/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200324.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 60

                            Headlines

AFFILIATE ASSET: Faces Schwartz FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
AFFILIATE ASSET: Ryan Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
ARCHER JANNY: Gold's Gym Class Action Remanded to Lower Court
BECTON DICKINSON: Bernstein Announces Securities Class Action
BECTON DICKINSON: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit

BOWERY GRAND HOTEL: Faces Chavez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Encarnado Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Pawar Announces Securities Class Action
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
D&G HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Vinson Says

DIRECTV GROUP: Court Issues Further Protective Order in Perez Suit
DNB ASA: Must Pay $37MM After Losing Fund Charges Lawsuit
FANDUEL INC: Ark. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Parnell Suit
FORD MOTOR: Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
GOOGLE INC: Arizona AG Opposes $13 Million Settlement

GOOGLE LLC: Court Tosses Claims in Location History Litigation
HEXCEL CORPORATION: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Woodward
HOUSTON ASTROS: Faces Class Action Over Sign-Stealing Scandal
INDRIO BRANDS: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
iTHINK FINANCIAL: Faces Collier Class Suit in S.D. Florida

KM-T.E.H. REALTY: Tenants' Suit Gain Class Action Status
L2 LIU INC: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
LOGMEIN INC: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LUCKIN COFFEE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
MAGNISOLE: Faces Newell Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shoe Inserts

MARTIN'S FAMOUS PASTRY: Faces Rivera Suit Alleging MWA Violations
MCCORMICK: Settles Class Action Over Black Pepper Products
MYER: Shareholder Class Action Lawyer Mark Elliott Dies
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Fund Trustee Contests Suit Over Excess Fees
NGK: Michigan Court Approves Proposed Class Action Settlements

PMA INSURANCE: Wrongfully Shifts Costs to Medicare, Sims Claims
R & E INC: Slade Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
RAZORGATOR INTERACTIVE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAFE HAVEN: Sporven Seeks Unpaid Straight Time and Overtime Wages
SAN DIEGO HAT: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

SANFORD KAHN: Faces Legrone FDCPA Suit Over Tenancy Termination
SIX FLAGS: Rosen Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
ST. BERNARD'S SCHOOL: Faces Doe Suit in New York Supreme Court
SUNWATER LTD: To Appeal Queensland Flood Class Action Decision
TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING: Fans Could Receive Payouts in Class Action

TD ASSET MANAGEMENT: Class Action Certified by Ontario Court
TIVITY HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Emissions Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Court Rulings
[*] Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Various 7th Cir. Rulings

[*] Illinois' Biometric Privacy Law May Deter Innovation

                            *********

AFFILIATE ASSET: Faces Schwartz FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affiliate Asset
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Shaina Schwartz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affiliate Asset
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02332 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2020).

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

Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency located
in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


AFFILIATE ASSET: Ryan Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affiliate Asset
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Ryan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01401-JS-ST (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2020).

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

Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency located
in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


ARCHER JANNY: Gold's Gym Class Action Remanded to Lower Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Appellate
Division of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that a class action
lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court to determine if
attorneys fees are necessary.

The court vacated an order that denied a motion for attorneys fees
that Archer Janny Enterprises had previously appealed. The court
also remanded the case for further proceedings.

Judges William Nugent and Patrick DeAlmeida ruled on the case. The
decision was made on Feb. 5.

Brian A. Piccinetti filed the class action against Gold's Gym Inc.
and Gold's Gym of East Windsor, operated by Archer Janny, alleging
claims under the Health Club Services Act, the Consumer Fraud Act
and the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act after
he claimed the gym's membership agreement violated the laws.

Piccinetti claimed that because the contract had an automatic
renewal clause, was not upfront regarding total payment obligations
and was binding for more than three years, it violated the
above-mentioned laws.

Archer Janny sought to have the case dismissed by moving for
summary judgment and the trial court granted Archer Janny's motion
on Aug. 3, 2018. The complaint was then dismissed.

Archer Janny sought to recoup attorneys fees in the case, but the
trial court denied the motion on Sept 14, 2018, and the company
then appealed. After the appeal, the trial court admitted there was
an error when processing the motion, which caused it to be
"inadvertently denied" without oral arguments being held first.

"The parties acknowledge the trial court's error in deciding Archer
Janny's motion without hearing oral argument or issuing findings of
fact and conclusions of law," the opinion states. "They request
this court to exercise its original jurisdiction to decide Archer
Janny's motion."

The Superior Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction to
decide the motion but instead vacated the Sept. 14, 2018, order
that denied the motion for attorneys fees and remanded the case for
oral argument and determination of the motion. [GN]


BECTON DICKINSON: Bernstein Announces Securities 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
Becton, Dickinson and Company ("Becton" or the "Company") (NYSE:
BDX) between November 5, 2019, and February 5, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Becton securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Becton Shareholder Class
Action 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/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 certain of Becton's
Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and alarm
prioritization issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues,
rather than a software upgrade to "make enhancements;" (3) that the
Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in
connection with the software remediation; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of
its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 6, 2020, Becton lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance,
announcing that it expected revenue to increase by only 1.5 to 2.5
percent, "to reflect the impact of the remediation effort and
anticipated loss of sales of the Alaris infusion system." According
to the Company, the software remediation plan for the Alaris system
"will require additional regulatory filings," and existing
customers would have "access to the Alaris System under medical
necessity." Becton further disclosed that it had recorded a $59
million charge in connection with a voluntary recall of certain
Alaris pumps.

On this news, Becton's share price fell $33.74, or nearly 12%, to
close at $252.25 per share on February 6, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

If you purchased BDX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bectondickinsonandcompany-bdx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-257/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 27, 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
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]

BECTON DICKINSON: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Becton,
Dickinson and Company securities between November 5, 2019 and
February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Becton investors
have until April 27, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Becton 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.

What if you didn't have to hunt around the internet looking for
trade ideas every day? What if top researchers, analysts, and news
correspondents did all the research for you? What if you could get
all of that research in the easiest possible format every morning
before the market opens? That's exactly what you get when you
subscribe to Benzinga Stocks To Watch. Click here to subscribe.

On February 6, 2020, Becton lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance,
announcing that it expected revenue to increase by only 1.5 to 2.5
percent, "to reflect the impact of the remediation effort and
anticipated loss of sales of the Alaris infusion system." According
to the Company, the software remediation plan for the Alaris system
"will require additional regulatory filings," and existing
customers would have "access to the Alaris System under medical
necessity." Becton further disclosed that it had recorded a $59
million charge in connection with a voluntary recall of certain
Alaris pumps.

On this news, Becton's share price fell $33.74, or nearly 12%, to
close at $252.25 per share on February 6, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 certain of Becton's Alaris infusion pumps
experienced software errors and alarm prioritization issues; (2)
that, as a result, the Company was investing in remediation efforts
to address these product issues, rather than a software upgrade to
"make enhancements;" (3) that the Company was reasonably likely to
face regulatory delays in connection with the software remediation;
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Becton was reasonably
likely to recall certain of its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Becton securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: www.howardsmithlaw.com/
[GN]

BOWERY GRAND HOTEL: Faces Chavez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowery Grand Hotel
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bowery Grand Hotel
Corp., doing business as: Bowery Grand Hotel, Anchor Realty Corp.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01393 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2020).

