, 2015.

To succeed, the applicant had to prove that Myer's non-disclosure
of material information or misleading and deceptive conduct caused
loss. In normal cases, this might occur by the parties leading
evidence to demonstrate that the conduct of the company directly
caused detriment (usually called 'direct reliance'). That is, a
shareholder may establish that they heard and relied on the
contents of representations and in reliance decided to acquire
shares.

However, in this case, the Court accepted the use of market-based
causation theory. Often called 'indirect causation', market-based
causation does not require a shareholder to demonstrate reliance on
the non-disclosure or misleading or deceptive statement.

Applying market-based causation theory to the facts, the
applicant's case provided as follows:

   1. Myer's disclosure failures caused the stock market to inflate
the trading price of Myer securities above the price that a
properly-informed market would have set.

   2. The applicant acquired its securities in the inflated
market.

   3. The applicant would not have acquired those securities at
those inflated prices but for the market's reaction to Myer's
misleading or deceptive conduct and disclosure failures.

Unfortunately for the applicant, the same thinking behind the use
of market-based causation theory disentitled the applicant to
compensation. This is because Justice Beach found that the market
price of Myer securities already factored in an NPAT 'well south of
Mr Brookes' rosy picture painted on 11 September 2014'. Put another
way, the market did not believe Mr Brookes' representation
concerning NPAT. Accordingly, the price for the securities had not
been inflated by the non disclosure, and the purchasers or
securities were unaffected by the misleading or deceptive conduct
and disclosure failures.

Practical guidance for company officers

The decision provides helpful practical guidance concerning the
continuous disclosure requirements of ASX listed companies.

Materiality threshold

ASX listing rule 3.1 provides an obligation for ASX listed
companies to disclose information concerning the company that a
reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the
value of the company's securities.

Materiality is not defined in the Corporations Act or the ASX
listing rules. As discussed by Justice Beach, the ASX's view is
that 'smaller listed entities' or those that have 'relatively
variable earnings' may consider 10% to be the appropriate
materiality threshold while 'very large listed entities' or those
that have 'very stable or predictable earnings' may consider that a
materiality threshold that is closer to 5% is appropriate.

Ultimately, the Court considered the ongoing decline in Myer's
profit performance and found that a decline of 5% or more would
have been material to the market.

Though materiality needs to be considered on a case by case basis,
a variance of even 5% to guidance may be sufficiently material to
warrant disclosure. Given the increased risk of shareholder class
action following from the adoption market-based causation theory,
it may be prudent to err on the side of caution with respect to
disclosure obligations.

Understanding continuous disclosure requirements

ASX listed companies should ensure that company officers understand
the circumstance in which disclosure is required under the ASX
Listing Rules.

On September 11, 2014, in presentations and in question and answer
sessions with equity analysists and journalists, Mr. Brookes
represented that Myer's outlook in 2015FY included anticipated
sales and profit growth in excess of Myer's NPAT in the previous
financial year. Several of Myer's directors gave evidence that they
did not consider Mr. Brookes' statements to be profit forecasts,
because it was not done by way of formal written ASX release by
Myer. However, as the representations regarding the NPAT were made
by Mr. Brookes as the CEO, Myer was bound to correct the
representations if Myer later formed a view of a likely NPAT that
differed.

The Myer decision demonstrates that Myer company officers did not
understand Myer's continuous disclosure obligations. The ASX
Listing Rules - Guidance Note 8: Example F provides useful guidance
to assist ASX listed companies in these circumstances.

What information is generally available?

Section 674 of the Corporations Act provides an obligation for ASX
listed companies to disclose in accordance with the listing rules.
The section further provides that information that is generally
available is not subject to continuous disclosure obligations.

Given that the majority of analysts forecasted that Myer's NPAT in
FY15 would be below its NPAT in FY14, Myer sought to argue that it
had no obligation to disclose corrections to the Representations.
After all, this information was generally available.

The Court rejected this argument on the basis that analysts'
forecasts are themselves predictions and are therefore inherently
speculative. It was therefore not feasible for Myer's expectations
regarding future earnings to be generally available via analysts.

The importance of a company continuous disclosure policy

The decision reinforces the importance of listed companies
implementing and abiding by a continuous disclosure policy.

At all relevant times, Myer maintained a comprehensive continuous
disclosure policy that specifically addressed verbal comments,
financial market communications and issues concerning authorised
spokespersons. While it was not ultimately relevant to the outcome
of the case, the Court found that in every instance Myer had
breached its own continuous disclosure policy.

The effect of disclaimers

Myer, like most prudent ASX listed companies, included a disclaimer
on their release and presentation material. The disclaimer
provided:

All numbers are unaudited. . .  This release may contain
"forward-looking statements" . . . Forward-looking statements are
not guarantees of future performance, and involve known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside
the control of Myer. Actual results, performance or achievements
may vary materially from any forward-looking statements. Readers
are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking
statements, which are current only as at the date of this release.
Subject to law, Myer assumes no obligation to update such
information.

The Court found that a reasonable person would not regard the
disclaimer as removing the opinion or forecast of the meaningful
content. Specifically, Justice Beach noted 'the prospect that the
printed disclaimers could effectively negate the representations or
relieve Myer from its obligations to have reasonable grounds is
problematic to say the least'.

Though the decision reinforces that disclaimers are not a panacea,
prudent ASX listed companies should continue to include disclaimers
in investor material.

Conclusion

The Myer decision reinforces the importance of maintaining a
culture of continuous disclosure of material information to the
market. Justice Beach's adoption of market-based causation theory
means that future class actions may not need to establish direct
reliance when a company fails to disclose material information to
the market. This risk dovetails with the increased role of
litigation funding in Australia to expose boards to an increased
risk of class actions from shareholders. [GN]


MYLAN NV: Engages in Monopoly for EpiPen, KPH Claims
----------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MYLAN N.V.; MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P.; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PFIZER, INC.; KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
and MERIDIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02065-CM-TJJ (D. Kan., February 14, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.

The Plaintiff, seeking to represent direct purchasers of an
epinephrine auto-injector called EpiPen, files the Complaint
against the Defendants due to unlawful monopolization in the market
for EpiPen, which led to the purchase of the product at a higher
price.

Mylan N.V. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals
company with its corporate headquarters located in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.

Mylan Specialty, L.P. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mylan N.V.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and conducts extensive
business nationwide.

Pfizer, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company with its global
headquarters in New York, New York.

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer,
Inc. that is based in Bristol, Tennessee. The company performs
basic research and develops, manufactures, markets and sells
branded prescription pharmaceutical products and animal health
products.

Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. is a pharmaceutical developer
and manufacturer with its principal place of business in Columbia,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          Little Rock, AR 72223          
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL STAFFING: King Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
TWYLA KING, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL STAFFING, LLC,
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., CAROL DOUGLAS, and DEREK WROBLEWSKI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10400-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich., February
14, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals time and
one-half their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

King has performed security guard services and has been
misclassified as independent contractors for Defendants throughout
southeastern Michigan.

National Professional Staffing, LLC, based in Utica, Michigan,
provides security guard services to businesses and individuals
throughout southeastern Michigan.

Prudential Security, Inc. is a Michigan profit corporation which
conducts business throughout southeastern Michigan and has a
registered office in Milan, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           David M. Blanchard, Esq.
           Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
           BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
           221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
           Ann Arbor, MI 48104
           Telephone: (734) 929-4313


NEUVOO USA: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kizzy Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Neuvoo USA Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00378-DWL (D. Ariz., Feb. 20, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to stop it from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to
consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the availability
of jobs on its Web site using unsolicited, autodialed text
messages. The Plaintiff has never searched for jobs on the
Defendant's website and has never provided her consent to the
Defendant to send her text messages using an automatic telephone
dialing system or to otherwise contact her.

To the extent the text messages were sent on the Defendant's behalf
to consumers, the Defendant provided the third-party access to its
records, authorized use of its trade name, otherwise controlled the
content of the messages, and knew of, but failed to stop, the
sending of the text messages in violation of the TCPA, says the
complaint.

Ms. Williams is a Mesa, Arizona resident.

Neuvoo USA Inc. is a job search Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Suite 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: 602-529-3474
          Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

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


NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: Atty. Gives Update on Mike Kelly Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Guarino, writing for WECT, reports that the New Hanover County
Schools United for Students group hosted a support meeting for
parents and students of the New Hanover County School district on
Feb. 3.

At the meeting, attorney Ryan Schultz, one of the lawyers involved
in the class-action lawsuit filed against the school system for how
it handled the case involving Mike Kelly gave an update on the
case.

"Right now, we are actively talking to witnesses and that is a very
big challenge, coming forward and finding witnesses to talk to who
are slowly kind of coming out of the woodwork and out of the
shadows. We can see it's been a problem for a very long time and I
think there's been a pattern and culture of silence and the time
for that is over," he said.

Schultz also talked about a civil case likely to be filed against
Peter Frank, the Roland Grise Middle School band instructor charged
with a dozen felony sex crimes.

The NHCS United for Students Group plans to file that class action
suit while the criminal suit is ongoing.

"We're still actively looking for witnesses. I think there are
people who have been embarrassed, scared to step forward. And I
think that's been among the real tragedies is that when you go and
you finally get the guts to go say something, and you finally get
the guts to go and tell somebody and it gets swept under the rug,
you get victimized twice," Schultz said.

For the first time since inside a courtroom, a mother spoke
publicly about her son, who was victimized by Mike Kelly.

She says Kelly, like other predators, groomed students by
normalizing inappropriate behavior.

"Everything appeared to be about supporting, about being the
village, so for over a year, I mean this was just . . . you send
your kids to school and you trust they're going to be safe. Mr.
Kelly talked a lot about fraternities and brotherhood. The
counselor from the high school, when I was there, he talked to
those boys about fraternities and brotherhood, going to college.
This is what it's like. He normalized that behavior," the mother
said.

The mother talked about her own experiences being abused by a
teacher when she was young. She said she did not recognize it as
abuse until years later.

"At that moment, I vowed that I would protect my kids, that this
would never happen to them," she said.

Her son was eager to go to Isaac Bear Early College High School,
planning on having his PhD before the age of 30.

Eventually, he had no desire to go to school and begged to transfer
to Cape Fear Community College.

"It was a year into Cape Fear and I see an article about Mr. Kelly
and it was just like a punch in the gut because I knew, I knew,"
she said.

She said her son encouraged her to share their story at the meeting
on Feb. 3 so others will talk as well.

"If you have any feeling that your child or a friend could have
been a victim of any of these teachers because there's still
victims of Mr. Kelly's out there. There's still victims of probably
Nicholas Oates and all of them. Give them time and space to share,
don't demand them to give too many details, because they're going
to have to share those details over and over again and it's really
hard," she said. [GN]


NEW ORLEANS: Lawsuit Over Bail System Pending in Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A Webster, writing for The Guardian, reports that Adrian
Caliste held his mother's emaciated body as the Alzheimer's that
long ravaged her mind finally took her life. The last words she
uttered were from Psalm 23: "The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not
want." And then she was gone.

Devastated, Caliste soon returned to a familiar escape: crack.

The 58-year old went on a drug binge in the Upper 9th Ward
neighborhood of New Orleans, where he grew up with his nine
siblings. He disappeared among the street junkies and hustlers,
becoming unrecognizable to both family and friends. On the nights
he was too high to go home to his wife and children, Caliste would
stagger into the Mount Olivet Cemetery, lay his gaunt body on top
of his mother's grave and close his eyes.

"Talk about a good peaceful sleep," he recalled during a recent
interview at his attorney's office. "It's so quiet in there."

Five months after his mother's death, on June 19, 2017, Caliste hit
rock bottom. Police pulled him over in his pickup truck with a
suspected drug dealer, and found crack, marijuana and a glass pipe
in his possession. They arrested him on two drug charges.

The following morning, Caliste appeared before magistrate court
judge Harry Cantrell, the father-in-law of Mayor LaToya Cantrell.
The judge, a registered Democrat, has been repeatedly accused by
civil rights attorneys and public defenders of setting excessive
bail without considering defendants' ability to pay. Caliste was no
different. Even though his lone source of income was a monthly
$1,100 disability check and though he didn't have a violent
criminal history, Cantrell slapped him with a $5,000 bond.

Before he was arrested on drug charges, Adrian Caliste would often
sleep on his mother's grave at Mount Olivet Cemetery in New
Orleans, Louisiana.

And like so many poor people before him, Caliste was sent back to
his cell in the violence-plagued Orleans parish jail to await trial
while wealthier people accused of the same crimes walked free.

This moment sparked a historic class action lawsuit against
Cantrell, where attorneys alleged that he was "locking up people
for being poor". When a federal court, one year later, struck down
his bond-setting practices as unconstitutional, civil rights
advocates rejoiced.

"The ruling means that people who are arrested in Orleans parish
should get a full and fair hearing on their pretrial release,"
attorney Katie Schwartzmann said at the time on behalf of the
MacArthur Justice Center in New Orleans which, along with the Civil
Rights Corps in Washington DC, filed the lawsuit on Caliste's
behalf.

It seemed like a turning point, one that positioned New Orleans to
join a larger, national movement to eliminate or severely curtail
money bail. Washington DC ended the practice decades ago while
cities such as Houston, and states including California, Maryland
and New York have taken similar steps.

Such sweeping reforms, however, have yet to materialize in New
Orleans. Cantrell continues to set excessive bonds in defiance of
the federal order, according to civil rights attorneys, while city
leaders have shown little appetite to force his hand. (The judge
and mayor declined an interview request for this story.)

"I find it very troubling that the government as a whole, whether
it's the mayor's office, the council or the judges, are all
essentially ignoring these civil rights orders coming out of the
federal court when the violations are happening . . . every day,"
said Jon Wool, director of justice policy at the Vera Institute of
Justice in New Orleans.

A dozen men and women in shackles and orange jumpsuits rose to
their feet as Cantrell took the bench on a recent Monday morning.
In 2019, roughly 6,000 people were arrested on at least one new
felony charge in New Orleans, according to the Vera Institute --
Cantrell personally set bail in a majority of the cases.

First elected in 2013, Cantrell, 72, ran on a promise that he would
administer justice "fairly and impartially" while also protecting
the public from dangerous offenders. His campaign attracted
endorsements from high-profile officials across the political
spectrum, including the current mayor who was then a member of the
city council.

Before that, he served 15 years as a magistrate commissioner, an
unelected position appointed by the criminal court judges. There
are four commissioners who set bonds in the afternoons and weekends
while the magistrate judge handles mornings.