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

Bowery Grand Hotel is a hotel located on the Lower East Side in a
walk-up building, and is two blocks from the subway, plus a
3-minute walk from Little Italy and a 7-minute walk from
Chinatown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Encarnado Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Doris Encarnado, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01400-ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2020).

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

Client Services, Inc. offers collection services. The Company
provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services,
and customer care solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Pawar Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of CPI
Aerostructures, Inc. (NYSE: CVU) from May 15, 2018 through February
14, 2020, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CPI
Aerostructures, Inc., investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) CPI Aerostructures' financial statements included in the
Company's Forms 10-Q for the first, second, and third quarters of
2018 and 2019 incorrectly applied generally accepted accounting
principles and thus revenue, net income, retained earnings, and
contract assets were overstated; (2) as a result, the financial
statements included in the Form 10-Qs for 2018 and 2019 and the
annual report on Form 10-K for 2018 could no longer be relied upon
and required restatement; (3) CPI Aerostructures lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting and effective disclosure
controls and procedures as of the period during each reporting
period of 2018; (4) CPI Aerostructures lacked effective disclosure
controls and procedures during the third quarter of 2019; and (5)
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.

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 24,
2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

Contact:

          Vik Pawar, Esq.  
          Pawar Law Group  
          20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
          New York, NY 10007  
          Tel: (917) 261-2277  
          Fax: (212) 571-0938  
          E-mail: info@pawarlawgroup.com  
[GN]

CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (NYSE: CVU) between May 15,
2018 and February 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CPI Aerostructures investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the CPI Aerostructures class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1506.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) CPI Aerostructures' financial statements included in the
Company's Forms 10-Q for the first, second, and third quarters of
2018 and 2019 incorrectly applied generally accepted accounting
principles and thus revenue, net income, retained earnings, and
contract assets were overstated; (2) as a result, the financial
statements included in the Form 10-Qs for 2018 and 2019 and the
annual report on Form 10-K for 2018 could no longer be relied upon
and required restatement; (3) CPI Aerostructures lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting and effective disclosure
controls and procedures as of the period during each reporting
period of 2018; (4) CPI Aerostructures lacked effective disclosure
controls and procedures during the third quarter of 2019; and (5)
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.

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 24,
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-1506.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]

D&G HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Vinson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Vinson, Marina Milian, and Dragana Micevic, individually and
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. D&G HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, D&G RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC,
SPEZZA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLC, RMZ, LLC, WESTSHORE DILL, LLC,
LUCKY LBC WESTSHORE, LLC, WSLD LLC, LDWS MANAGEMENT 1, LLC, and DAN
SORONEN, LLC, and JASON W. GRIFFIN, individually, and DANIEL
SORONEN, individually, Case No. 8:20-cv-00613-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.
March 16, 2020), is brought for damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wages.

The Plaintiffs allege that the worked hours at the Defendants, and
they were not paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all of
the hours that they worked. By failing to accurately record all of
the hours worked by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have failed to
make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each of its
employees in a manner sufficient to determine their wages, hours,
and other conditions of employment, in violation of the FLSA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants and worked at the
Defendants' restaurants.

D&G is a foreign corporation with its headquarters located in
Norwalk, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main No: 813-224-0431
          Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 jcornell@wfclaw.com
                 rcooke@wfclaw.com


DIRECTV GROUP: Court Issues Further Protective Order in Perez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, has
issued a protective order in the case, DONEYDA PEREZ as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
LONSTEIN LAW OFFICES, P.C., a New York Professional Corporation;
SIGNAL AUDITING, INC., a New York Corporation; JULIE COHEN
LONSTEIN; and WAYNE D. LONSTEIN, Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-01440-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Protective Order aims to streamline discovery in the action.
The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge.  The Parties agree to negotiate a separate agreement in good
faith and submit such agreement to the trial judge at least one
week before the final pre-trial conference.

Unless made available to the public during trial, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to
be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the
Action, with or without prejudice, and (2) final judgment herein
after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings,
remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time
limits for filing any motions or applications of extension of time
pursuant to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

Within 60 days of the final disposition of the action, each
Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing
Party or destroy such material.  As used in the subdivision, "all
Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations,
summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the
Protected Material.  Whether the Protected Material is returned or
destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification
to the Producing Party, all the Protected Material that was
returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has
not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any
other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Protective
Order is available at https://is.gd/zjwF2g from Leagle.com.

Doneyda Perez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Mahoney --
kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC, Atoy Hari Wilson
-- awilson@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC, Katherine J.
Odenbreit -- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC &
Lisa L. Clay -- lclay@clayatlaw.com -- Attorney at Law, pro hac
vice.

DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP, JoAnne S. Jennings -- jjennings@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo --
mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Andrew Zachary
Edelstein -- aedelstein@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.

Lonstein Law Offices, P.C., a New York Professional Corporation,
Julie Cohen Lonstein & Wayne M. Lonstein, Defendants, represented
by Timothy M. Schowe, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Bryan
M. Leifer, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Ryan Douglas
Harvey, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Connie Anderson
Fickel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.

Signal Auditing Inc, a New York Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey Raymond Gillette, Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley,
Andrew S. Hollins, Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley, Chelsea
Danielle Hollins, Parker Ibrahim and Berg LLC, John B. Horgan,
Ellenoff Grossman and Schole LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine Rhodes
Janofsky, Ellenoff Grossman and Schole LLP & Kathleen M.K. Carter,
Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley.


DNB ASA: Must Pay $37MM After Losing Fund Charges Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Terje Solsvik, writing for Reuters, reports that Norwegian banking
group DNB's asset management arm overcharged fund investors and
must pay compensation to about 180,000 customers, the country's
supreme court ruled in a landmark case for the industry.

DNB had denied claims in a class action by customers and the
Norwegian Consumer Council that it had charged for actively
managing funds when in reality the asset manager was tracking a
stock market index -- a much cheaper service to provide.

"This verdict has importance for how to interpret fund-management
contracts between financial institutions and private investors,"
the supreme court said in a statement accompanying the verdict.

"The management of the fund was not in accordance with the
agreement made with customers," it added.

The supreme court upheld the decision of a lower court in Norway's
biggest ever class action lawsuit.

The bank must pay 349 million Norwegian crowns ($37.3 million) in
compensation, the court said, and legal fees of 4 million crowns.

The consumer council said the case has implications beyond the
specific claim against DNB and could help to protect people's
savings and pensions from overcharging in the future.

"This is a full and complete victory for the council's view," the
consumer council's director general, Inger Lise Blyverket, told
Reuters.

"This sets an important principle . . . we would expect banks that
have received similar criticism to also act on this verdict."

The case concerned people who invested in three separate DNB funds
between January 2010 and December 2014. [GN]

FANDUEL INC: Ark. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Parnell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming a trial
court judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned CHAD PARNELL, AN ARKANSAS CITIZEN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHER ARKANSAS CITIZENS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v.
FANDUEL, INC, Appellee, Case No. CV-18-928, (Ark.).

Chad Parnell filed the class-action lawsuit against FanDuel, Inc.,
in the Garland County Circuit Court, alleging violations of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) and unjust
enrichment on behalf of himself and the putative class.  

FanDuel subsequently moved to dismiss the action based upon an
amendment to the ADTPA passed by the General Assembly in 2017.  In
its motion to dismiss, FanDuel argued that Parnell's complaint
failed to allege an actual loss and also that the class allegations
could no longer be maintained under the amended ADTPA.

The circuit court agreed with FanDuel and dismissed both Parnell's
complaint and the class allegations.

On appeal, Parnell attempts to reframe his claim as a failure to
receive the "benefit of the bargain." In support of its argument
that Parnell failed to allege any actionable injury, FanDuel cites
Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., where the Arkansas Supreme Court
discussed benefit-of-the-bargain damages under the ADTPA. In
Wallis, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that where the only alleged
injury is the diminution in the value of the product, a private
cause of action is not cognizable under the ADTPA. The Arkansas
Supreme Court further noted that a complaint will not survive a
motion to dismiss where it alleges only an "ascertainable loss."
Parnell seeks to distinguish Wallis with two U.S. District Court
cases - M.S. Wholesale Plumbing, Inc. v. Univ. Sports Publ'ns Co.,
Inc., No. 4:07-CV00730 SWW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4159 (E.D. Ark.
Jan. 7, 2008), and Burns v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 2:14-CV-02208, 2016 WL 128544 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 12, 2016). In
citing these cases, Parnell asserts that Wallis is not controlling,
yet the decisions in both M.S. Wholesale and Burns are inapplicable
here.

Neither M.S. Wholesale nor Burns supports Parnell's contention that
he has pled an actionable injury - if anything, these cases further
undermine his position, the Arkansas Supreme Court opines. Parnell
deposited $200 into his FanDuel account for the ability to enter
that money into fantasy sports games; this was Parnell's actual
"benefit of the bargain," and he does not argue that he was denied
this benefit. Instead, he claims his FanDuel account had less
economic value than represented by FanDuel. But as the courts in
Wallis, M.S. Wholesale, and Burns make clear, a speculative injury
is not cognizable under the ADTPA. Moreover, Parnell failed to
plead that he suffered injury or loss as a result of opening a
FanDuel account or that he was in any way prevented from spending
or withdrawing the $200 he had deposited.

As a final matter, the  Supreme Court addresses Parnell's
unjust-enrichment claim against FanDuel. This claim fails because
Parnell has not actually alleged FanDuel was unjustly enriched.
Parnell makes no allegation that he was ever prevented from
withdrawing his initial deposit from his FanDuel account and thus
cannot demonstrate that FanDuel was unjustly enriched. Because
Parnell's complaint is devoid of any facts upon which he may be
entitled to relief, the Arkansas Supreme Court finds the circuit
court did not err in dismissing his complaint and class
allegations.

A full-text copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court's December 19, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/uyeowjm from Leagle.com


Steel, Wright, Gray, by: Scott Poynter , 400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite
2910, Little Rock, AR 72201, of Counsel, and Nate Steel , 400 W.
Capitol Ave., Suite 2910, Little Rock, AR 72201, for appellant.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: William A. Waddell, Jr.  -
waddell@fridayfirm.com - for appellee.


FORD MOTOR: Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Shane McGlaun, writing for Ford Authority, reports that in October
2019, a Ford sunroof class action lawsuit was filed that alleged
the sunroofs in some Ford vehicles were defective and shattered on
a regular basis. That lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Jessica Beaty
after she purchased the 2013 Ford Escape with a panoramic sunroof
in September 2012. She says in February 2017, the sunroof
spontaneously shattered while she was driving on a freeway. She
filed suit against Ford, but a judge has thrown the suit out of
court after ruling that the plaintiff couldn't show that Ford
panoramic sunroofs are defective or shattered on a regular basis.

The plaintiff in the suit had claimed that the panoramic sunroof
tempered glass is too thin to cover large areas needed for the roof
and that they shattered due to manufacturing defects in Escapes and
other Ford models. All the models that were seeking coverage in the
Ford Sunroof class action lawsuit are below:

2007-present Ford Edge
2009-present Ford Focus
2010-present Ford Fusion
2011-present Ford Explorer
2009-present Ford Flex
2011-present Ford F-150
2009-2014 Ford Mustang
2008-present Ford Escape
2014-present Ford Transit Connect
2013-present Ford C-Max
2007-present Lincoln MKX
2009-2015 Lincoln MKS
2013-present Lincoln MKZ
2010-present Lincoln MKT
2010-2011 Mercury Milan
2010-2011 Mercury Montego

Beaty claimed that Ford wouldn't cover the replacement sunroof
under warranty and that she had to go to an auto glass business and
pay a $500 insurance deductible to have the sunroof replaced. She
also alleged in the lawsuit that she had to pay over $100 for a
rental car for the time it took for the sunroof to be replaced. The
judge had previously dismissed expressed and implied warranty
claims noting that the plaintiff could amend those claims if she
chose, but the plaintiff did not amend the claims.

Ford told the judge there was no defect with the panoramic sunroofs
because the glass breaks exactly as federal law mandates, which is
into small round pieces. Ford also referred to the rate of
shattering sunroofs estimating a 0.05 percent failure rate noting
that if the failure rate of less than one percent is not material
as a matter of law. Ford says that one sunroof out of every 2,000
vehicles is a rate equal or lower to shattered sunroofs in vehicles
from other manufacturers. Ford also noted in the court case that it
couldn't have known about the alleged sunroof flaw because the 2013
Ford Escape was the first model year to include a panoramic
sunroof.

The judge had issues with the plaintiff's claim in the case going
so far as to tell the woman that her argument wasn't logical. The
judge in the case, Ronald B Leighton, said that "it defies common
sense" to claim that a manufacturer would be required to disclose
every single failure of any component or part to every potential
customer. The judge in the case ruled entirely in favor of Ford.
Earlier on Feb. 17, we mentioned that the Ford Duratec water pump
lawsuit had also been dismissed. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Arizona AG Opposes $13 Million Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Lynne LaMaster, writing for Prescotte News, reports that the Office
of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked a federal judge to
reject Google's $13 million class action settlement regarding its
'Wi-Spy' scandal that would send all of the money to attorneys and
select organizations instead of harmed consumers.

O.H. Skinner, Solicitor General for the Arizona Attorney General's
Office, argued the states' case at the U.S. District Court, North
District of California.

The $13 million settlement stems from a 2010 class action lawsuit
where Google's Street View cars collected millions of consumers'
private data (emails, passwords, usernames, etc.) off their WiFi
networks without consumers even knowing. Under the current proposed
settlement, harmed consumers would receive nothing from the $13
million cash fund. Instead, Google would pay $4 million to
attorneys and $8.75 million to select organizations that have
nothing to do with the lawsuit. Similar "cy pres-only" settlements,
where class members receive no direct benefit, have garnered the
attention of federal courts across the country, including the
Supreme Court.