Cantrell, a soft-spoken man with a salt-and-pepper beard, began the
day's hearing by calling out the names of each of the arrestees. He
asked if they were employed, and if so, how much money they made.
Many were reliant on social security checks. Some worked for temp
agencies. Others made as little as $7.25 an hour -- the minimum
wage -- as dishwashers or cooks. And all but a handful were black.
In New Orleans, African American families pay 88% of bail, reports
Vera.

After appointing each a public defender and confirming police had
probable cause for their arrests, Cantrell moved to set bail. A
young woman arrested for possession of narcotics with intent to
distribute and an illegal firearm soon stood before him.

Meghan Garvey, the bond advocacy attorney for the Orleans Public
Defenders, made the case the woman should receive a nominal bail so
she could be released pending trial. She ticked through the reasons
why: she had never been previously arrested; she made a meager
living as a self-employed beautician; and pre-trial services -- a
program overseen by the state supreme court -- assessed her flight
and public safety risk at the lowest level possible.

Courts typically use bail to ensure arrestees return for their
hearings. Defendants can pay a commercial bail bondsman a
non-refundable deposit, about 12% of the total bail amount. Or they
can pay the full amount in cash, which is returned in full if they
comply with all their legal requirements. This is a route commonly
available only to wealthier people.

Male defendants forced to sit in jail because they can't make bail
have a median annual income of $15,598 compared with $39,600 for
the average, non-incarcerated man, according to the Prison Policy
Initiative, a not-for-profit in Northampton, Massachusetts.

If judges believe the person to be a serious flight risk or an
imminent threat to the community, they can set an amount so high
the person is guaranteed to stay in jail. This is supposed to be
used in only rare cases, according to the US supreme court which
stated in a 1987 case that "liberty" should be the norm and
pre-trial detention a "carefully limited exception".

For many people living in poverty, however, any amount of bail can
mean incarceration. A 2018 report from the Federal Reserve found
that 39% of adults don't have $400 in savings to use in times of
emergency. The number is probably higher in Louisiana, which has
the nation's third highest poverty rate.

After listening to Garvey's arguments, Cantrell said he carefully
considered the "Caliste requirements", yet set the woman's bail at
$11,000.

For many people living in poverty, however, any amount of bail can
mean incarceration
"Your honor, there is no evidence she is a danger to the
community," Garvey objected. "This is a violation of her
constitutional rights and it violates the federal court ruling."

Cantrell waved off Garvey's concerns, insisted he was protecting
her client's rights, then sent the 20-year-old woman back to jail.

- - -

It's been 17 months since US district court judge Eldon Fallon
ruled that Cantrell's bail-setting practices violated the 14th
amendment, which prohibits the jailing of people solely because
they are poor. This was supposed to prevent future cases such as
Caliste's, who was released after spending nearly three weeks in
jail.

But civil rights attorneys contend Cantrell routinely ignores two
of the ruling's basic requirements: that he ask people about their
ability to afford bail; and consider alternatives to bail.

In one case, Cantrell told a public defender Fallon's order was
"not the law of the land" when she objected to him setting bail
without herself or her client present.

More recently, Cantrell set a $1,250 bond on Miles Moran, a
homeless man arrested for allegedly stealing $21.28 of drinks and
potato chips from a drug store. Moran's public defender argued her
client was indigent and couldn't "afford any amount of bond". If
released pending trial, she told the judge, he would admit himself
to a local drug treatment facility where a bed was waiting for him.
Cantrell lowered the bond to $300 at a second hearing, which was
still more than Moran could afford.

He spent the next two months in jail until prosecutors dropped the
charges to misdemeanors, after which he was released.

Calvin Johnson, the former chief judge of criminal district court
and a leading voice in reforming New Orleans' criminal justice
system, said Cantrell is a good person who means well. But like
many people operating in a system resistant to change, he is stuck
in an "old school" way of thinking.

"He simply can't make the leap to setting no bond. It's a foreign
concept to him," Johnson said. "He's 72 years old and set in his
ways. And if you ask him to change, he'll say, 'Never. Period.
Don't ask me again.' That's who he is."

And he is not alone.

"He represents the majority of the folk who operate in the justice
system when it comes to bail," Johnson said. "If you get outside
New Orleans . . .  you're going to find people just like him."

In response to Cantrell's continued intransigence, civil rights
attorneys Eric Foley and Alec Karakatsanis filed a motion for
contempt against Cantrell on January 10, which could result in
fines or even jail time.

"Nobody wants to go hauling judges in front of other judges," said
Jim Craig, director of the MacArthur Justice Center's New Orleans
office. "Contempt is extreme. It's meant to be extreme. But old
practices and old ways of thinking die very hard."

Cantrell's attorney, Mindy Nunez Duffourc, said the "court
maintains [that] all of its bail settings are in compliance with
the due process clause" of the constitution and that Cantrell is
following the so-called Caliste requirements to the letter.

"The plaintiffs seem to be complaining about the entire bail
system. They don't want it at all," Duffourc said. "But these
judges have inherited the way the court operates and that's
according to state and federal law, which allows them to set
bail."

That could soon change, however, as Fallon ruled it
unconstitutional and a conflict of interest for Cantrell to set
bail while, at the same time, using a portion of that money to pay
for his staff salaries and benefits, as well as travel and other
expenses. Bail revenue, in addition to fines and fees, accounts for
nearly 25% of the court's finances.

Cantrell has twice appealed this ruling to the Fifth US Circuit
Court of Appeals and was rejected each time. He has asked the US
supreme court to review the lower court's decisions.

If the supreme court denies the request, Cantrell would continue to
be prohibited from setting bail under the current system, said Wool
with the Vera Institute.

"This is a unique opportunity for New Orleans to do what only a
handful of places have been able to do, and that's get rid of money
bail," Wool said. "This city should be taking the lead in
eliminating these practices which overwhelmingly, in a shameful
way, impact black residents."

- - -

Adrian Caliste was arrested in the Upper 9th Ward neighborhood of
New Orleans, Louisiana, in June 2017.

Caliste was eventually released after spending 20 days in jail
under the condition he enter a drug treatment program. He later
pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute in federal
court and was given credit for time served. Caliste is now two
years sober and a deacon at a local church where he ministers to
people struggling with homelessness and addiction.

"It feels like a dream, sort of, and I woke up," he said of the
dark period following his mother's death. "What I have in me is
better than what I was doing."

The class action lawsuit that bears his name didn't seek monetary
damages. Caliste didn't make a dime off of it. He just wanted to do
what's right, he said. Most importantly, he wanted peace of mind.

On a recent visit with his family, Caliste and his sister,
Rochelle, watched a video of their mother on her death bed. Their
father is singing to his wife of 63 years, holding her skeletal
hand, telling her how much he loves her. She opens her eyes wide,
as if coming out of a fog, and tries to sing along. She died a few
days later.

Rochelle looked at her brother, his eyes fixed on the screen. "Are
you OK?" she asked.

"I'm good," he said smiling. "Yeah, I'm all good." [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Over Housing Policy Settled
------------------------------------------------------
Janaki Chadha, writing for Politico, reports that a woman who said
she was trapped between her abusive ex-husband and a "devastating"
city housing policy will avoid eviction from her home, following
the settlement of a federal-class action lawsuit that forced a
change in how the city's housing agency treats survivors of
domestic violence.

The woman, identified in court documents as B.D., was unable to
shift a city-administered rental voucher into her name from her
ex-husband's -- a man she said physically attacked her, threatened
to kill her and raped her after she was instructed to refrain from
sex because of a medical procedure.

Despite receiving a restraining order against him, the city's
housing agency ignored the woman's attempts to transfer the subsidy
and her husband's status as "head of household" gave him legal sway
over the voucher. The Legal Aid Society sued the Department of
Housing Preservation and Development last year on behalf of the
woman, calling the policy "unlawful and devastating," and the city
settled toward the end of last year. The details of the settlement
have not been previously reported.

"This seemingly neutral policy . . . led to bad results when
domestic violence was involved," said Legal Aid attorney Ellen
Davidson in an interview.

The department's previous policy excluded survivors from the
process that determines who receives the voucher in cases of
domestic violence, Davidson said. Only the person listed as "head
of household" under the voucher could participate in administrative
hearings.

B.D. submitted documented accounts of her abuse, including a
Certification of Domestic Violence, but HPD never responded to her
request, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Brooklyn. She later found out the agency held an administrative
hearing with her ex-husband, which she didn't attend because she
was never told it was happening.

"No one was there for me. It was me, all alone, and he have all the
power over me," she said in an interview with POLITICO last year.

In March 2018, the woman was sent a notice that her subsidy would
end the following month, and ended up in housing court proceedings.
She received her own housing voucher as part of the settlement and
was able to remain in the apartment where she had been when the
case began, Davidson said.

As part of the settlement, the housing department -- which oversees
the federal Section 8 voucher program -- started classifying
domestic violence survivors under a new preference category,
allowing them to obtain a new voucher in their name after
submitting certain documentation. Legal Aid negotiated the
settlement with the firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

"No New Yorker should be deprived due process in any housing
context, especially those suffering domestic violence," Davidson
said.

The lawsuit sought to change the city's policy to open the
administrative hearings to both parties in similar cases so
domestic violence survivors have a voice in the process. HPD ended
up making a different change to classify survivors as a preference
group, which Davidson said is "a better result than what we were
originally asking for."

The city said its new policy should prevent these kinds of
situations in the future.

"A safe place to call home is vital for survivors of domestic
violence, and these vouchers are a lifeline for many families,"
said housing agency spokesperson Matthew Creegan. "HPD's new policy
ensures eligible domestic violence survivors will not lose this
critical resource to secure an affordable home in New York City."

The agency added that it will exercise its authority to deny or
terminate assistance to perpetrators of domestic violence. [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Parents File Class Action Over Lack of ABA
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Elsen-Rooney, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
parents argue a one-on-one therapy approach to autism is the best
method available for toddlers, and are taking their fight for it to
court for thousands of children in New York City preschools and
elementaries.

Applied Behavior Analysis, which breaks up tasks into small steps
and teaches skills through rewards and repetition, is "the most
well-researched and validated general approach to treatment for
[Autism Spectrum Disorder]," officials from the state health
department wrote. It's administered frequently to 0-3-year-olds in
the state's Early Intervention system.

But after age three, thousands of kids -- many of whom thrive under
the approach -- are suddenly forced to drop Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) in city preschools and elementary schools, where
it's rarely offered, according to parents and advocates.

A group of parents has now filed a class action lawsuit against the
city and state education departments charging the lack of ABA
violates federal special education law.

"It's devastating to see these families desperate, to hear the
stories of regression, and to know that it was clearly
preventable," said Elisa Hyman, the special education lawyer
representing the families in the lawsuit.

"In my view, it's blatantly illegal for the department to adopt a
blanket policy whereby it refuses to consider, or provide, ABA
services," Hyman added.

Education Department officials acknowledged they don't include ABA
on individual education plans, which are the legal documents that
govern special education services, though they've added programs
across the city that use the approach.

"We're committed to making sure our students get the services they
need and we have added and expanded our special education programs
that employ Applied Behavior Analysis in the past two years," said
Education Department spokeswoman Danielle Filson.

The agency also started a pilot to smooth the transition from early
intervention to preschool for kids with disabilities, Filson said.

A crisis in services for city kids with autism has been mounting as
the number of diagnoses has skyrocketed. In 2007, about 7,000 city
students were classified as autistic, according to court papers.
Last year, the number was over 20,000, according to Education
Department data.

Another 8,500 toddlers diagnosed with autism got support through
the city's early intervention program last school year, state
officials said. But the approach state officials have taken to
treating their youngest charges contrasts sharply with what happens
when they arrive in school.

The majority of autistic toddlers in Early Intervention end up
receiving ABA therapy, said Peri Seshens, who ran an early
intervention program and now has her own ABA company, adding: "We
have decades and decades of research that shows what we do is
effective."

Parents like Jessica Montgomery saw the therapy's impact close up:
Her son Mason got 20 hours of ABA therapy every week through the
early intervention program as a toddler.

"My son made such incredible gains," Montgomery recalled. Mason
went from not being able to swallow food to feeding himself and
communicating his needs by pointing to pictures.

Montgomery knew she wanted her son to continue with ABA in
preschool, but when she met with the city special education panel
that decides which services Mason gets in his public preschool,
officials told her it wasn't an option.

"Within a month of being in the school and losing the ABA, it was a
complete disaster," she said. "He started scratching others, biting
his hands to the point of bleeding."

Montgomery tried to find an ABA therapist through her private
insurance but learned she'd have to wait months and pay a
deductible. Meanwhile, Mason's condition continued to deteriorate.
He was so anxious that he didn't sleep for three straight days.

"It was literally heart-wrenching," Montgomery said. "As a parent
you feel helpless. We've done everything we can do on our end. It's
like constantly hitting a wall."

Montgomery isn't alone -- Hyman said she's worked with scores of
families whose kids thrived with ABA in early intervention only to
have the support suddenly yanked when school begins.

Some turn to private ABA therapists, others sue the city in the
hopes a special education judge will force the Education Department
to offer the therapy. Others don't know they have any legal
recourse, Hyman said.

"Everybody is told your ABA services are going to stop, and nobody
even realizes they can challenge that for their individual child,
and they often don't find out until years later, or never," Hyman
said.

City officials say they offer a range of other services for kids
with autism, including reduced class sizes, speech and occupational
therapy, and sometimes paraprofessionals to work one-on-one with
students.

Education Department officials said they follow state guidelines
about what services are acceptable on an individual special
education plan, and said they can't commit to specific
"instructional methodologies" like ABA.

For Montgomery, ABA was important enough that she decided to sue
the city for leaving it out of Mason's special education plan. As a
result, some of Mason's ABA services have been restored.

"ABA needs to continue," she said. "Parents are left to fight for
what should be a necessity." [GN]


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Axis Asserts No Liability for ERISA Suit Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Axis Reinsurance co. urged the Third Circuit to
undo a district court's order that says it owes coverage to
aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman for an ERISA class
action that ended in a $12.4 million settlement, arguing on Feb. 5
that it's not liable for claims made outside the policy period.
[GN]



NUCO2 LLC: Townhouse Restaurant Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT OF
OVIEDO, INC. and ESTERO BAY HOTEL CO. v. NUCO2, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-14085-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      The Fuel Surcharge Class:

      "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid
      the standard fuel surcharge to NuCO2 at any time from March
      5, 2015 through the date of certification";

      The Energy Surcharge Class

      "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid
      the standard energy surcharge to NuCO2 at any time from
      March 5, 2015 through the date of certification"; and

      The Price Increase Class

      "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid
      more than their contractually agreed-upon price as a result
      of an open escalation price increase from March 5, 2015
      through the date of certification";

      Excluded from all classes are:

      (a) Customers who did not enter into "STA" versions "B,"
          "D," "F," "G," "H," or "I" of the form NuCO2 agreement;
          and

      (b) Municipalities, governmental entities, any entity
          currently in bankruptcy, any entity whose obligations
          have been discharged through bankruptcy, and any
          judicial officer who has presided over this case.