"Google admitted to violating people's privacy, and instead of
paying harmed consumers, the tech giant wants to give millions of
dollars to organizations that have nothing to do with the
litigation," said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. "Settlements like
this leave consumers without a leg to stand on, and help propagate
the ongoing trend of companies taking our privacy concerns for
granted."

Last month, the Attorney General's Office filed an amicus brief on
behalf of nine states urging the Court to reject the settlement.  

Attorney General Brnovich continues to lead bipartisan efforts to
continue to protect consumers from being abused in connection with
class action settlements. Since 2015, the Attorney General's Office
(AGO) has objected to nearly two dozen class action settlements
where consumers were not adequately compensated. AGO efforts have
produced meaningful results for consumers, including improved
settlement terms that ensured consumers received the real benefits
from settlements. [GN]



GOOGLE LLC: Court Tosses Claims in Location History Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the GOOGLE LOCATION HISTORY LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-05062-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Napoleon Patacsil, Richard Dixon and his minor child
L.D., Najat Oshana, Mark Carson, Nurudaaym Mahon, and Aichi Ali
commenced the putative class action alleging that Defendant Google
LLC violated California law by tracking and storing geolocation
data via its various applications, i.e. Google Maps, Chrome, etc.


Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the California Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA), the right to privacy under the California
Constitution, and the common-law tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion
by the unauthorized surveillance and storage of geolocation data.


Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case.

As to the premise of explicit consent, Defendant first argues that
Plaintiffs consented to the use and collection of their location
information because the Privacy Policy warned, before the Class
Period, that when you use Google services, Google may collect and
process information about your actual location. Defendant thus
contends that because Plaintiffs consented to this as part of
Google's Terms of Services, they consented to the collection and
storage of geolocation data, and thus have no claims against
Defendant.

Plaintiffs argue that even while Web & App Activity and Location
History are distinct, Defendant mislead users into believing that
disabling Location History meant geolocation information would not
be stored.

Drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, a reasonable user
could believe that disabling Location History prevented Defendant
from collecting and storing geolocation data. This conclusion is
bolstered by the fact that many people were mislead by the effect
of disabling Location History. Moreover, the support page Defendant
points the Court to was created after this litigation had already
commenced. At the time Plaintiffs' original complaints were filed,
the page described Web & App Activity as merely a means to save
your search activity on apps and in browsers to make searches
faster. The page did not expressly state that geolocation data may
be collected.

As to the premise of implicit consent, Defendant next argues that
by using Google services, like Google Maps, users implicitly
consented to Google collecting and using geolocation information.

Plaintiffs rebut this by noting that while Google may need to track
the location of a user when Google Services are being used, consent
to Defendant tracking a user's geolocation location for an
immediate, discrete purpose does not parlay into consent for the
indefinite storage of such location information. Plaintiffs allege
that by turning off Location History, they gave only ephemeral
consent to geolocation tracking and not indefinite consent to the
storage of that tracking.  

The Court thus rejects Defendant's contention that by consenting to
transitory use, Plaintiffs consented to geolocation collection. To
the contrary, it is plausible that Plaintiffs gave a narrow consent
to geolocation tracking, exclusive of data storage.

Accordingly, a material factual dispute remains as to whether
Plaintiffs consented to a Privacy Policy authorizing the very
conduct they complain of or whether Plaintiffs reasonably believed,
based on Defendant's representations, that they revoked consent to
geolocation storage by disabling Location History. It is plausible
that Plaintiffs only consented to transitory use tracking and
revoked any consent to the storage of their geolocation history. It
is also plausible that they did not revoke such consent. The Court
cannot conclude either way factual disputes remain. This is an
issue for the jury.   

The Court holds Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts to show they
did not consent to the storage of their geolocation information.

* California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Google services constitute an "electronic
tracking device" because Defendant used "devices" (GPS hardware,
the cellular radio, and/or the WiFi chip) attached to or located
within a "moveable thing" to "reveal[] its location or movement by
the transmission of electronic signals." Plaintiffs argue, in the
alternative, that their mobile devices are "electronic tracking
devices," which when placed or attached on or within moveable
things (cars, buses, backpacks, clothing, etc.) reveal a device's
"location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals."
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' CIPA claim fails as a matter of
law because the subject-matter at issue is outside CIPA's reach.
The Court agrees.

The Court opines that first, there is a fundamental problem with
the way Plaintiffs plead their CIPA claim—they take issue not
with the "determination [of] the[ir] location or movement," but
with the collection and storage of that geolocation data. CIPA does
not apply to the storage of geolocation data; it only applies to
unconsented geolocation tracking. Plaintiffs issue is not with
Defendant tracking them during application use, rather their issue
is with the storage of that data. For this reason, Plaintiffs' CIPA
claim fails as a matter of law because CIPA, by its plain terms, is
not concerned with data storage but focuses on unconsented data
tracking, which is not at issue.

Second, assuming some type of unconsented tracking was occurring,
Defendant's services are not a "device" within the meaning of
Section 637.7(d). Software like Google Maps, Chrome, etc. are not
"devices" within the meaning of CIPA because they are not
"equipment." Plaintiffs do not contest this. Instead, they argue
that their allegations do not hinge on software because the word
"software" does not appear in the CIPA count. Such an argument
places form over substance and is rejected, the Court opines. The
Court agrees with Defendant's contention that "Plaintiffs'
allegations are centrally focused on Google's software."

Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not shown that they
"attached" an "electronic tracking device" to "a vehicle or other
moveable thing." Plaintiffs contend that they have pled Defendant
"attached" an electronic tracking device to "moveable things,"
including "cars, buses, trains, bicycles, [] other forms of
transportation . . . . [and] clothing, purses, briefcases, and
backpacks." Plaintiffs argue CIPA's "attach" does not require
Defendant to have personally "placed" something on a moveable thing
because it only requires some association with a moveable thing.
The Court disagrees. These arguments push CIPA beyond its plain
meaning and transform the statute into something unrecognizable.

Moreover, the Court rejects Plaintiffs arguments that Defendants
"attached" an "electronic tracking device" to a "moveable thing".
The Court holds that "attach" requires the wrongdoer to "place,"
"put," or "join" an electronic tracking device to a moveable thing.
The Court further holds that the definition of "other moveable
things" does not include persons, their belts, or their
smartphones. Plaintiffs' theory that any mobile device in any
moveable thing satisfies CIPA is rejected. Accordingly, because
Plaintiffs have not plead sufficient facts showing that Defendant
"attached" a tracking device to a "moveable thing," Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' CIPA claim is GRANTED, the Court
rules. The Court does not grant leave to amend as it finds that
amendment would be futile because Plaintiffs neither can show that
CIPA reaches the software at issue nor that Defendants were
intentionally placing electronic tracking devices on vehicles or
other comparable moveable things.

* Privacy Claims

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated their right to privacy
under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution by
intentionally intruding on and into Plaintiffs' solitude,
seclusion, right of privacy, and/or private affairs by
intentionally tracking their location. Compl.  Plaintiffs also
allege Defendant violated the common law intrusion upon seclusion.


The Court turns to the main issue - whether the collection and
storage of geolocation information interferes with autonomy and/or
information privacy. While the California Constitution protects
autonomy, it does not "create an[] unbridled right of personal
freedom of action that may be vindicated in lawsuits." Plaintiffs
spend most of their Opposition arguing that informational privacy
is at stake. The Court does not find sufficient cause to extend the
bodily autonomy line of cases to data autonomy.

Plaintiffs' information privacy rights allegation is also rejected.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant's surreptitious collection and
storage of comprehensive and highly sensitive location data
violates their information privacy rights. Even if the collection
of granular and specific location data establishes an information
privacy interest, Plaintiffs' theory is undercut by the admission
that Defendant only tracked and collected data during use of Google
services. Accordingly, Defendant's "profile" of a user is only as
specific as their use of Google services.

Accordingly, since Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient facts to
allege an invasion of privacy, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' constitutional and common law privacy claims is
GRANTED, the Court rules. The Court grants leave to amend as it
finds amendment would not be futile.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 19, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/wjtkd3q from Leagle.com

Napoleon Patacsil, individually, and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Carney -
acarney@cbplaw.com - Carney Bates Pulliam, PLLC, 11311 Arcade
Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72212, pro hac vice, David
F. Slade - dslade@cbplaw.com - Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Joseph Henry Bates, III - hbates@cbplaw.com - Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Michael W. Sobol , Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Tina Wolfson , Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Hank Bates -
hbates@cbplaw.com - Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Melissa Ann
Gardner - mgardner@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein,
LLP, Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit - mlevin@lchb.com - Lieff
Cabraser et al, Nicholas Diamand - ndiamand@lchb.com - Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice & Theodore Walter
Maya -tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.

Google, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Berkowitz -
bberkowitz@keker.com - Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Christina Lee
- clee@keker.com - Keker Van Nest and Peters LLP & Thomas Edward
Gorman - tgorman@keker.com - Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

XXVI Holdings, Inc. & Alphabet Inc., Defendants, represented by
Benjamin Berkowitz , Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.


HEXCEL CORPORATION: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Woodward
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HEXCEL CORPORATION, JOEL S. BECKMAN, LYNN BRUBAKER,
JEFFREY C. CAMPBELL, CYNTHIA M. EGNOTOVICH, THOMAS A. GENDRON, NICK
L. STANAGE, CATHERINE A. SUEVER, WOODWARD, INC., and GENESIS MERGER
SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00373-UNA (D. Del., March 16, 2020),
stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Hexcel
Corporation will be acquired by Woodward, Inc., and Genesis Merger
Sub, Inc.

On January 12, 2020, Hexcel's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Woodward.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Hexcel's
stockholders will receive 0.6250 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Hexcel common stock they own. On February 28, 2020,
the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement: omits
material information regarding the Company's, Woodward's, and the
combined company's financial projections; omits material
information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; and fails to disclose the timing and
nature of all communications regarding future employment and
directorship of the Company's officers and directors, including who
participated in all such communications.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. The Registration
Statement is an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because
of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Hexcel common stock.

Hexcel is an advanced composites company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


HOUSTON ASTROS: Faces Class Action Over Sign-Stealing Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Trevino and Jaime E. Galvan, writing for KHOU 11, report that
attorneys for an Humble man filed a class-action lawsuit in
connection with the Houston Astros sign-stealing scandal.

Attorneys for Adam Wallach, who is an Astros season-ticket holder,
filed the lawsuit on behalf of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 full or
partial season ticket holders for "deceptively overcharging them
for season tickets while defendants and their employees and
representatives knowingly and surreptitiously engaged in a
sign-stealing scheme in violation of Major League Baseball Rules
and Regulations, and secretly put a deficient product on the field
that could result (and now has resulted) in severe penalties
instituted by MLB," according to court documents.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on Feb. 14, Wallach is
seeking to recover damages for "inappropriate increases" in the
season ticket prices, "diminished value of their personal seat
licenses," and an injunction prohibiting the Astros from raising
season ticket prices for at least two years.

He wants more than $1 million in damages. We reached out to Wallach
and his attorneys, but haven't received a comment from them.

"While this is not a frivolous lawsuit, it is a long shot," KHOU
legal analyst Gerald Treece said.

Treece also speaks from the perspective of a season ticket holder.

"People are mad. I'm disappointed, but that doesn't mean it's a
violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act," Treece
said.

Other Astros fans said suing the team is going too far.

"I'm still an Astros fan. They made some mistakes but they can
recover," Todd Hart said.

"I would like to see Houston sports fans support the Astros. I
think the Astros have learned their lesson," Mary Jean Murphy
said.

We reached out to the Astros and were told they do not comment on
any pending litigation.

This is not the first lawsuit filed in connection with the
sign-stealing scandal.

Former MLB pitcher Mike Bolsinger filed a civil lawsuit against the
Houston Astros on Feb. 17 over their sign-stealing scandal, USA
Today Sports reports.

The lawsuit accuses the Astros of unfair business practices and
negligence, among other charges, according to Nancy Armour with USA
Today.

Bolsinger is said to be seeking "unspecified damages," but not just
for his own benefit.

In January, Los Angeles Dodgers superfan Jose Lara said he was
considering filing a class-action lawsuit against Major League
Baseball for the money he and other fans spent going to Game 7 of
the 2017 World Series. His Dodgers lost that game to the eventual
champion Astros. [GN]


INDRIO BRANDS: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indrio Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Indrio
Brands, LLC, doing business as: Hale Groves, Case No. 1:20-cv-01378
(E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2020).

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

Indrio Brands owns and operates Direct to Consumer (DTC) brands
focusing on products that enable customers to better connect with
nature in order to improve their health, their lives, and the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


iTHINK FINANCIAL: Faces Collier Class Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against iTHINK Financial
Credit Union. The case is styled as Willie Collier, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. iTHINK Financial
Credit Union f/k/a IBM SOUTHEAST EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION, Case No.
9:20-cv-80430-KAM (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

iTHINK Financial in Florida and Georgia offers personal banking
solutions, including accounts, mortgages, loans, credit cards and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
          Daniel Edward Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                 tropin@kolawyers.com


KM-T.E.H. REALTY: Tenants' Suit Gain Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, senior reporter and editor at KCUR, wrote that
tenants of Ruskin Place Apartments, a landlord notorious for the
festering conditions of its apartment units, have won the right to
sue as a class.

Complaints by tenants of Ruskin Place Apartments, a 169-unit
complex in south Kansas City, ranged from "vast amounts of water"
leaking through windows, mold and sagging floors to inadequate
heat, unsecured doors and "large critters" roaming through the
units.

In October, three of the tenants sued KM-T.E.H. Realty 8 LLC on
behalf of themselves and Ruskin Place's other tenants.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Joel Fahnestock granted them class
action status.

In certifying the tenants as a class, Judge Fahnestock found that
their lawsuit met the requirements of a class action -- namely that
it has common questions of law and fact, numerous plaintiffs and
plaintiffs with similar claims.