   2. appointing Townhouse Restaurant of Oviedo, Inc. to represent

      the Energy Surcharge Class and the Price Increase Class;

   3. appointing Estero Bay Hotel Co. to represent the Fuel
      Surcharge Class and the Price Increase Class; and

   4. appointing Nicholas Armstrong, Taylor Bartlett, Anthony
      Garcia, and Michelle Drake as class counsel pursuant to  
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

NuCO2 engaged in deceptive and unfair conduct in connection with
the "fuel surcharges," "energy surcharges," and "open escalation"
price increases it imposes, says the complaint.

NuCO2 is a beverage carbonation company which is wholly owned by
Praxair, Inc., the largest industrial and medical gasses company in
North America, with more than $11 billion in annual revenue.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are

          Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
          Garrett Owens, Esq.
          PRICE ARMSTRONG , LLC
          2226 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-208-9588
          Facsimile: 205-208-9598
          E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
                  garrett@pricearmstrong.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph E. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: 612-594-5999
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

               - and -

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205 326-3336
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Garcia, Esq.
          AG LAW, P.A.
          3602 W. Euclid Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: 813-259-9555
          Facsimile: 813-254-9555
          E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com

O REILLY AUTO: Soto Sues Over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------
MARTIN MARTINEZ SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC;
and DOES 1 THRU 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00214-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2020) alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC owns and operates retail auto parts
stores. The Company provides private-label and generic automotive
products for domestic and imported cars, including new and
remanufactured automotive replacement parts, maintenance items, and
accessories. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B Kingsley, Esq.
          Kingsley and Kingsley APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          Davtyan Law Firm Inc
          880 East Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Tel: (818) 875-2008
          Fax: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


OAK AT THE LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Lloyd Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA LLOYD, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals v. OAK AT THE LEAGUE LLC and Walden Davis, Jr., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00393-CAP (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay minimum and overtime wages to their bartenders for all hours
worked.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff as bartender for their location
in Ivan Allen Boulevard.

Oak is an entertainment facility offering comedy shows, night life,
and Sunday brunch. Mr. Davis is the owner, president, managing
member, and CEO of Oak, and he instituted a company-wide policy to
allegedly not pay its bartenders minimum wage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq.
          Julie H. Burke, Esq.
          HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
          3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 953-0995
          Facsimile: (770) 953-1358


ONLINE INFORMATION: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as REGINA MORGAN v. ONLINE
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00028-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Feb.
18, 2020, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings
on the motion for class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, Judge Duffin directed the Clerk of Court
to terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, the motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

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

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this
motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion.

Online Information develops credit risk assessment and debt
recovery solutions.[CC]

ONPOINT MEDICAL: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------
DAVID KATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONPOINT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00271-NYW (D. Colo., Feb. 2, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang.

OnPoint Medical Diagnostics Inc. offers quality assurance software
technologies. The Company provides software to test for gradual
degradation in image quality in magnetic resonance imaging systems.
OnPoint Medical Diagnostics provides for testing of position
accuracy, center frequency drift, transmitter gain, geometric
accuracy, and signal to nose ratio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Marcus & Zelman, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


OPERA LTD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Opera Limited. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the lead
plaintiff deadline listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Opera Limited  (NASDAQ:OPRA)
CLASS PERIOD: 07/27/2018-01/15/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: March 24, 2020

Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser
applications was significantly overstated; (ii) Defendants' funded,
owned, or otherwise controlled loan services applications and/or
businesses relied on predatory lending practices; (iii) all the
foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on Opera's financial prospects, especially with
respect to its lending applications' continued availability on the
Google Play Store; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and
Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

To get additional information about the Opera Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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



OPERA LTD: Faces Class Action Over Misleading IPO Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Investment Officer reports that a class action lawsuit
accuses Norway-based internet browser company Opera Limited of
offering documents for its IPO that contained "materially false and
misleading statements" about the company's business and operational
and compliance policies.

Opera completed its IPO in August 2018, issuing 9.6 million
American Depository Shares (ADS) priced at $12 per share, raising
approximately $115.2 million in gross proceeds. The complaint
alleges, however, the IPO documents were "negligently prepared" and
as a result contained "untrue statements of material fact."

The company provides mobile and personal computer web browser
applications, and in recent years has increased investments in
fintech businesses. It also provides mobile loan and financing
applications, which are offered on Google's Play Store, as
downloadable applications.

Specifically, the complaint accuses Opera of significantly
overstating the sustainable growth and market opportunity for its
browser applications. It also said the company failed to disclose
that it controlled loan services applications and/or businesses
that "relied on predatory lending practices." The lawsuit says that
this information, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Opera's financial prospects.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York,
cited a Jan. 16 report from Hindenburg Research that said Opera's
browser business was in decline and that its cash flow is
deteriorating. It also said that Opera's short-term loan business
appears to be in "open, flagrant violation" of the Google Play
Store's policies on short-term and misleading lending apps.

"Given that the vast majority of Opera's loans are disbursed
through Android apps, we think this entire line of business is at
risk of disappearing or being severely curtailed when Google
notices and ultimately takes corrective action," said the report.
It also said that "Opera has exhibited a troubling pattern of
raising large amounts of cash . . . and then directing portions of
it to entities owned or influenced by its chairman/CEO through a
slew of questionable related-party transactions."

Hindenburg gave Opera a 12-month price target of $2.60, which
represented a "70% downside." After the report was issued Opera's
stock price fell $1.69 per share, or 18.74%, to close at $7.33 per
share on Jan. 16.

The following day Opera issued a statement that said it "believes
that the report contains numerous errors, unsubstantiated
statements, and misleading conclusions and interpretations
regarding the business of and events relating to the company."

Opera said it had recently launched and scaled multiple new
businesses and has "continued to post strong financial results and
intends to continue leveraging its well-known brand and large user
base of more than 350 million users for additional growth." It
added that it "remains committed to maintaining high standards of
corporate governance and constantly evolving our products,
practices and governance." [GN]


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Knaak Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICHARD KNAAK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS,
LLC d/b/a QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No. 19-cv-1036 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
      Act and Wisconsin Consumer Act, a class consisting of:

      "all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin, who were
      sent a collection letter by Defendant, in attempt to collect

      a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes,

      between July 18, 2018 and July 18, 2019, inclusive, and was
      not returned by the postal service";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as its representative; and

   3. appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its counsel.

The case concerns the legality of standard form collection letters
used by Optio to collect consumer debts.

Optio Solutions is an accounts receivable and debt recovery
company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PACIFIC FOODS: Mislabels Vanilla-Flavored Beverage, Papoulis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Papoulis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Foods of Oregon, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00432
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
accurately indicate on the front label that its vanilla-flavored
coconut milk beverages contained flavor from non-vanilla sources.

Pacific Foods manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
coconut milk beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla
under their Pacific Foods brand. The Products are available to
consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and the
Defendant's Web site and are sold in cartons of 32 OZ (946 ML).

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


PENDLETON WOOLEN: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
DAVID KATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00272-MEH (D. Colo., Feb. 2, 2020) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

Pendleton Woolen Mills is an apparel manufacturing company. The
Company produces woolen garments and blankets. Pendleton has retail
and outlet stores throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Marcus & Zelman, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


PETER THOMAS: Skincare Products "Deceptive," Clair et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA CLAIR; BONNIE MCDONALD; and MILEY- ISABELLA OIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others and similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH GLOBAL,
LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH LABS LLC; JUNE JACOBS LABS, LLC; JUNE JACOBS
LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01220 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 12, 2020) is an action against the Defendants alleging unfair
and deceptive marketing practices of their skincare products
containing hyaluronic acid.

The Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the Defendants market
and sell a line of "Rose Stem Cell" products by tricking consumers
into believing that the rose stem cells in the products are capable
of improving and repairing the human skin. The Defendants also
market and sell a "Water Drench" line of products. The Defendants
falsely represent that the active ingredient in these products,
hyaluronic acid, will draw moisture from the atmosphere into the
user's skin, and will hold 1,000 times its weight in water, and
that the Water Drench Products are capable of providing hydration
and that the Water Drench Products are capable of providing
hydration for up to 72 hours. The Defendants have profited
enormously from their false marketing campaigns, while their
customers are left with overpriced, ineffective skin care
products.

Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC provides personal care products. The
Company offers perfumes, cosmetics, skin care, and other products.
Peter Thomas Roth Labs operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          113 Cherry Street,
          Seattle, WA 98140-2205
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com


PICOLLA VENNEZIA: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Picolla Vennezia
Rest. Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, for herself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Picolla Vennezia
Rest. Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01500 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Piccola Venezia is a fine-dining Northern Italian restaurant
specializing in fresh home-made pastas, the freshest seafood, prime
meats and game and world-class wines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


PITTSBURGH: Handcuffing of 7-Year-Old Spurs Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Deto, writing for Pittsburgh City Paper, reports that last
year, the mother of a student with special needs filed a lawsuit
against Pittsburgh Public Schools alleging that the school district
was improper in placing the 7-year-old boy in handcuffs after he
acted out repeatedly in class.

Filed in U.S. District Court, the suit involves several incidents
spanning from 2015-2017 at Pittsburgh Liberty K-5 in Shadyside. The
boy, identified as D.C., started to experience issues when he was
in kindergarten. According to the suit, he had trouble following
directions and staying in his seat. He was then diagnosed with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional
defiant disorder.

The next year while in first grade, D.C.'s behavior worsened. He
had more incidents including throwing a desk, walking out of class,
and yelling at teachers. However, the suit alleges that PPS failed
to provide recommended intervention techniques and reports severe
disciplinary action against D.C., including a substitute teacher
allegedly restraining D.C. to the ground while placing a knee on
his back, secluding D.C. in a room several times, and handcuffing
him before his mother arrived to pick him up.

Last month, the lawyers representing D.C. amended the lawsuit,
adding a class-action suit against PPS to include other students
with disabilities "who have been or will be unlawfully handcuffed
or restrained by school police officers or District personnel in
Pittsburgh Public Schools."

According to the criminal-justice site The Appeal, the lawyer
representing D.C., Kristen Weidus, said the school district has
acknowledged that the handcuffing occurred. But there is
disagreement over whether the disciplinary action was an
appropriate use of restraint. Weidus says not enough PPS school
resource officers are getting adequate training in how to properly
restrain children, including those with disabilities.

Aimee Zundel, Esq., the lawyer representing PPS and the school
police officer named in the suit, told The Appeal that PPS has
disciplinary policies that allow for the use of restraints as "a
measure of last resort and shall only be used after other less
restrictive measures, including de-escalation techniques." Zundel
added that the district takes these allegations very seriously and
"ongoing work goes on within the district to ensure the police
officers are ready and have the knowledge they need to work with
the [population] they serve which is minors, juveniles."

Both the substitute teacher who allegedly retrained D.C. with a
knee and the school principal named in the suit are no longer
employed by PPS, according to Zundel.

The lawsuit also states PPS failed to provide D.C. the support he
required and instead suspended him for three days and "recommended
that he be involuntarily committed to a mental health facility."

Fela Turner, D.C.'s grandfather, told The Appeal that he sat in on
D.C.'s class for two days in November 2016 and saw a chaotic
classroom environment. Turner said there were 27 first-graders for
one teacher and that different substitute teachers filled in for
the regular teacher who was on medical leave. He also said students
were disciplined by being forced to face the wall and that every
disciplined student was Black, like D.C.

According to Pennsylvania's Department of Education, five PPS
schools were among the top 25 in arrests for schools in the entire
state. And PublicSource reported how from 2013-2017 that 80% of
arrests and citations in PPS were of Black students, even though
only about 50% of the school district student population is Black.

Black teens in Allegheny County are also 20 times more likely to be
prosecuted as adults compared to white teens, and Allegheny County
District Attorney Stephen Zappala has blamed that disparity on the
significant percentages of Black youth attending PPS schools.

The Appeal reports that D.C. eventually got the proper special
education evaluation, but only after he was restrained in
handcuffs. His family says D.C., now 10, was diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder following the incidents. The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that D.C. is enrolled at Watson
Institute's Friendship Academy. Turner told The Appeal that D.C. is
on a football team and competing in track competitions, but that
the whole situation took a toll on the family.

"It's sent my daughter and [me] through a lot," Turner said. [GN]

POLARIS CLEANERS: Underpays Drivers, Arana Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE ARANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLARIS CLEANERS 99 INC. d/b/a POLARIS
CLEANERS; POLARIS CLEANERS 53 INC. d/b/a POLARIS CLEANERS; V.I.P.
CLEANERS INC. d/b/a V.I.P. CLEANERS AND TAILOR; 106 LA MODE
CLEANERS INC. d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS; LA MODE 1st CLEANERS INC.
d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS; LA MODE CLEANERS OF NEW YORK 37 INC. d/b/a
LA MODE CLEANERS; LA MODE CLEANERS 40 INC. d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS;
LA MODE CLEANERS 58 INC. d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS; LA MODE CLEANERS 7
LLC. d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS; LA MODE CLEANERS 8 LLC. d/b/a LA MODE
CLEANERS; LA MODE ORGANIC CLEANERS INC. d/b/a LA MODE CLEANERS; and
RICHARD J. AN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20 cv-01143 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Arana was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Polaris Cleaners 99 Inc. d/b/a Polaris Cleaners is in the garment
pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners industry in New
York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


PORTOLA PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern  District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) between November 5, 2019 and
January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action and join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., you may, no later than March 16, 2020,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your
rights as an investor in the shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.

According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

   Portola's internal control over financial reporting regarding
reserve for product returns was not effective;

   Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf
life;

   Portola had not established an adequate reserve for returns of
prior shipments of short-dated product;

   as a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to "catch up"
on accounting for return reserves; and

   as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of
only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, citing a $5
million reserve adjustment for short-dated product and flat
quarter-over-quarter demand for the disappointing financials.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.98 per share, or
approximately 40%, to close at $14.76.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
         E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com
                 classmember@whafh.com
[GN]


PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Saxena White Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Portola" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:PTLA), and certain of its executive officers,
(collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Portola common stock between
May 8, 2019 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A
previous securities fraud class action complaint filed against
Portola asserted an abbreviated class period of November 5, 2019
through January 9, 2020.

If you purchased Portola common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than March 16, 2020. You may
contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and
Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Portola is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes treatments for thrombosis and other hematologic
diseases. Its lead product is Andexxa, marketed as Ondexxya in
Europe.  Andexxa is for patients treated with rivaroxaban or
apixaban, when anticoagulation needs to be reversed due to
life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding.