T.E.H., which was founded in Israel in 2006, has been the subject
of numerous complaints by tenants at other apartment complexes it
owns in and around Kansas City and St. Louis. [GN]

L2 LIU INC: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L2 Liu Inc. The case
is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. L2 Liu Inc., doing business as: Quality Inn
Near Sunset Park, Case No. 1:20-cv-01388-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y., March
16, 2020).

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

Quality Inn Near Sunset Park is a low-key budget hotel that is a
5-minute walk from a subway station and a mile from Green-Wood
Cemetery, site of a Revolutionary War battlefield.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


LOGMEIN INC: April 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against LogMeIn, Inc. ("LogMeIn" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:LOGM) in connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed
Transaction") between LogMeIn, Francisco Partners and Evergreen
Coast Capital Corporation ("Evergreen"), the private equity
affiliate of Elliot Management Corporation.

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, on December 17, 2019,
LogMeIn announced that it had entered into an agreement to be
acquired at a price of $86.05 per share in cash.  According to the
complaint, on January 17, 2020, "in order to convince LogMeIn
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,"
LogMeIn's officers and directors "authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading" proxy statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation of the
securities laws.  The complaint alleges that defendants "failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading."

LogMeIn stockholders may, no later than April 13, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.

LogMeIn shareholders are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC
(David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 – 1585, or online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/logmein-inc/,for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and options.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]


LUCKIN COFFEE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Luckin
Coffee Inc. (LK). Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court and
further details about the case can be found at the link provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Luckin Coffee Inc. (LK)
LK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 13, 2019
- January 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2020
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/luckin-coffee-inc-loss-form?wire=3&prid=5543

Allegations: Luckin Coffee Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) certain of Luckin's financial performance
metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per
item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from "other
products" were inflated; (ii) Luckin's financial results thus
overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently
unreliable; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the Luckin Coffee Inc. 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
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
[GN]

MAGNISOLE: Faces Newell Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shoe Inserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYNE NEWELL v. MAGNISOLE, Case No. CACE-20-002965 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., Feb. 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated seeking to enjoin the Defendant
from continuing to engage, use, or employ any unfair and/or
deceptive business acts or practices related to the design,
testing, manufacture, assembly, development, marketing,
advertising, or sale of Magnisole shoe inserts.

According to the complaint, MagniSole (TM) shoe inserts are premium
orthopedic insoles that activate ancient chinese reflexology points
to relieve tension in feet and body.

The Product is available on the Defendant's Web site
(http://magnisole.com/).On its Web site, the Defendant represents
that the Product will: (1) stop achy feet, back pain, headaches,
stiff and sore joints, muscle pain and more; and (2) take away the
need for expensive massages, dangerous surgeries, and unsafe
medicines.

On January 15, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased Magnisole (TM) shoe
inserts from Amazon. The Plaintiff contends that a consumer
purchasing the Product would reasonably believe that the Product
could actually provide the promised health benefits. The Plaintiff
notes that the Product's labeling, marketing, and advertising
contained on the packaging and on the Defendant's Web site are
false, deceptive and misleading because there has no data provided
that would support these promised but unsubstantiated health
benefits.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer over the age of eighteen,
who resides in Broward County Florida.

The Defendant sells the Product through its Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr., Apt 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: 832-715-2788
          Facsimile: 561-688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


MARTIN'S FAMOUS PASTRY: Faces Rivera Suit Alleging MWA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Rivera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MARTIN'S FAMOUS PASTRY SHOPPE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00438-JPW
(M.D. Pa., March 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, each week, the Defendant makes
withholdings/deductions from the earnings of Distributors,
including the Plaintiff. These withholdings/deductions include,
inter alia, equipment fees, promotional and product discount
charges, stale and shrink charges, route fees, and various other
deductions associated with Defendant's business. The Plaintiff and
other Distributors are required to personally pay for work-related
expenses such, inter alia, gas expenses, vehicle maintenance/repair
expenses, and insurance expenses.

The Defendant violated the MWA by requiring the Plaintiff to pay
for their jobs/territories, subjecting them to various charges,
withholdings, deductions, and requiring them to pay for various
job-related expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Distributor in
Massachusetts until January 2020.

The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, distributing,
and selling potato rolls and other baked goods to retailers,
wholesalers, and institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800


MCCORMICK: Settles Class Action Over Black Pepper Products
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by DLA Piper LLP.

Did You Purchase McCormick(R) Brand and/or Private Label Brand
Black Pepper Products Between January 1, 2015 and January 27, 2020?
You May Get A Payment From A Class Action Settlement.

This lawsuit claims that McCormick improperly implemented a price
increase by decreasing the quantity of black pepper in certain
McCormick(R) brand pepper containers and certain store-branded
pepper containers which were supplied by McCormick (collectively
"Black Pepper Products"), while keeping the non-transparent
containers the same size. McCormick denies all of the Plaintiffs'
claims and denies that it engaged in any unlawful or improper
conduct. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong.
Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.

Am I a Class Member?

The Parties have asked the Court to approve a settlement involving
the following class:

All persons residing in California, Florida, or Missouri who
purchased any McCormick(R) brand or private label brand Black
Pepper Product(s) between January 1, 2015 and January 27, 2020.

A list of the specific Black Pepper Products included in the
settlement may be found on the settlement website. If you are still
not sure whether you are a Class Member, you can visit the website,
www.BlackPepperSettlement.com, call 844-702-2783, or write to
Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box #58238, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8238
for more information.

What am I Eligible to Receive?

If you have proof that you purchased one or more listed Black
Pepper Products between January 1, 2015 and January 27, 2020 (such
as a receipt, or the container itself), you may receive the greater
of Four Dollars ($4.00) per container or the actual cost per
container purchased during this time period.

If you do not have proof that you purchased one or more Black
Pepper Products between January 1, 2015 and January 27, 2020, you
may receive Four Dollars ($4.00) per container for up to two (2)
containers of Black Pepper Products that you claim to have
purchased.

Depending upon the number of claims submitted, the target payment
of $4.00 per container may be increased or decreased pro rata.

What are My Options?

Submit Claim Form - This is the only way to get money from the
settlement. By submitting a Claim Form and receiving money, you
will be giving up your right to sue, or continue to sue, Defendant
about the same or similar legal claims that are involved in this
case, now or in the future. You will be legally bound by the
Court's judgment in these class actions. Go to
www.BlackPepperSettlement.com to learn how to file a Claim Form.

Exclude Yourself From the Class - If you exclude yourself from the
Class, you will not get any money from the settlement nor will you
be able to object to the settlement. However, you may sue or
continue to sue Defendant about the same or similar legal claims
that are involved in this case, now or in the future. You will not
be legally bound by the Court's judgment in these class actions. Go
to www.BlackPepperSettlement.com to learn how to exclude yourself
from the Class.

Object to the Settlement - You can write to the Claims
Administrator about why you don't like the settlement. You must
remain a Class Member to object to the Settlement. If the Court
approves the settlement in spite of your objection, you may receive
money from the settlement. You will also be giving up your right to
sue, or continue to sue, Defendant about the same or similar legal
claims that are involved in this case, now or in the future. You
will be legally bound by the Court's judgment in these class
actions. Go to www.BlackPepperSettlement.com to learn how to object
to the settlement.