The Complaint asserts claims against Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As alleged in the Complaint, during the Class Period, the Company
misleadingly touted Andexxa's revenues and future prospects –
calling it one of the most successful drug launches in history and
hailing the Company's purportedly exceptional execution on the
Andexxa launch as the catalyst for continued robust revenue growth.
However, the Company failed to warn investors of significant risks
and trends that had already materialized and were known to
Defendants.  While Portola emphasized "strong demand for Andexxa,"
"deepening utilization within existing accounts" at hospitals, and
broad usage for the drug in a variety of medical situations, in
reality, the opposite was true.  As the Company knew but concealed
from investors, the "strong demand" for Andexxa simply did not
exist.  Among other things, Andexxa's astronomically high wholesale
price of up to $49,500 per dose forced many of Portola's clients to
perform utilization reviews of Andexxa's cost effectiveness as a
treatment.  Consequently, a number of clients had drastically
"curtailed use of Andexxa following drug utilization reviews."
This caused Andexxa's quarterly sales growth to Tier 1 hospitals,
Portola's most important accounts, to collapse to zero or "flat."

The truth emerged on January 9, 2020, when Portola announced
preliminary net revenues of $28 million for the fourth quarter of
2019, which missed analysts' consensus estimates of $41 million by
more than 30%.  Portola executives were forced to admit that
Andexxa demand was falling dramatically due to "typical" hospital
utilization reviews and the short shelf life of a version of the
product.  In addition, the Company disclosed that it was taking a
substantial charge of $5 million for unused and returned Andexxa
product previously recognized as revenue and incorporated into
Portola's revenue growth numbers, largely stemming from selling a
version of Andexxa with an ultra-low shelf life of as little as six
months.  On this news, the Company's share price plummeted by
$9.98, or approximately 40%, to close at $14.76 per share on
January 10, 2020.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

Contact:

         David Kaplan, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Tel: (858) 987-0860
         Fax: (858) 369-0096
         Website: www.saxenawhite.com
         E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
[GN]

PREMIER PLUMBING: Wickles Seeks to Recover Back Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wickles, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PREMIER PLUMBING AND LEAK, LLC and WAYNE MOON, Case No.
1:20-cv-00044-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2020), is brought to
recover back pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, costs of
litigation and other relief from the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff worked at least 60 hours per week, but was never paid
more than straight time for the hours he worked, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Defendants willingly, deliberately and intentionally
refused to pay the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times
their usual hourly rate when they worked more than 40 hours per
week and at their agreed rate of $10 per hour for each hour they
worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumber's helper.

Premier Plumbing and Leak, LLC, was a Florida corporation,
providing plumbing services.  The Company's principal address is in
Gainesville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Mar. 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Qudian Inc. (QD). If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

Qudian Inc. (QD)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/qudian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=5432&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 23, 2020
Class Period: December 13, 2018 to January 15, 2020

Allegations against QD include that: (i) regulatory developments in
China threatened to negatively impact Qudian's fiscal full year
2019 ("FY19") financial results; (ii) Qudian's business was
unprepared to mitigate the risks associated with these regulatory
changes; (iii) as a result, Qudian's loan portfolio was plagued by
growing delinquency rates; (iv) all of the foregoing made Qudian's
repeated assertions concerning its FY19 financial guidance
unrealistic; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

Contact:

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




RAYMOND JAMES: Nguyen Sues Over Transfer to Fee-Based Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY NGUYEN, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., and RAYMOND JAMES TRUST,
N.A. Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2020), is
a reverse-churning class action based upon an alleged scheme by
Raymond James to improperly take advantage of trusting clients by
transferring their assets from commission-based accounts to
unsuitable fee-based managed account programs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class only paid
commissions when they traded securities. The fee-based managed
account programs include Raymond James Freedom wrap-fee accounts
(Freedom Accounts) and other Raymond James wrap-fee or fee-based
programs (Fee-Based Accounts), which charge an annual fee based on
a percentage of the total assets in an account regardless of the
client's trading activity.

The alleged scheme took advantage of a new proposed
regulation--commonly known as the Fiduciary Rule--which was
announced by the Department of Labor in April 2015. The purpose of
the Fiduciary Rule was to provide additional protection to persons
investing for retirement by expanding the definition of who acted
as a fiduciary to broker-dealers, such as Raymond James and their
registered representatives.

The Plaintiff contends that Raymond James and other large
broker-dealers prefer Fee-Based Accounts because these accounts
offer a more predictable, consistently recurring revenue stream
compared to commission-based accounts. Fee-Based Accounts also tend
to generate more revenue.

As a result of Raymond James's breach of its duties, the Plaintiff
contends that she and the putative class paid more in fees and
earned less for their retirement than they would have had they
simply stayed in their commission-based accounts.

Raymond James is a large, full service broker-dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          MANDELBAUM SALSBURG P.C.
          11891 US Highway One, Suite 100
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: 561 328 4617
          Facsimile: 561 214 4130
          E-mail: steppler@lawfirm.ms

               - and -

          Jordan S. Coley, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          6161 South Syracuse Way, Suite 200
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: coleyj@fdazar.com


REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Thornton Labor Suit in Sacramento
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Regal Cinemas Inc. The case is captioned as ROBERT THORNTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS INC.; CINEWORLD GROUP PLC; EDWARDS
THEATRES INC.; UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2020-00274695-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 31, 2020).

Regal Cinemas, Inc. owns and operates movie theaters. The Company
offers daily shows, matinee, and other theatrical movies in digital
and three dimensional technology. Regal Cinemas operates throughout
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon Kyle Brouillette, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 310-556-4176
     Fax: 310-943-0396
     E-mail: Brandon.Brouillette@CapstoneLawyers.com

RICOH USA: Removes Sarabia Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARIO SARABIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICOH USA,
INC.; and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange (Case No. 30-2019 01115709-CU-WT-CXC) to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on January
31, 2020. The clerk of court for the Central District of California
assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-00218-JLS-KES.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

Ricoh USA, Inc. produces and distributes printing equipment. The
Company offers printers, copiers, interactive whiteboards,
electronic devices, inks, and parts. Ricoh USA markets its products
in the United States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis M. Brown, Esq.
          Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113-2303
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: dmbrown@littler.com
                  mmuraco@littler.com


RITE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Robinson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA ROBINSON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RITE HOSPITALITY, INC. and SALEEM GAULANI, Case No.
1:20-cv-00347-MLB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 24, 2020), seeks declaratory
relief, liquidated and actual damages for the Defendants' failure
to pay federally mandated wages to the Plaintiff under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are individuals, who
have worked as current and former employees of the Defendants. The
Plaintiff generally worked up to 70 hours per week and was paid her
straight time rate instead of overtime for all hours worked over 40
per week, says the complaint. The Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff one-and-a-half times her regular rate of pay when she
worked over 40 hours in a given workweek.

Rite Hospitality operates the Rite4US Inn hotel at 4300 Snapfinger
Woods Drive, in Decatur, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242-5297
          Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


RODAN + FIELDS: Certification of Six Consumer Classes Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BARBARA LEWIS, AKEMI
BUCKINGHAM, BOBBIE JOE HULING, CYNTHIA WHETSELL, MARTHA MERLE,
ELAINA HUFNAGEL, TERESA GATTUSO, ELISSA WAGNER, AND DIXIE WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
RODAN + FIELDS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case
No. 4:18-cv-02248-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      California Class:

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in California." The
      class asserts claims under the Unfair Competition Law and
      Consumer Legal Remedies Act.;

      Florida Class:

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in Florida." The class

      asserts claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
      Practices Act.;

      Illinois Class:

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in Illinois." The
      class asserts claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
      Deceptive Business Practices Act.;

      Massachusetts Class

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in Massachusetts." The

      class asserts claims under the Massachusetts Consumer
      Protection Act, also known as "chapter 93A";

      New York Class

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in New York." The
      class asserts claims under New York General Business Law
      section 349.; and

      Washington Class

      "all persons who purchased Lash Boost in Washington." The
      class asserts claims under the Washington Consumer
      Protection Act

      Excluded from each of the classes above are (1) Defendants'
      officers, directors and employees; (2) the judicial officers

      and associated court staff assigned to this case, and the
      immediate family members of such officers and staff; and (3)

      persons who exclude themselves from the Class pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.;

   2. appointing class counsel.

This action arises from Lash Boost eye serum, a product that
skincare company Rodan + Fields launched in November 2016.  R+F has
employed a multilevel marketing program under which consumers may
purchase its products, including Lash Boost, through two channels:
directly through R+F's website or through independent contractors
called "consultants."

Rodan + Fields has marketed the product as a cosmetic
"eyelash-conditioning serum . . . clinically shown to enhance the
appearance of eyelash volume and length. . ."  The lawsuit claims
that since it entered the market in 2016, Rodan + Fields has failed
to disclose material facts to consumers about the existence,
severity, and duration of symptoms and side effects associated with
an ingredient in Lash Boost: isopropyl cloprostenate, a synthetic
prostaglandin analog.  Prostaglandin analogs are widely used in the
medical management of glaucoma to reduce elevated ocular pressure
in patients with ocular hypertension.

Although effective in treating individuals with glaucoma who could
otherwise lose their vision without treatment, prostaglandin
analogs have "potentially sight-threatening side effects,"
including: a. iris cysts, cystoid macular edema (which may cause
vision loss and distortion); b. anterior uveitis (inflammation of
the iris or ciliary body); and c. reactivation of herpes simplex
keratitis (inflammation and possible scarring of the cornea).
Known side effects also include: a. shrinking of the fat cells
around the eye (periorbital fat atrophy) causing eyelid drooping
(upper lid ptosis); b. increased prominence of lid vessels; c.
darkening of the eyelid skin and undereye skin; d. increased
pigmentation of the iris (meaning it can change the color of the
eyes); e. excessive tearing, eye pain, or lid crusting; and f.
lengthening of eyelashes.

The side effects of prostaglandin analogs are well known to eye
doctors, the lawsuit claims.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: 805 456-1496
          Facsimile: 805 456-1497
          E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Woerner, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Benjamin Gould, Esq.
          Erika M. Emerson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  bgould@kellerrohrback.com
                  eemerson@kellerrohrback.com
                  jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  dmanning@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291-2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com

SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless People Sue Over Portable Toilet Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stanton and Theresa Clift, writing for Sacramento Bee, report
that homeless residents looking for access to bathroom facilities
filed suit in federal court on Feb. 4 against the city of
Sacramento and its police department, alleging that officers
ordered the removal of a port-a-potty that had been placed near an
encampment.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status for 30 homeless people
living at the site near Seventh and North B streets, was filed by
Sacramento civil rights attorney Mark Merin and seeks a court order
prohibiting the city from removing a port-a-potty that has replaced
the one that was ordered removed earlier.

"While politicians fret and pay consultants to plan and advise, but
still neither provide shelter or restrooms, a few private citizens
have stepped up to (plate) and service port-a-potties where
homeless encampments have sprung up," the lawsuit says. "What does
the city do? Order the portable toilets removed endangering public
health and depriving the homeless people who use the port-a-potties
of dignity and the opportunity to dispose of their human waste in
sanitary fashion."

The lawsuit, which names homeless residents Patrick Mahoney,
Caroline Kennedy, Suracha Xiong and Brandon Allen Sr. as
plaintiffs, says "a compassionate private citizen" hired a company
to place the port-a-potty near the camp on Jan. 16 and maintain it,
and adds that homeless residents -- dubbed the "Hopeful Community"
-- agreed to clean and protect the toilet.

"For nine days members of the Hopeful Community celebrated the
presence of the port-a-potty, used it, kept it clean, and felt more
human and dignified by the presence and accessibility of the
convenience," Merin's lawsuit says. "Then, after nine days,
abruptly and without notice, the port-a-potty was removed on orders
of the Sacramento City Police and the Hopeful Community was crushed
and dejected."

After that removal, a group arranged for another toilet to be
placed at the site on Feb. 3 "to protect the right of homeless
people to dispose of their waste in a dignified and sanitary
fashion."

City spokesman Tim Swanson said the city has not yet been served
with the lawsuit, so it would be premature to comment on it. The
Sacramento Police Department declined comment on the lawsuit
because it cannot comment on pending litigation, said Officer Karl
Chan, police spokesman.

In order for a portable toilet to be placed on public property, it
would have to go through a permit process with the city, Chan
said.

The suit notes that the city's homeless crisis has caused
encampments that contribute to e. coli contamination of
Sacramento's rivers and endanger public health.

"The number of homeless people attempting to survive, unsheltered,
in the City of Sacramento skyrocketed by 85% between 2015 and 2017
and increased an additional 19% in the two years that followed,"
the suit says. "Vastly undercounted, the number of unsheltered
homeless people continued to record levels causing the Sacramento
City Council in January 2020 to declare a shelter crisis suspending
provisions of state and local regulatory statutes, regulations, and
standards of housing, health or safety which otherwise hinder
provision of shelter to homeless persons.

"From 2016 to 2017 the number of deaths among the unsheltered
homeless population rose by 75% and is four times that of the death
rate in the general population," the lawsuit reads.

There are more than 5,570 homeless people in Sacramento County,
mostly in the city, a count conducted about a year ago found.

In 2018, 132 homeless men and women died in Sacramento County --
the highest number of homeless deaths on record, according to an
annual report by the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End
Homelessness. The number of deaths surged to 124 in 2017 from 71 in
2016.

The lawsuit claims the city violated homeless residents' right to
privacy, right to bodily integrity and that its actions constitute
"punishment for involuntary and life-sustaining activity."

The same day the lawsuit was filed a Sacramento man who has been
trying to provide port-a-potty access to the homeless in another
area received permission to do so from the county.

Evan Edgar, a Sacramento engineer, said he received a permit on
Feb. 4 to place a toilet at Northgate Boulevard and Highway 160 on
Department of Regional Parks property.

He previously had stationed one near the Garden Highway last year,
but the county ordered it removed after 15 days because it had no
permit, he said.

Edgar says he expects the new portable toilet -- which is costing
$89 a week and being funded by him and private donors -- to be in
place Feb. 7. That is part of what Edgar is calling "Operation
Brown Trout" to help reduce pollution of Sacramento waterways.

Sacramento homeless activists have long been asking city and county
officials to install more bathrooms and showers for the homeless to
use.

In 2016, the city placed a portable bathroom facility on Ahern
Street between North A and North B streets, about a half-mile from
the site named in the lawsuit, but it is no longer there.

The City Council has approved a somewhat controversial plan to open
a bathroom facility downtown at Cesar Chavez Plaza. The council was
set to vote on Feb. 4 to hire a contractor to construct that
facility.

Many homeless men and women use the restrooms at large homeless
service provider Loaves and Fishes, but that facility normally
closes at 2:30 p.m. on weekdays and is not open on weekends.

A public bathroom facility is now open for 14 hours on weekdays and
8 hours on weekends at a shelter at 1400 North A Street, said
Stephen Watters of First Step Communities, which runs the shelter.
[GN]


SAFE CREDIT UNION: Faces Pierce Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Credit Union.
The case is styled as Angela Pierce, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Safe Credit Union, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00275892-CU-CO-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 20,
2020).

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

SAFE Credit Union provides credit cards, mortgages, commercial
lending, auto loans, investing & retirement planning, checking and
business banking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 E Guasti Rd., Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761-7656
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com



SASOL LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Sasol Limited ("Sasol" or the "Company") (SSL) between March 10,
2015, and January 13, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sasol had conducted
insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple
issues with, the LCCP, as well as the true cost of the project;
(ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently
plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical
issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level
management, who engaged in improper and unethical behavior with
respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the projects
oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render
the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively
impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported that the expected total capital
expenditure for the [LCCP] could increase up to US$11 billion.
Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $3.53 per
share, or 10.99% to close at $28.60 per share on June 6, 2016.

On May 22, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol disclosed that the
cost estimate for the LCCP has been revised to a range of $12,6 to
$12,9 billion which includes a contingency of $300 million.
Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $4.50 per
share, or 14.93%, to close at $25.64 per share on May 22, 2019.

Later, on August 16, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol issued a
press release disclosing that it was delaying the announcement of
its 2019 financial results because of possible LCCP control
weaknesses. On this news, Sasol's ADR price fell $0.74 per share,
or 4.02%, to close at $17.67 per share on August 16, 2019.

Then, on October 28, 2019, Sasol disclosed that its review of the
LCCP control weaknesses had brought to light errors, omissions, and
inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost estimate, and a number of unethical
and improper reporting activities that took place at the highest
level of management.

Finally, on January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release
confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company experienced an
explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
unit. Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $1.70 per
share, or 7.84%, over the following two trading days, closing at
$19.99 per share on January 15, 2020.

If you purchased Sasol securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/sasollimited-ssl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-245/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 6, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

Contact:

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


SASOL LIMITED: Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for April 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Sasol Limited (NYSE: SSL) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the Southern District of new [sic], and indexed under
20-cv-01008, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sasol securities between March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sasol securities during the
class period, you have until April 6, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Sasol was founded in 1950 and is headquartered in Johannesburg,
South Africa.  Sasol operates as an integrated chemical and energy
company in South Africa.  The Company operates through Mining,
Exploration and Production International, Energy, Base Chemicals,
and Performance Chemicals segments.

On October 27, 2014, Sasol announced the construction of an $8.1
billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Lake Charles,
Louisiana, dubbed the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP").
According to the Company, the LCCP includes seven manufacturing
units, some of which are in continued development, including the
low-density polyethylene ("LDPE") facility and Ziegler alcohol,
ethoxylates and Guerbet alcohol facilities, among others.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Sasol had conducted
insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple
issues with, the LCCP, as well as the true cost of the project;
(ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently
plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical
issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level
management, who engaged in improper and unethical behavior with
respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's
oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render
the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively
impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported "that the expected total capital
expenditure for the [LCCP] could increase up to US$11 billion,
including site infrastructure and utility improvements";  a slower
rate of capital "resulted in an extended project schedule and
contributed to further project cost increases"; "[t]he expected
returns for the project have reduced due to changes in long-term
price assumptions and the higher capital estimates"; and "[t]he
increase in the estimated LCCP capital cost and extended schedule
will reduce the expected project returns by approximately the same
amount as the Company's lower long-term price assumptions."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's American depositary receipt
("ADR") price fell $3.53 per share, or 10.99%, to close at $28.60
per share on June 6, 2016.

On May 22, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol disclosed that "the
cost estimate for the LCCP has been revised to a range of $12,6 to
$12,9 billion which includes a contingency of $300 million."  Sasol
cited a $530 million change in the project's cost forecast because
of a "[c]orrection for duplication of investment allowances of
approximately $230 million"; a "[c]orrection for certain contracts
and variation orders managed by Sasol, outside the primary
engineering, procurement and construction contract, of
approximately $180 million"; and forecast improvements that were
"not expected to be realised and adjustments for potential
insurance claims and procurement back-charges of approximately $120
million."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $4.50 per
share, or 14.93%, to close at $25.64 per share on May 22, 2019.

Later, on August 16, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol issued a
press release disclosing that it was delaying the announcement of
its 2019 financial results because of "possible LCCP control
weaknesses."

On this news, Sasol's ADR price fell $0.74 per share, or 4.02%, to
close at $17.67 per share on August 16, 2019.

Then, on October 28, 2019, Sasol disclosed that its review of the
LCCP control weaknesses had brought to light "errors, omissions,
and inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost estimate," and a number of
unethical and improper reporting activities that took place at the
highest level of management.  Sasol also announced the resignation
of, inter alia, its Joint Presidents and Chief Executive Officers
("CEOs"), effective November 1, 2019, and Senior Vice Presidents
and others previously in charge of the LCCP.

Finally, on January 14, 2020, Sasol issued a press release
confirming that on January 13, 2020, the Company "experienced an
explosion and fire at its LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
unit."  Sasol stated that "[t]he unit was in the final stages of
commissioning and startup when the incident occurred" and "has been
shut down and an investigation is underway to determine the cause
of the incident, the extent of the damage and resulting impact on
the LDPE unit's [beneficial operation] schedule."

Following these disclosures, Sasol's ADR price fell $1.70 per
share, or 7.84%, over the following two trading days, closing at
$19.99 per share on January 15, 2020.

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


SASOL LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of April 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Sasol
Limited.  Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

Sasol Limited (SSL)

SSL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 10, 2015 -
January 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2020

Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sasol-limited-loss-form?wire=3&prid=5428

Allegations: During the class period, Sasol Limited made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed
to account for multiple issues with, the Lake Charles Chemicals
Project ("LCCP"), as well as the true cost of the project; (ii)
construction and operation of the LCCP was consequently plagued by
control weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues;
(iii) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level
management, who engaged in improper and unethical behavior with
respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's
oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to render
the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively
impact the Company's financial results; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

To learn more about the Sasol Limited class action, contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


SASOL LTD: Glancy Prongay Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased Sasol Limited securities between
March 10, 2015 and January 13, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
Sasol investors have until April 6, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

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

On October 27, 2014, Sasol announced the construction of an $8.1
billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex called the Lake
Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP").

On June 6, 2016, Sasol reported "that the expected total capital
expenditure for the [LCCP] could increase up to US $11 billion,
including site infrastructure and utility improvements." Moreover,
the Company disclosed that "the estimated LCCP capital cost and
extended schedule will reduce the expected project returns by
approximately the same amount as the Company's lower long-term
price assumptions."

On this news, Sasol's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price
fell $3.53 per share, or approximately 11%, to close at $28.60 per
share on June 6, 2016, thereby injuring investors.

On May 22, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol revealed that "the
cost estimate for the LCCP has been revised to a range of $12.6 to
$12.9 billion which includes a contingency of $300 million."

On this news, Sasol's ADR price fell $4.50 per share, or nearly
15%, to close at $25.64 per share on May 22, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

On August 16, 2019, during pre-market hours, Sasol postponed its
full year 2019 financial results because of "possible LCCP control
weaknesses."

On this news, Sasol's ADR price fell $0.74 per share, or over 4%,
to close at $17.67 per share on August 16, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

On October 28, 2019, Sasol disclosed that there were "errors,
omissions, and inaccuracies in the [LCCP] cost estimate" and that
the highest level of management had engaged in a number of
unethical and improper reporting activities. Sasol also announced
the resignation of, inter alia, its Joint Presidents and Chief
Executive Officers ("CEOs") and Senior Vice Presidents and others
previously in charge of the LCCP.

On January 14, 2020, Sasol confirmed "an explosion and fire at its
LCCP low-density polyethylene (LDPE) unit." Sasol stated that
"[t]he unit was in the final stages of commissioning and startup
when the incident occurred."

On this news, Sasol's ADR price fell $1.70 per share, or nearly 8%,
over the following two trading days to close at $19.99 per share on
January 15, 2020, thereby injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence
into, and failed to account for multiple issues with, the LCCP, as
well as the true cost of the project; (2) that construction and
operation of the LCCP was consequently plagued by control
weaknesses, delays, rising costs, and technical issues; (3) that
these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's top-level management, who
engaged in improper and unethical behavior with respect to
financial reporting for the LCCP and the project's oversight; (4)
that all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to render the LCCP
significantly more expensive than disclosed and negatively impact
the Company's financial results; and (5) that as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Sasol securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than April 6, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact

      Charles Linehan, Esquire,
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles California 90067
      Tel: 310-201-9150
      Toll-Free: 888-773-9224
      E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
      Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN]

SASOL LTD: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sasol Limited (NYSE: SSL) between March 10, 2015 and
January 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Sasol investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Sasol class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1770.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Sasol had conducted insufficient due diligence into, and
failed to account for multiple issues with, the Lake Charles
Chemicals Project ("LCCP"), as well as the true cost of the
project; (2) construction and operation of the LCCP was
consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs,
and technical issues; (3) these issues were exacerbated by Sasol's
top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical
behavior with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the
project's oversight; (4) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to
render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and
negatively impact the Company's financial results; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 6,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1770.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

SASOL LTD: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Sasol Limited (SSL).
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.

Sasol Limited (SSL)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/sasol-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=5432&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2020
Class Period: March 10, 2015 to January 13, 2020

Allegations against SSL include that: (i) Sasol had conducted
insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account for multiple
issues with, the Lake Charles Chemicals Project ("LCCP"), as well
as the true cost of the project; (ii) construction and operation of
the LCCP was consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays,
rising costs, and technical issues; (iii) these issues were
exacerbated by Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in
improper and unethical behavior with respect to financial reporting
for the LCCP and the project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing
was reasonably likely to render the LCCP significantly more
expensive than disclosed and negatively impact the Company's
financial results; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

Contact:

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

SEPHORA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
COREEN AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
20STC05331 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2020) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, reasonably attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee.

Sephora USA, Inc. operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores. The
Company offers foundation sets, moisturizer, face powder, blush,
contour, eyeliner, nail polish, lipstick, face brushes, makeup
remover, face wash, toners, eye cream, face masks, perfume, body
lotion, hand cream, sunscreen, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN Law Firm, A Law Corporation
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Escapes Most Investor Claims in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group escaped most, but not
all, of its shareholders' securities fraud claims arising from its
failed $3.9 billion merger with Tribune Media on Feb. 4, when a
Maryland federal judge found all but two alleged misstatements to
be insufficient.  The investors claim in their proposed class
action that the broadcast giant and its most senior officers never
had any intention of complying with regulators divestiture
requirements for the merger or keeping their promises to investors.
[GN]


SKYLINE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Insurance Premiums, Dante et al Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA DANTE; THEODORE HUSS; JULIET HINRICHS; SAMANTHA OGGS; and
MARGARET GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH SCHWARTZ; ROSIE SCHWARTZ; SKYLINE
HEALTH CARE, LLC; SKYLINE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; AMERICAN PLAN
ADMINISTRATORS; CORNERSTONE QUALITY CARE, LLC; COTTONWOOD
HEALTHCARE, LLC; and FIRST LANDING INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01047-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Jan. 30, 2020)
is an action involving employees of dozens of nursing homes who had
health, dental, and Aflac supplemental insurance premiums deducted
from their paychecks, only to have these premiums willfully
pocketed by the Defendants without paying for the insurance.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have
engaged in nationwide fraud, theft, and other illicit conduct, to
maximize the amount of money they could collect from the various
facilities owned and operated by the Defendants.

The Defendants acquired more than 100 nursing homes in 2017, making
them the owner of one of the largest nursing home chains in the
country.  The states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Arkansas, and
Kansas have had to dispossess the Defendants of these homes under
involuntary receivership proceedings for non-payment of bills and
for jeopardizing the welfare of the residents and employees.

Between 2015 and 2017, Joseph Schwartz and his wife Rosie, acquired
in excess of 100 nursing homes across the country. In connection
with the acquisition of these new homes, the Schwartzes created
Skyline Management, LLC to act as the vehicle, along with Skyline
Healthcare, LLC, to control the flow of money from the newly
acquired nursing homes to the Skyline Enterprise's own bank
accounts. However, the Schwartzes under-funded and over-leveraged
every one of their newly-acquired homes, including each of the
Skline Facilities. Capitalization became dangerously inadequate
insofar as bills were no longer paid to vendors providing services
at the nursing homes and employee benefits were simply terminated.


According to the complaint, the Skyline Enterprise designed a
scheme to acquire as many facilities as possible, pocket as much
revenue as possible, as quickly as possible, and then wash their
hands of the whole thing. A spokesman for Skyline Healthcare
conceded that they are already transitioning out of the nursing
home industry, a year after acquiring more than 100 nursing homes.
The Skyline Facilities all operated at a spreadsheet loss while
paying the Skyline Defendants exorbitant "management fees," the
lawsuit adds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew T. Stone, Esq.
          MURRAY STONE & WILSON, PLLC
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (215) 947-5300
          Facsimile: (813) 251-2209
          E-mail: mstone@mswlawgroup.com


SKYLINE HEALTHCARE: Stole From Employees, Class Action Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Masson, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports
that five former Skyline Healthcare employees have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the failed nursing home operators,
claiming the company fraudulently took funds from employees'
paychecks, according to Keloland News.

The quickly growing Skyline Healthcare, owned by Joseph Schwartz,
had more than 100 facilities across the country at its peak, but
quickly fell apart when it struggled to come up with funding in
2018 and 2019, according to NBC News.

The new lawsuit alleges that certain Skyline nursing homes in
Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota promised employees
health, dental and Aflac insurance plans, with premiums directly
deducted from paychecks. However, while money was taken out of
employee paychecks, no insurance was ever purchased, according to
the complaint.   

Former employees allege that Skyline submitted false tax forms to
the IRS to prove its compliance with the Affordable Care Act. The
lawsuit also claims Skyline set up a fake company, Cornerstone
Quality Care, to enroll employees in various insurance plans,
deduct the premiums and then pocket the money. The lawsuit accuses
Skyline of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Some states have passed new laws that mandate better screening of
potential nursing home buyers. [GN]


SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Anderson FEHA Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Geraldine Anderson, Yolanda James, and Yvonne
Frazier, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland Corporation, JAIME DOE, an
individual, and ROES 1 to 100, Case No. 19STCV47012, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 20, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01655 to the
proceeding.