Go to the Hearing - You can ask to speak in Court about the
fairness of the settlement. You must remain a Class Member to speak
at a hearing concerning the settlement. If the Court approves the
settlement, you may receive money from the settlement. You will
also be giving up your right to sue, or continue to sue, Defendant
about the same or similar legal claims that are involved in this
case, now or in the future. You will be legally bound by the
Court's judgment in these class actions. Go to
www.BlackPepperSettlement.com to learn how to request permission to
speak at the hearing.

Do Nothing - By doing nothing, you will not get any money from the
settlement. However, you will remain a member of the Class and will
be giving up your right to sue, or continue to sue, Defendant about
the same or similar legal claims that are involved in this case,
now or in the future. You will be legally bound by the Court's
judgment in these class actions.

This is only a summary. For more detailed information, please visit
www.BlackPepperSettlement.com or call 844- 702-2783 (toll free).
[GN]


MYER: Shareholder Class Action Lawyer Mark Elliott Dies
-------------------------------------------------------
Liz Main, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
prominent class action lawyer Mark Elliott, who spearheaded the
landmark shareholder class action against retail giant Myer last
year, has died in a farming accident.

Mr. Elliott, 58, passed away late on Feb. 13 following a vehicle
accident at his farm in Flinders, south-east of Melbourne.

Mr. Elliott's family gave the following statement to The Australian
Financial Review on Feb. 17

"The Elliott family can confirm Mark Edward Elliott passed away
after a tragic farm vehicle accident on his property.

"He was a loving husband to Pina, and a cherished father to
Alexander, Maximilian, Edward and Olivia. [GN]



NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Fund Trustee Contests Suit Over Excess Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shreya Mariam Job, writing for Reuters in Bengaluru, reports that
National Australia Bank's superannuation fund trustee denies
allegations of overcharging and will contest the latest class
action against the fund, the bank said.

The lawsuit was brought by IMF Bentham and William Roberts Lawyers
over MLC Super Fund trustee NULIS Nominees' decision to maintain
commission arrangements for former members of The Universal Super
Scheme when transferred to the MLC Super Fund.

The claim alleges that NULIS levied excess fees to pay commissions
and other fees to advisers and in doing so breached its obligations
to the members of the fund, the law firm said on its website.

NULIS became trustee of MLC Super Fund in mid-2016 after a
reorganisation of the superannuation fund structures, which led to
a transfer of members to MLC.

In a statement on Friday, NAB said that NULIS denies the allegation
and is defending the class action.

The lawsuit follows Maurice Blackburn's class action against NULIS
Nominees and MLC Nominees in January on behalf of more than 330,000
account holders.  [GN]

NGK: Michigan Court Approves Proposed Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP;
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.;
and Cera LLP ("Settlement Class Counsel") announce that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern
Division ("Court") has approved the following announcement of
proposed class action settlements with the NGK, DENSO, and Corning
Defendants. The lawsuit claimed that Defendants conspired to raise,
fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the
supply of Ceramic Substrates sold in the United States, in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The settlements affect those who purchased Ceramic Substrates in
the United States between July 1, 1999 and October 29, 2018
directly from any of the following entities (or depending on the
specific settlement agreement, their parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates and joint ventures): NGK Insulators Ltd., NGK Automotive
Ceramics USA, Inc., Corning International Kabushiki Kaisha, Corning
Incorporated, DENSO Corporation, and DENSO International America,
Inc.

A hearing will be held on June 17, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge, at the
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 250 (or such other
courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing), for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlements with the NGK,
DENSO, and Corning Defendants totaling $17,300,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether
the Court should approve the proposed plan of distribution of the
settlement proceeds to members of the settlement classes; and (3)
whether the Court should approve Settlement Class Counsel's
requests for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses, and an incentive payment to the
Class Representative.

A Notice of Proposed Settlements (the "Notice") was mailed to
potential Settlement Class members on or about February 7, 2020.
The Notice describes the litigation and options available to
Settlement Class members with respect to the NGK, DENSO, and
Corning settlements in more detail. The Notice also explains what
steps a Class Member must take to: (1) remain in the settlement
classes and file a Claim Form to share in the settlement proceeds;
(2) object to the settlements; or (3) request exclusion from the
settlement classes.  The Notice and other important documents
related to the settlements can be accessed at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/CeramicSubstrates, or by
calling 1-877-734-5508 or writing to Ceramic Substrates Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 4178, Portland, OR
97208-4178.  Those who believe they may be a member of any of the
NGK, DENSO, or Corning settlement classes, are urged to obtain a
copy of the Notice.

URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/CeramicSubstrates

SOURCE: United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan Southern Division [GN]


PMA INSURANCE: Wrongfully Shifts Costs to Medicare, Sims Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Monroe Sims, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. PMA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a PMA INSURANCE
GROUP; PMA MANAGEMENT CORP.; AND MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00249 (M.D.N.C., March 16, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the private right of action authorized by
Congress to ensure that the Defendants comply with their
statutorily mandated responsibilities and cease to maximize its
profits by wrongfully shifting costs to Medicare.

Medicare provides federal healthcare funds for three groups of
individuals: the aged, the disabled, and persons with end stage
renal disease. In order to ensure that primary insurance and
private plans comply with their obligations to cover medical costs,
Congress authorized individuals to bring a private cause of action
and recover double damages from primary payers that failed to pay
medical expenses for which they were responsible and failed to
reimburse Medicare for medical expenses Medicare consequently
paid.

Despite this legislation, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants
have unlawfully shifted workers' compensation medical expenses to
Medicare and federal taxpayers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seriously injured her
back while attempting to move a patient. When the Defendants, who
are responsible for the Plaintiff's workers' compensation-related
medical expenses, refused to pay for some of the medical care the
Plaintiff received for her injury, Medicare paid the health care
providers. Subsequently, after the North Carolina Industrial
Commission ruled that the Defendants were required to pay for that
care, the Defendants failed to reimburse Medicare, choosing instead
to allow the cost for that care to be shifted to federal
taxpayers.

The Plaintiff was employed as a certified nursing assistant by
Century Care Management and was working in a nursing home in North
Carolina.

The Defendants were the insurance company or companies bearing the
risk and providing insurance coverage for workers' compensation
claims for Century Care Management during the time period when the
Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim arose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          P.O. Box 12638
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          Email: martha@wbmllp.com
                 scott@wbmllp.com
                 pat@wbmllp.com
                 jeremy@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Cameron Simmons, Esq.
          CAMERON SIMMONS LAW
          P.O. Box 12889
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Phone: (910) 208-9882
          Facsimile: (910) 863-8682
          Email: cds@cameronsimmonslaw.com


R & E INC: Slade Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & E, Inc. The case
is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. R & E, Inc., doing
business as: mygrandma.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-02315 (S.D.N.Y., March
16, 2020).