In their Complaint, all the Plaintiffs assert several violations of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), including harassment,
race and age discrimination, and failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation. The Plaintiffs also assert claims
for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrea R. Calem, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037-1701
          Phone: 202-955-1500
          Facsimile: 202-778-2201
          Email: ACalem@huntonAK.com

               - and –

          Matthew Bobb, Esq.
          D. Andrew Quigley, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: 213-532-2000
          Facsimile: 213-532-2020
          Email: MBobb@huntonAK.com
                 AQuigley@huntonAK.com


SNAP: Settles IPO Class Action for $187.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------
Tyler Sonnemaker, writing for Business Insider, reports that Snap,
Snapchat's parent company, said on Feb. 4 that it had signed a
preliminary agreement to pay $187.5 million to settle a class
action lawsuit filed against the company in 2017 by investors
following its initial public offering.

Snap had signed a preliminary deal to settle the case in January,
as previously reported by Law360.

However, when Snap reported quarterly earnings on Feb. 4, it also
shared the financial details of the settlement for the first time.
Judging from the language Snap used in describing it, it seems that
the settlement is awaiting court approval to finalize.

Notably, Snap said in its earnings report that it had "recorded
legal settlement expense, net of amounts directly covered by
insurance, of $100.0 million," seeming to indicate that the company
expects to pay a little over half of the proposed settlement out of
pocket, with the balance paid for by insurance.

Several investors brought the suit against Snap in 2017, in the
wake of its tumultuous IPO. They alleged that Snap had concealed
negative information ahead of going public about competition
Snapchat faced from Facebook-owned Instagram.

The class action lawsuit, which has involved several different
plaintiffs in its convoluted history, eventually prompted the US
Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to
look into Snap's pre-IPO disclosures, though the agencies
eventually dropped the case late last year.

Snap has struggled on the public markets since it went public in
March 2017, hovering just shy of $17 a share in after-hours trading
on Feb. 4 -- right around its IPO price of $17.

After a poorly-received redesign in 2018 triggered a sell-off, Snap
rebounded last year largely thanks to the popularity of its
augmented reality lenses. Snap missed Wall Street's revenue
expectations in its fourth-quarter, but handily beat earnings per
share predictions and added roughly 8 million new users. [GN]


SPEEDY CASH: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Bartz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CRYSTAL BARTZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SPEEDY CASH, SCIL, INC., and AD ASTRA COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00245-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STARK COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Zurakov"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
THE STARK COLLECTION AGENCY INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00265 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Voeks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE
COLLECTION SERVICE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00266
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STATE FARM: Hack Sues in W.D. Kentucky Over Insurance Disputes
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Fire &
Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Heather Hack,
Individually, Gregory Hack, As Parent And Next Friend of DH, a
Minor, Skylar Hack, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.
3:20-cv-00134-CRS (W.D. Ky., Feb. 20, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related disputes.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was formed in 1935 to provide
property insurance for State Farm customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Hollan, Esq.
          Sam Aguiar, Esq.
          SAM AGUIAR INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC
          1201 Story Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Phone: (502) 400-6969
          Fax: (502) 491-3946
          Email: jhollan@kylawoffice.com
                 Sam@kylawoffice.com


SUBWAY: 7th Circuit Upholds TCPA Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 5 upheld the
dismissal of a proposed class action alleging Subway violated the
Telephone Consumer Act by contracting with T-Mobile to send
promotional text messages, saying the lawsuit failed to establish
the sandwich chain had any control over the timing, content and
recipients of the messages. [GN]


TESLA: Updates Warranty Coverage for Model S, X Cars Amid Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jameson Dow, writing for electrek, reports that Tesla has updated
their warranty coverage for Model S and X cars, and it's a mixed
bag for owners. The warranty now explicitly covers battery
degradation and capacity loss, guaranteeing that the battery will
retain 70% capacity through the warranty period. But Tesla also
removed their famous "infinite mile warranty" for battery and drive
unit and replaced it with a limit of 150,000 miles -- still plenty
high for most (but not all) scenarios, but not "infinite."

More controversially, Tesla explicitly stated that "changes to the
performance of the battery due to software updates are NOT covered"
under warranty, likely due to a situation last year where some
owners saw sudden range drops after an update.

Those sudden range drops actually resulted in a class action
lawsuit. Tesla responded, stating that the update was done to
protect the battery packs.

In the full new warranty document, Tesla says that sometimes the
car will get "updates to protect and improve battery longevity."
These updates, if they result in "noticeable changes" to the
battery, are not covered by the capacity warranty.

In addition to this range drop for some cars, Tesla software
updates have also given more power and more range in the past.
These have been due to optimizations in motor and inverter control
software, and also simply due to changes in the way that Tesla
calculates range.

Since Tesla's range estimates "are an imperfect measure of battery
capacity because they are affected by additional factors," Tesla
says they reserve the right to decide how capacity is calculated.
Tesla has previously used a measurement called "calculated amp-hour
capacity," or CAC for similar purposes.

Battery degradation warranty extended to Model S/X

Tesla added a warranty against battery capacity when the Model 3
first came out. The warranty triggers if the car has less than 70%
of original capacity before the end of the eighth year, 100k/120k
mile warranty period (mileage depends on battery size).

The new capacity warranty doesn't seem to apply to the original
60kWh Model S, manufactured before 2015. Those are now covered by a
similar eight-year, 150,000 mile warranty, but without the
degradation coverage. These cars were originally covered by a
125,000 mile warranty, which looks like a retroactive increase.
Though the change to 150,000 miles may just be an error on Tesla's
part, since it's not specified in the actual warranty document, and
only on the website.

Here's the basic form of the old and new warranties (old warranty
scraped from archive.org, with differences in bold):

Old warranty:

Model S and Model X: Eight years (with the exception of the
original 60kWh battery manufactured before 2015, which is covered
for a period of eight years or 125,000 miles, whichever comes
first).

Model 3: Eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with
minimum 70% retention of battery capacity over the warranty
period.

Model 3 with Long-Range Battery: Eight years or 120,000 miles,
whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of battery
capacity over the warranty period.

New warranty:

Model S and Model X: Eight years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes
first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the
warranty period (with the exception of the original 60kWh battery
manufactured before 2015, which is covered for a period of eight
years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first).

Model 3 and Model Y Standard or Standard Range Plus: Eight years or
100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of
Battery capacity over the warranty period.

Model 3 and Model Y Long Range or Performance: Eight years or
120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of
battery capacity over the warranty period.

Batteries degrade over time, and a battery that's several years old
and has been through many charge cycles won't hold a charge as well
as a brand-new one.  Most consumers have experienced this with a
phone or laptop.

Electric car batteries are much bigger and more complex than phone
and laptop batteries. Many of them (like all Teslas) have active
cooling systems to help keep the battery at a healthy temperature.
Some also disallow owners from fully charging or discharging the
battery, since keeping batteries at 100% or discharging them to 0%
tends to cause faster degradation if done all the time. Tesla
recommends "daily" charging to 80-90%, and plugging in ASAP when
your battery is very low.

But these are small optimizations, because it turns out that
battery capacity degradation isn't all that bad in electric cars.
Crowdsourced data collected by European Tesla owners has shown that
Teslas can expect to keep about 90% of their capacity even through
the first ~300,000 kilometers (186k miles) on average.

This sort of data has made manufacturers more confident of
long-term EV battery capacity. Warranties that cover battery
capacity are still somewhat rare in electric cars, but are becoming
more common.

The Leaf started warrantying against battery capacity drops a
couple years ago too, and some new cars like the Mini Cooper SE
have a similar battery warranty.  We'll expect to see this on more
and more electric cars as time goes on.

Model Y Warranty

Tesla also added warranty information for the upcoming Model Y,
which starts shipping next month.  Warranties for the Model Y will
be the same as the Model 3, much as how Model S and X warranties
are the same.

Electrek's Take

When we started hearing about last year's range-drop issue, our
reaction to the situation was that Tesla could have avoided a lot
of anger by being more transparent and communicative about their
changes.

If Tesla can find way to update the software to get better
longevity out of batteries, this is mostly a good thing. But nobody
likes to see dropping numbers, and especially when the reason
behind those dropping numbers wasn't communicated properly.

Personally, I think EV owners in general (and particularly Tesla
owners) tend to overreact to small changes in range numbers. Like
Tesla says, the range number on your dash is imperfect. If it
fluctuates a few miles from day to day, that's normal.

Besides, range doesn't really mean much since it's so heavily
affected by how you drive. You'll do more for your range by just
slowing down a little bit, or using the aero wheels (which I think
look better anyway, cough), than several years of degradation. And
there are very few owners who will see any meaningful difference in
their driving patterns if their car goes from 315 to 300 miles of
range, and very few who will complain if their car does the
opposite.

But that doesn't change the shadiness of the significant, sudden
range drops to certain cars without communication. It's
understandable that owners would be mad about that, and this new
change that Tesla has made to avoid future similar controversies
seems shady as well. The proper solution would be to commit to
communicating better in the future, not to tell some of your
rightfully aggrieved customers that, effectively, "if this happens
again, you have even less recourse than before." [GN]


TFORCE FINAL: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Diaz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TFORCE FINAL MILE, LLC; BEAVEX INCORPORATED;
TFORCE LOGISTICS, LLC; TFORCE CRITICAL; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01521 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section and
the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others hired as delivery drivers,
alleges that the Defendants violate the labor law by misclassifying
them as independent contractors, failing to pay wages, failing to
provide compliant and timely meal and rest breaks, failing to
timely pay wages and failing to pay all final wages due, failing to
reimburse business expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and engaging in unfair competition.

Mr. Diaz was employed by the Defendants as an "independent
contractor" delivery driver for the time period of four years prior
to the commencement of the Complaint until certification.

TForce Final Mile, LLC is a delivery company that provides
customized solutions and real-time tracking to businesses
nationwide in the U.S. It is a Delaware limited liability
corporation doing business in the State of California.

Beavex Incorporated is an express delivery service based in
Atlanta, Georgia that provides transportation and logistics
services. It is a Connecticut corporation doing business in the
State of California.

TForce Logistics, LLC is a delivery services company based in
Dallas, Texas. It is a Delaware limited liability corporation doing
business in the State of California.

TForce Critical is a final mile logistics company specializing in
medical home and business deliveries. It is doing business in the
State of California and has a principal place of business located
in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY APLC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com

UDR INC: Faces Turizo TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UDR, INC. d/b/a THE BREYLEY APARTMENT, Case No.
0:20-cv-60180-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 27, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text 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.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

UDR Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that
invests in apartments. The Company is organized in Maryland with
its headquarters in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Court Hears Arguments in PACER Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that a lawsuit
accusing the federal court system of treating nearly a billion
dollars in online access fees like a slush fund got a favorable
reception on Feb. 3 from an appeals court, where the main question
that judges seemed interested in debating was how to calculate the
extent to which the public was bilked.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit heard arguments on a class-action lawsuit filed in 2016
that picked up on federal judges' claims that the user fees from
the so-called PACER system were being used to broadly subsidize the
courts' information technology budget, rather than being used
solely to cover costs related to making court records available
online.

At issue is about $145 million in fees that users pay each year to
search for and download federal court filings. The courts typically
charge 10 cents a page for electronic copies of those filings. It's
a meager amount, but the bills can add up to hundreds or thousands
of dollars a month for law firms, electronic publishers, news
organizations and nonprofit groups that use the records for a wide
variety of purposes.

Two of the judges, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes, sounded
inclined to allow the lawsuit to continue over the objections of
the Justice Department, which argued for dismissal of the case.

A Justice Department attorney, Alisa Klein, told the judges that
Congress' directions about what costs could be recovered through
user fees were too vague to be the basis for a suit. She also said
the alleged overcharges were impossible to calculate because
surpluses in the accounts were carried from year to year, with the
courts requesting appropriations to make up for shortfalls.

"That's unknowable," she said.

Clevenger asked, incredulously, whether the Justice Department was
contending that PACER users couldn't get refunds even if the courts
incurred "knowingly, blatantly illegal" expenses on the accounts,
like new curtains for the Supreme Court or "gold-plated toilets"
for judges. He also raised the possibility that, under the
government's broad interpretation of the law, courts could use the
PACER funds to publicize the menu in the Supreme Court cafeteria.

Klein initially resisted those hypotheticals, prompting a barbed
response from the judge: "Do you have a lot of trouble answering
questions in life or just when you come to the court?"

However, the Justice Department lawyer insisted that lawsuits were
not the right mechanism to address even such outlandish examples.
She said Congress carefully oversees the judiciary's budget and
retains the ability to address any excesses.

"Congress is presumably not going to say you can charge for the
chief justice's curtains," Klein said.

Deepak Gupta, an attorney who argued for the PACER users, said
there was no indication that Congress wanted members of the public
to pay for the basic costs of the courts' computer systems. He
noted that online filing had become commonplace, but not because it
makes it easier for the public to tap into that information.

"We know that this is a service that is primarily for the
convenience of litigants," Gupta said during the argument session,
which lasted more than half an hour.

Gupta urged the court to rule that the court system could charge
only enough to recoup the extra or "marginal" cost of providing
court records to the public, but Clevenger noted that the statute
doesn't use that term.

Hughes said, "It is not a model of clarity, in terms of statutory
writing,"adding: "We see this all the time, obviously."

A federal District Court judge in Washington, Ellen Huvelle, ruled
in 2018 that some of the uses the court system had made of the
PACER fees were unlawful. She found that officials should not have
used that pool of money to pay for online juror and victim
notifications or for most courtroom technology improvements.

"The Court does not see how flat-screen TVs for jurors or those
seated in the courtroom, which are used to display exhibits or
other evidence during a court proceeding, fall within the statute,"
wrote Huvelle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

If the appeals court allows the suit to proceed, it will likely be
returned to Huvelle to determine what portion of the fees assessed
to users between 2010 and 2016 were unlawful and how much of a
refund users are entitled to.

The Justice Department or the nonprofit groups that brought the
case could also appeal an adverse decision to the full bench of the
appeals court or seek review by the Supreme Court.

Over the past couple of decades, the PACER system -- formally
called Public Access to Court Electronic Records -- has vastly
improved the court records from across the federal courts by making
them accessible worldwide to anyone with an internet connection and
the ability to pony up the fees involved.

However, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year,
journalists, researchers and data harvesters complained that the
interface is clunky, and some courts have not implemented parts of
the system that are most valuable to many users.

Reformers have proposed making all the data in the system free. For
the past two Congresses, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) has proposed
bills that would eliminate PACER fees and make it easier to link
directly to court records online.

"I support the effort to challenge the flawed PACER System, but we
also must take legislative action," Collins said in a statement
following the arguments on Feb. 3. "Unfortunately, the courts are
operating in the shadows because the PACER System is hindering
access to these records with a paywall. The Electric Court Records
Reform Act, which I introduced last year, would address this issue
by requiring greater accessibility through free public access to
records."

However, a judge who testified at last year's Judiciary hearing
warned that nixing access fees would require a major budget
increase or a dramatic hike in filing fees. He also said removing
all access fees could bog down the courts' computer systems by
subjecting them to huge numbers of queries.

In the meantime, the courts' filing database has been subject to
unorthodox efforts to "liberate" the records, including one user's
failed attempt to download the entire collection. Others -- with
some resistance from the courts -- have promoted a web tool that
automatically puts the documents in a public database after a
single user downloads them.

The Federal Circuit hears appeals in an eclectic set of cases,
including patents and trademarks, federal employment disputes and
certain money claims against the government. While located in
Washington, it is a separate court from the better known U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which handles most appeals from
rulings issued by federal District Court judges in the nation's
capital.

The presiding judge on the panel on Feb. 5, Alan Lourie, didn't
question the lawyers about the legal aspects of the case, so his
views were harder to assess.

Lourie and Clevenger were appointed by President George H.W. Bush,
while Hughes is an appointee of President Barack Obama. [GN]


UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Solenberg Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE SOLENBERG, on behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated v. UNIVERSAL PRESSURE PUMPING, INC. and PANDA
TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00023 (W.D. Tex., Jan.
27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Solenberg worked for the Defendants as a Field Mechanic/Field
Technician. He alleges that he and other workers like him regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week, but they
never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendants
improperly classified Mr. Solenberg and those similarly situated as
independent contractors, and these workers received an hourly rate
for each hour worked without overtime compensation, says the
complaint.

Universal provides pressure pumping, cementing, acidizing and
reservoir enhancement services to the oil and gas industry.
Universal maintains its headquarters at 6 Desta Drive, in Midland,
Texas. Panda provides staffing services to service providers in the
oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher E. Stoy, Esq.
          S. Rafe Foreman, Esq.
          HUTCHINSON & STOY
          505 Pecan Street, Suite 101
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 820-0100
          E-mail: cesservice@hsjustice.com
                  SRFservice@hsjustice.com

               - and -

          Lewis B. Gardner, Esq.
          Robert W. Frankhouser, Esq.
          GARDNER FRANKHOUSER, LLP
          7418 Brighton Road, Suite 211
          Pittsburgh, PA 15202
          Telephone: (412) 903-7720
          E-mail: lgardner@gfemploymentlaw.com
                  rfrankhouser@gfemploymentlaw.com


US CATHOLIC BISHOPS: Parishioner Files Class Suit Over Donations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Milkovits, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a
parishioner in East Providence has filed a federal class action
lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, after
media reports that as little as 10 percent of collections go to
charity.

Every year, the Conference of Catholic Bishops solicits for
donations from parishioners at Catholic churches around the country
for the "Peter's Pence Collection." The fund is advertised as a
collection to help victims of war, natural disasters and disease
throughout the world.

David O'Connell says in his lawsuit that he donated to Peter's
Pence at Sacred Heart Church in 2018 because he thought the money
was going to the needy. [GN]


WALTERS & WOLF: Villatoro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SHARLETTE VILLATORO, individual
and on behalf of all others Similarly situated v. WALTERS & WOLF
INTERIORS, a California corporation; WALTERS & WOLF CONSTRUCTION
SPECIALTIES, INC., an Arizona Corporation; WALTERS & WOLF GLASS
COMPANY, a California corporation, WALTERS & WOLF PRECAST, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG19044495 (Filed Nov. 22, 2019), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan.
27, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00609 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Labor Code.

Walters & Wolf provides general contracting services. The Company
offers design, engineering, fabrication, and installation
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan K. Chelsea, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Pappy, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          41 San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 814-5800
          Facsimile: 619 814-6799
          E-mail: schelsea@bwslaw.com
                  epappy@bwslaw.com


WASHINGTON, DC: Class Action Over Court Oversight of DYRS Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Kaplan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that D.C.
Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Feb. 5 a settlement in a
decades-old lawsuit that would end the D.C. Superior Court's
oversight of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services
(DYRS).

The District's juvenile justice system has long faced scrutiny and
criticism over a host of issues ranging from overcrowding youths in
detention centers and unsafe facilities to losing track of
detainees wearing GPS monitoring devices and illegally divulging
juvenile criminal records.

Judge Herbert B. Dixon Jr., who has presided over the case for the
last 20 years, was set to review the settlement for approval in a
Superior Court hearing at 10:30 a.m., Feb 12.

"The settlement agreement is a tremendous victory for our local
autonomy and demonstrates the progress we have made to improve and
strengthen the District's juvenile justice system," Miss Bowser
said in a press release. "I am confident that DYRS, under the
leadership of Director [Clinton] Lacey, will continue to lead the
way in engaging vulnerable District youth with evidence-based
practices."

The 35-year-old class-action lawsuit Jerry M. v District of
Columbia alleged that confinement conditions in D.C. juvenile
detention facilities were unconstitutional, specifically at the Oak
Hill Juvenile Detention Center in Laurel, Maryland.

D.C. Council member Charles Allen, chairman of the Judiciary and
Public Safety Committee, hailed the settlement announcement.

"This is an incredible milestone for everyone involved, and it
represents decades of hard work by the agency, counsel, advocates
and the court to improve our juvenile justice system," said Mr.
Allen, Ward 6 Democrat. "DYRS is now a national juvenile justice
leader, and this translates to dramatically improved services for
young people outside and inside the system. It also means a safer,
more equitable D.C." [GN]


WATERFALL REVENUE: Settineri Sues in Florida Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waterfall Revenue
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Settineri, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waterfall Revenue
Group, Inc., doing business as: A-1 Collection Service, Case No.
9:20-cv-80242-RAR (S.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2020).

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

A-1 Collection Service is a collection agency incorporated in New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Settles Deferred Compensation Class Action for $79MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrons reports that Wells Fargo reportedly has agreed to pay $79
million to settle a class-action lawsuit related to deferred
compensation for former financial advisors of the banking company.

The class action covers more than 1,000 former advisers who said
they were wrongly required to forfeit deferred compensation when
they left Wells Fargo, Bloomberg Law reports.

The lead plaintiff, Robert Berry, said he forfeited nearly $200,000
in deferred compensation when he resigned from Wells Fargo in 2014,
according to the publication.

In an amended complaint filed in May 2017, Berry targeted a
"forfeiture clause" in two deferred-compensation plans,
InvestmentNews reports. The complaint alleged that the plans
constituted pension benefits under the Employees Retirement Income
Security Act, and therefore unvested deferred compensation could
not be forfeited.

"While Wells Fargo has consistently denied the allegations in this
class action lawsuit involving former financial advisers, we also
believe that resolving this matter is in the best interest of the
company," Wells Fargo spokesperson Shea Leordeanu tells
InvestmentNews.

The court must still approve the settlement's terms. [GN]


WESTPAC BANKING: Bronstein Reminds Investors of March 30 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Westpac Banking Corporation
(NYSE: WBK) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased Westpac securities between November 11, 2015 and
November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/wbk.         

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report
over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to
AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism financing
regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess
the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks
associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3)
the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source
of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being
aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out
appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and
the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to
child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was
inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and
terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/wbk or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Westpac you have until March 30, 2020 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact:

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

WESTPAC BANKING: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 30, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Westpac Banking Corporation
(NYSE: WBK) securities between November 11, 2015 and November 19,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On November 19, 2019, Westpac was charged by the Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ("AUSTRAC") with over 23
million violations of the Anti-Money Laundering and
Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (the "AML-CTF Act"). Among other
things, AUSTRAC's Statement of Claim contends that the Company
failed to distinguish money laundering or risky payments to and
from Southeast Asia indicative of child sexual exploitation,
despite Westpac senior management being "specifically briefed" in
2016 on how the bank's international digital payments service could
be at risk for such abuse.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.80, or over 4%, to
close at $17.15 per share on November 20, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to
report over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions
to AUSTRAC; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and
assess the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks
associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3)
the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source
of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being
aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out
appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and
the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to
child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was
inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and
terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Westpac securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 30,
2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200207005062/en/

Contact:

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

WESTPAC BANKING: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 30 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:

Westpac Banking Corporation (WBK)
Class Period: 11/11/2015 - 11/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 30, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wbk/

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 links above.

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

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

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

Contact:

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

WESTPAC BANKING: Kaplan Fox Investigates Business Amid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is investigating Westpac Banking
Corporation ("Westpac" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBK).

A class action securities lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased Westpac securities, including Westpac
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"), between November 11, 2015
and November 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the complaint, on November 19, 2019, after market
hours, AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering and terrorism
financing regulator, filed a civil action in Australian Court
alleging over 23 million breaches of Australia's Anti-Money
Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (the "AML/CTF"),
including a failure to report over 19.5 million international fund
transfers, failing to perform enhanced due diligence on
correspondent banks in high-risk jurisdictions, and potentially
providing services used in the exploitation of children in
Southeast Asia and the Philippines.

Following this news, Westpac's ADRs fell $1.28 per share over three
trading days, about 7.13%, to close at $16.67 per ADR on November
22, 2019.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that (1) contrary to Australian law, the Company
failed to report over 19.5 million international funds transfer
instructions to AUSTRAC, (2) the Company did not appropriately
monitor and assess the ongoing money laundering and terrorism
financing risks associated with movement of money into and out of
Australia, (3) the Company did not pass on requisite information
about the source of funds to other banks in the transfer chain, (4)
despite being aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not
carry out appropriate due diligence on transactions in Southeast
Asia and the Philippines that had known financial indicators
relating to child exploitation risks, and (5) the Company's AML/CTF
Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money
laundering and terrorism financing risks, among other things.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than March 30, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.  If you would like to
discuss the complaint or our investigation, please contact us by
emailing pmayer@kaplanfox.com or by calling 800-290-1952.

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

With offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and
New Jersey, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -–
http://www.kaplanfox.com-- has many years of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions.  For more information about
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at
www.kaplanfox.com.  If you have any questions about this Notice,
the action, your rights, or your interests, please contact:

Donald R. Hall
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(800) 290-1952
(212) 687-1980
Fax: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: dhall@kaplanfox.com

Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, California 94612
(415) 772-4700
Fax:  (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
[GN]


WESTPAC BANKING: Scott+Scott Alerts Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Westpac Banking
Corporation (NYSE: WBK) and other defendants related to alleged
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Westpac
securities between November 11, 2015, and November 19, 2019,
inclusive, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney
Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or
rswartz@scott-scott.com.

Westpac provides various banking and financial services in
Australia, and internationally.

The lawsuit alleges that Westpac continuously affirmed it was
operating in accordance with the Anti-Money Laundering and
Counter-Terrorism Financing ("AML/CTF") Act of 2006 and had a
program to manage these obligations.

Despite these purported efforts, in November 2018, Westpac
revealed, in its 2018 Form 20-F, that it had recently self-reported
to AUSTRAC, Australia's anti-money laundering and terrorism
financing regulator, a failure to report a large number of
International Funds Transfer Instructions, which the Company
downplayed in a May 2019 conference call as "a few regulatory and
compliance issues."

Then, on November 19, 2019, AUSTRAC filed a civil action against
Westpac alleging over 23 million breaches of AML/CTF legislation,
including a failure to report over 19.5 million International Funds
Transfer Instructions and failing to carry out due diligence checks
on transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had
known financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks.

On this news, the price of Westpac American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") declined more than 7% over the next three trading days to
close at $16.67 per ADR on November 22, 2019.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Westpac securities between November 11, 2015, and
November 19, 2019, inclusive, or if you have questions about this
notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The
deadline for lead plaintiff motions is March 30, 2020.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

Contact:

         Rhiana Swartz, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         Tel: (844) 818-6980
         Email: rswartz@scott-scott.com
[GN]


WESTPAC CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Westpac Corporation. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadline listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Westpac Corporation (NYSE: WBK)
CLASS PERIOD: 11/11/15-11/19/19
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: March 30, 2020

Specifically, it is alleged that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about: (1) contrary to Australian law,
the Company failed to report over 19.5 million international funds
transfer instructions to AUSTRAC, Australia's anti money-laundering
and terrorism financing regulator; (2) the Company did not
appropriately monitor and assess the ongoing money laundering and
terrorism financing risks associated with movement of money into
and out of Australia; (3) the Company did not pass on requisite
information about the source of funds to other banks in the
transfer chain; (4) despite being aware of the heightened risks,
the Company did not carry out appropriate due diligence on
transactions in South East Asia and the Philippines that had known
financial indicators relating to child exploitation risks; (5) the
Company's AML/CTF Program was inadequate to identify, mitigate and
manage money laundering and terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Westpac Shareholder Class
Action  contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

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

X FINANCIAL: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 5 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of X Financial (NYSE:XYF) for violations of the
securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. X Financial's third quarter of 2018 ended
just 11 days after the Company's September 2018 IPO. The Company's
results for the quartered showed it was suffering from an increase
in delinquency rates, a reduction in loans, and a shrinking number
of active lenders on its platform. The Company's CEO admitted on
March 19, 2019, that its loan volume had been decreasing since the
middle of 2018, before its IPO. The Company's Chairman and CEO
disclosed on May 21, 2019, that it would be unlikely to achieve
significant growth due to the failure of its preferred loan
business. Since X Financial's IPO, it has traded as low as $1.65
per ADS compared to its $9.50 per ADS IPO.

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.

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]


ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Leon Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN LEON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. ZUCKER'S BAGELS GRAND CENTRAL, LLC d/b/a ZUCKER'S
BAGELS & SMOKED FISH, ZUCKER'S COLUMBUS, LLC d/b/a ZUCKER'S BAGELS
& SMOKED FISH, ZUCKER'S FLATIRON, LLC d/b/a ZUCKER'S BAGELS &
SMOKED FISH, POMERANTZ EQUITIES, LLC d/b/a MURRAY'S BAGELS,
MURRAY'S BAGELS HOLDING, LLC d/b/a MURRAY'S BAGELS, MATTHEW
POMERANTZ and DANIEL PACE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00713 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime
compensation for off-the-clock work, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

In January 2018, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work
as a cook for their Murray's Bagels Restaurant located at 242 8th
Avenue, in New York City.

Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges
that he worked four days per week for 10.5 hours per day, and 1 day
per week for 11 hours per day, for a total of 53 hours each week,
but would only receive spread of hours premium for 1 day per week.
Similarly, Class Members were frequently required to work shifts
exceeding 10 hours in duration for which they were not paid spread
of hours premium, says the complaint.

The Defendants operate a chain of bagel restaurants as a single
integrated enterprise under the trade names "Zucker's Bagels &
Smoked Fish" and "Murray's Bagels."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212 465-1188
          Facsimile: 212 465-1181


[*] 3rd Party Funding Extends Access to Justice Beyond Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Gayner and Noah Wortman of IMF Bentham review the origins
and growth of modern litigation finance.

Litigation finance, in its modern form, originated in Australia in
the mid-1990s following the enactment of legislation permitting
insolvency practitioners to enter into contracts to finance
litigation characterized as company property. In response to this
legislation, which recognized legal claims as a corporate asset,
litigation funding companies began to spring up to service this new
niche market.

The rise of litigation funding in Australia was also spurred on by
the legalization of class action lawsuits, which were introduced
into the Australian legal landscape in 1992 as courts recognized
the need for an efficient way to deal with group claims. Some
litigation funders began to enter the class action arena, though
many were initially hesitant for fear that funding arrangements
that did not fall under the specific permissions of the insolvency
statute would be struck down.

Those concerns were allayed in 2006 when the Australian High Court
held that third-party litigation funding arrangements served a
legitimate purpose in lawsuits and were not an abuse of process or
contrary to public policy. With litigation funding now legitimized
and the use of class action lawsuits on the rise, litigation
finance became a widely used service, akin to a form of legal aid,
albeit for profit and provided by the private sector. In 2017, more
than 50% of the major class actions filed in Australia were funded
by private litigation finance companies; IMF Bentham alone has
funded over 130,000 claimants since listing on the ASX in 2001.

Litigation Finance Spreads Across the Globe

Litigation funding, over the years, has been established as an
integral part of mainstream civil justice systems with a view to
facilitating access to justice. Not only do litigation funders
finance the cost of proceedings in exchange for a portion of the
recovery, but they frequently function as coordinators amongst
investor-claimants, provide access to legal resources, and (in some
cases) underwrite the potentially significant risk of paying
"adverse costs" (i.e., paying for the respondent's legal bills in
the event the claim is unsuccessful).

While the approval of litigation funding is now a truly
international phenomenon, the majority of financing activity has
been concentrated in common law countries which contend with high
costs of litigation that impede access to justice. Litigation
funding has the potential to equalize the bargaining power of
litigants in the civil justice system and provide new risk
reallocation products to corporations and institutional investors.

In essence, third-party litigation funding is a novel method of
litigation risk allocation and a way to bring market forces to bear
on the supply of money used to finance legal claims. This allows
for an increase of access to justice and lowers the direct, or
transactional, costs of litigation.

To give one example: according to data compiled by Professor Vince
Morabito of Monash University, a funded class action is 21% more
likely to settle than an unfunded class action (69% versus 48%,
based on data up to July 2017). This suggests that the intervention
of the market is helping to drive better and more just outcomes,
since disputes are being resolved according to merit and not
according to which party has deeper pockets.

Non-U.S. Securities Class Action Litigation

Non-US securities class actions have been on the rise since the
U.S. Supreme Court's seminal 2010 decision in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247. The Court held that the U.S.
federal securities laws apply only to securities purchased on
domestic stock exchanges. Since then, investors have increasingly
turned to forums across the globe to recoup losses and assert their
rights as shareholders associated with securities purchased or sold
outside the U.S. Indeed, shareholder securities litigations filed
against Royal Bank of Scotland and Tesco in the UK, Volkswagen in
Germany, and Olympus and Toshiba in Japan have either settled or
are working their way through their respective court systems.

In addition to differences in substantive and procedural law,
certain jurisdictions have laws on how litigation is funded, which
make for significant practical distinctions as compared with
participation in U.S. class actions. For example, in contrast to a
typical U.S. securities class action where the lawyers leading the
action pursue the litigation on a contingency fee arrangement, many
countries (including, but not limited to, Australia, Hong Kong,
Singapore, France and Germany) prohibit or severely restrict the
use of contingency fee agreements by lawyers.

Another crucial difference is that the U.S. system generally does
not require the losing party to pay costs or legal fees, whereas
many non-U.S. jurisdictions obligate the loser to pay the
prevailing party's costs and expenses (so called "adverse costs"
risk, which in some cases can more than double the financial risk
of embarking on litigation).

These factors in combination have caused an increase in demand for
third-party funding for securities litigations. This has allowed
groups of like situated investors to come together to litigate
common claims against defendants with deep pockets on a "no-win,
no-fee" basis, with the financial risks outsourced to the
third-party funder.

Third Party Funding Extends Access to Justice Beyond Litigation to
International Arbitration

Although parties to arbitration are often sophisticated commercial
entities, the costs associated with pursuing arbitration can be
high. As a result, just as in securities litigation, claimants can
often find themselves disadvantaged when seeking redress against
highly resourced respondents. The financial David vs. Goliath
situation is particularly common in investment treaty arbitration.

In fact, many jurisdictions are now embracing funding in the
arbitration arena. For example, after a two-year study, in 2015,
the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission recommended permitting third
party funding of international arbitration matters in Hong Kong
provided certain "ethical and financial safeguards" were met. By
2017, these recommendations were codified into amendments to the
Arbitration Ordinance and a draft Code of Practice was published
for consultation.

That same year, Singapore introduced legislation providing a "safe
harbor" regime for the funding of international arbitrations in
Singapore (and related court proceedings) by professional funders
who meet a basic capital adequacy requirement. The resulting surge
in demand by arbitral parties seeking funding has helped to promote
Singapore as one of the leading centers globally for dispute
resolution.

Litigation Finance is Here to Stay

Historically, well-heeled parties had certain and inevitable
advantages in litigation and arbitration. They could hire the best
lawyers and experts, and then grind the less well-off party into
submission both because of a lack of resources and cash flow
issues. There may have been a time when funding may have been
perceived as primarily for the impoverished claimant. However, the
market has now developed much more widely.

Institutional investors have realized that third-party funding of
litigation and arbitration can be a sensible way of managing risk,
as giving some equity in the success of a particular litigation or
arbitration provides certainty instead of exposure; and, as the
legal industry continues to innovate, there is growing realization
of the value of partnering with specialists whose involvement can
save internal budgets and management time, whilst increasing the
prospects of a favorable outcome.

As the English Court of Appeal recently held in its 2016 decision
in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc & Ors, [2016] EWCA
Civ 1144, "[l]itigation funding is an accepted and judicially
sanctioned activity perceived to be in the public interest."

                 About the Authors

Oliver Gayner is an Investment Manager with IMF Bentham based
primarily in Sydney. He is also the head of the company's EMEA
office in London, which covers the UK, Europe, Middle East and
Africa and provides capital and strategic services for disputes in
those regions including commercial litigation, multiparty claims,
insolvency, international arbitration and enforcement.

Since 2012, Oliver has been involved in funding commercial
litigation and international arbitration cases in the UK,
Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. His experience ranges from M&A
and joint venture disputes, to securities, environmental tort and
antitrust class actions, to complex international fraud and asset
tracing.

Noah Wortman is Business Development Manager (Global Investor
Recoveries) for IMF Bentham. He has extensive experience advocating
for global investors, promoting corporate governance and
implementing strategies to achieve collective redress. Noah is also
a frequent global speaker on shareholder legal redress, recovery,
rights and responsibilities.

Noah splits his time between Philadelphia and London with a global
remit covering North America, UK and Europe, Australia and Asia. He
is responsible for account management and assisting IMF Bentham's
international network of institutional investors (including
financial institutions, superannuation, sovereign wealth, and
pension funds) to recover their investment losses, for example,
through shareholder or bondholder class actions.

            About IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway

Following the merger of the IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway
operations in November 2019, the combined group is a global leader
in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common
law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia,
Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. IMF
Bentham and Omni Bridgeway have built their reputations as trusted
providers of funding solutions and together offer end-to-end
dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment
enforcement and recovery.

IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of
innovative litigation financing solutions and has established an
increasingly diverse portfolio of litigation and dispute financing
assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced litigation financing
team overseeing its investments, delivering, as at 30 June 2019, an
89% success rate across 192 completed cases (excluding
withdrawals). Visit imf.com.au to learn more.

Omni Bridgeway was founded in the Netherlands in 1986 and is known
as a leading financier of high-value claims and a global specialist
in cross-border (sovereign) enforcement disputes. The Omni
Bridgeway group includes ROLAND ProzessFinanz, a leading German
litigation funder which became part of Omni Bridgeway in 2017, and
a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). The joint
venture is aimed at assisting banks with the funding and managing
the enforcement of non-performing loans and related disputes in the
Middle East and Africa. Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.
[GN]


[*] Hardwick PFAS Class Action to Remain in Ohio
------------------------------------------------
Ellen M. Gilmer, writing for Bloomberg Environment, reports that
federal judges have declined to transfer a high-stakes lawsuit that
seeks to establish a nationwide class of people with PFAS in their
blood to a complex bundle of litigation in South Carolina.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 5 ruled the
proposed class action in Ohio doesn't belong in the cluster of
cases in South Carolina that focus on exposure to types of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances found in firefighting foam.

The ruling is a victory for plaintiff Kevin Hardwick, a
Cincinnati-area firefighter for 40 years. [GN]



[*] Number of Securities Class Action Filings Set New Record
------------------------------------------------------------
T. Gorman of SEC Actions, in an article for Lexology, reports that
proposed changes to the Volker rule, modified last fall by banking
agencies and the SEC and CFTC, would permit banks to invest heavily
in, or sponsor, venture capital funds according to some
commentators. The changes are being cast as "common sense"
modifications by the banking agencies. Some claim the proposals
could weaken the rule and encourage the kind of risk taking it was
intended to prevent. No doubt there will be more on the proposals.

The SEC released the agenda for its coming small business
conference. In addition, the e-CFTC announced new position limit
regulations for certain agricultural products; SEC enforcement
continued to focus on main street investors; and, Cornerstone
Research released a Report announcing that the filing of new
securities class actions reached yet another new high as the decade
drew to a close.

SEC

Proposed disclosure amendments: The Commission approved proposed
amendments to Regulation S-K. The proposals focus on updating and
modernizing certain disclosure requirements. Key proposals center
on Rule 303 and MD&A. The proposals were issued January 30, 2020.

Proposals: Five federal financial regulatory agencies, including
the SEC, proposed modifications to the Volker rule general
prohibition on investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private
equity funds (Jan. 30, 2020).

OCIE inspections: The SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and
Examinations published a series of observations gleaned from
hundreds of exams over a period of years. While OCIE's charge is
the inspection of registered investment entities, the observations
of the exam staff offer important insights for all in this critical
and constantly evolving area. Topics covered include: Governance
and risk management; access rights and controls; data loss
prevention; mobile security; incident response and resiliency;
vendor management; and training and awareness.

SEC Enforcement - Filed and Settled Actions

The Commission filed 2 civil injunctive actions and no
administrative proceedings, exclusive of 12j and tag-along
actions.

Misappropriation: SEC v. Matthes, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-125
(E.D. Wis. Filed Jan. 28, 2020). Defendant Edward Matthews is a
registered representative and investment adviser at a nationwide
financial services firm. Over a period of about six years,
beginning in 2013, Defendant misappropriated about $2.4 million
from clients in two ways. First, he convinced a number of clients
to invest in what was supposed to be a safe investment offered by a
registered entity that would pay 4% per year. He had clients write
checks to him for the investment that totaled about $1.4 million.
In fact, he misappropriated the money. Second, he misappropriated
another $1 million from brokerage clients through unauthorized
withdrawals. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Act
Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Advisers Act Sections
201(1) and 206(2). The case is pending. See Lit. Rel. No. 24762
(Jan. 28, 2020).

Manipulation: SEC v. Aubel, Civil Action No. 16-cv-10670 (D. Mass.)
is a previously filed action which named as defendants David Aubel
and Robert Raffa who previously settled. The complaint alleged that
Defendants concealed their interests in Green Energy Renewable
Solutions, Inc.'s stock while it was being manipulated. Defendants
previously pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal action. The Court
entered a final judgement by consent as to Defendant Aubel. The
judgement enjoins him from future violations of Securities Act
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b),
13(d) and 16(a). He was also ordered to pay a penalty of $150,000
along with disgorgement of $242,553 which was deemed satisfied by
the restitution order in the parallel criminal case. See Lit. Rel.
No. 24725 (Jan. 27, 2020).

Offering fraud: SEC v. Carpoff, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00180
(E.D. Ca. Filed Jan. 24, 2020). Defendants Jeffrey and Paulette
Carpoff, residents of California, controlled DC Solar Solutions,
Inc. and DC Solar Distribution, Inc. The former was owned by Mr.
Carpoff. The latter was owned by wife Paulette. Both firms filed
for bankruptcy protection in 2019. The two firms operated together.
DC Solar told investors that it designed, manufactured and leased
renewable energy products to serve the needs of a diverse
"off-grid" market place. Over a period of several years, investors
were offered the opportunity to acquire an interest in DC Solar in
the form of either an investment fund or a sale-lease back
arrangement. Each required investors to purchase generators from DC
Solutions while simultaneously leasing the units to DC
Distribution. The units would then be leased to end-users. Profits
were supposed to come from tax credits, depreciation on the
generators and lease payments. The face value of the deals inked by
investors exceeded $2.7 billion. Investor were not aware that most
of the generators sold were never manufactured, that that most of
the revenue payments they received came from cash invested by
others or that Mr. Carpoff arranged for investors to receive false
certificates, assuring them that all was well with their
investments. Throughout the process the lack of legitimate revenue
was concealed through repeated circular bank transfers involving
the two firms. False financial statements were also furnished to
prospective investors. And, Defendants misappropriated at least
$140 million of the investor capital. The complaint alleges
violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section
10(b). The case is pending. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Eastern District of California filed a parallel criminal action.
See Lit. Rel. No. 24724 (Jan. 24, 2020).

CFTC

Position limits: The agency adopted new, speculative position
limits for certain agricultural contracts that are subject to
federal limits to conform to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act
on January 30, 2020.

Securities Class Actions

The number of securities class action filings set a new record,
according to a recent report by Cornerstone Research titled
Securities Class Action Filings, 2019 Year in Review. In 2019, 428
securities class actions were filed in federal and state courts
compared to the 420 initiated the year before. Core filings,
defined as all such suits except those tied to M&A, also set a
record at 268 compared to 238 suits filed the year before. While
the number of M&A suits filed did not set a record, the 160 cases
initiated represents the third largest number. [GN]


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

Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.

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

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

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



                            *********

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 ***