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

My Grandma's manufactures the original Cinnamon Walnut Coffee Cake
along with more different cakes and pastries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAZORGATOR INTERACTIVE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Razorgator
Interactive Group, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Razorgator
Interactive Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02335 (S.D.N.Y., March
16, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

RazorGator is an online ticket reselling platform for sports,
theater and concert tickets, and vacation packages for sporting
events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFE HAVEN: Sporven Seeks Unpaid Straight Time and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Sporven, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03032 (D.
Neb., March 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover
unpaid wages, including straight time wages and overtime wages with
related penalties and damages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, and Nebraska common
law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy and practice
of refusing to pay its employees for all hours worked on behalf of
the company. The Defendant not only encourages its employees to
"work off the clock", it knowingly allows its employees to work
"off the clock" without compensation. The Defendant has failed and
continues to fail to compensate the Plaintiff appropriately for
time worked on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant's pay
practices are in direct violation of the FLSA, the Nebraska Wage
Act, and Nebraska common law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as a sales
representative.

The Defendant's primary function is to sell residential security
systems to homeowners and lessees and perform installations of
those systems after the sale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc N. Middleton, Esq.
          Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
          Megan Lowe Stiles, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
          8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 225
          Kansas City, MO 64151
          Phone: (816) 581-4040
          Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
          Email: m.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com
                 r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
                 m.stiles@cornerstonefirm.com


SAN DIEGO HAT: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Diego Hat
Company. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. San
Diego Hat Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01377 (E.D.N.Y., March 16,
2020).

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

San Diego Hat Company provides stylish hats, bags and accessories
for all seasons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANFORD KAHN: Faces Legrone FDCPA Suit Over Tenancy Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
NASHAWN LEGRONE and TINA CHANNEY v. SANFORD KAHN, LLP, an Illinois
Partnership, and AMY MELAND SELLERGREN, Case No. 2020L002030 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by telling tenants
and all others similarly situated that they need to sign paperwork
to stay in their units or speak to the Judge.

The Plaintiffs allege that that paperwork turns out to be an Order
of Possession. This conduct, repeated over and over again by
Sanford Kahn, constitutes a fraud upon the Court system, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were and are residents of the residential property
located at 1802 Lake in Evanston, Illinois (the subject matter
property).

On October 31, 2019, the Plaintiffs received a letter from their
landlord purporting to terminate their tenancy for the subject
matter property.  On November 7, 2019, before the expiration of
that letter, Sanford Kahn filed an eviction lawsuit against the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs contend that Ms. Sellergren told them that she would
represent them in the eviction case and she was working for a legal
aid agency and representing tenants. They add that she told them
they did not need a copy of the court order because she was
representing them. In reality, the Plaintiffs allege, Ms.
Sellergren had continued the case until January 10, 2020. On that
date, she went to court and entered an ex parte order of possession
against the Plaintiffs.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, the
Plaintiffs contend that they have suffered significant damages.

Sanford Kahn is a law firm and Illinois' largest eviction mill,
filing thousands of eviction cases annually and dispossessing
thousands of tenants from their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501-5760
          E-mail: shery@open-communities.org


SIX FLAGS: Rosen Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Six Flags Entertainment Corporation
(NYSE: SIX) between April 25, 2018 and January 9, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important April 13, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Six Flags investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Six Flags class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1777.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) the delays of park develop in China with Riverside were
not "short-term" and were material in the context of long-term
opportunity; (2) Riverside was in severe financial distress and did
not have the resources to complete its projects timely with Six
Flags; and (3) 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 13,
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-1777.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com
              cases@rosenlegal.com
      Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


[GN]



ST. BERNARD'S SCHOOL: Faces Doe Suit in New York Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ST. BERNARD'S SCHOOL.
The case is styled as DOE 1, JOHN; STUDENT A, A MINOR BY HIS PARENT
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; AND STUDENT B, A MINOR
BY HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JOHN DOE 2, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, for a judgment
pursuant to article 78 of the civil practice law and rules v. ST.
BERNARD'S SCHOOL, AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, BY ITS PRESIDENT CRAIG HUFF, Case No. 100418/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., March 16, 2020).

The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 78."

St. Bernard's School, founded in 1904 by John Card Jenkins, is a
private, all-male elementary school in the Carnegie Hill
neighborhood of Manhattan's Upper East Side.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP
          1 Battery Park Plz., Fl. 34
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 335-2042

The Defendants are represented by:

          CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
          825 Eighth Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 474-1217


SUNWATER LTD: To Appeal Queensland Flood Class Action Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a second Queensland
water provider is appealing a class action decision on the 2011
floods potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The NSW Supreme Court found last year that nearly 7000 flood
victims were failed by engineers operating Queensland's Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams in 2011.

Sunwater said in a statement that it would advise the New South
Wales Supreme Court it was appealing the 2011 Queensland Floods
Class Action judgement.

This decision was made after a thorough review of the judgement
with its insurers.

Sunwater will not make any further comments while the appeal
process is underway.

Former Ipswich councillor and claimant Paul Tully said Sunwater was
basically dragging victims through the mud and it could go all the
way to the High Court.

He said Sunwater should accept "the umpire's decision" based on a
1600-page report.

"It's extremely disappointing for the flood victims who have been
to hell and back over the past nine years and Sunwater continues to
embarrass the water and insurance industry with this appeal," he
said."

This could drag out for another two years right to the High Court
of Australia." [GN]


TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING: Fans Could Receive Payouts in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Price, writing for WFLA, reports that The Tampa Bay
Lightning have agreed to pay nearly $2.3 million settlement after a
fan filed a lawsuit accusing the franchise of sending him
unsolicited text messages.

If you sent at least one message in a Bolts "text to win" contest
you might qualify to file a claim.

Last May, a Tampa man filed a class-action lawsuit blaming the team
for a barrage of unwanted promotional text messages. It began after
he texted the word "Parent" to 61873 for the chance to win four
tickets and the harassment continued, he claims, long after the
contest was up.

The lawsuit argues the messages violate the "Federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act." The Lightning deny the allegations
telling 8 on Your Side.

"We thought it would best to avoid the cost and distraction of
litigation, so we elected to settle."

So if you tried to win by texting 61873 you're entitled to some of
that settlement. The estimated payout $45 just enough for tickets
to a Lightning game.

The deadline to file a claim online is 11:59 p.m. EST on June 8,
2020, you can submit your claim at
https://www.tbsetextmessagesettlement.com/submit-claim.php
[GN]

TD ASSET MANAGEMENT: Class Action Certified by Ontario Court
------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton at Advisor's Edge reports that a proposed class
action against TD Asset Management Inc. (TDAM) over trailer fees
paid to discount brokers has been given the go-ahead by an Ontario
court.

Justice Edward Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice certified
the class action on behalf of investors who purchased TD mutual
funds from a discount broker. The suit alleges that investors
suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses because the funds
paid trailers to firms in part for advice the firms don't provide.

While trailing commission to full-service firms "made sense"
because those firms "were legally permitted to provide investment
advice to their clients and have done so," the ruling said, paying
trailing commissions to the discount brokers "made less sense
because they were prohibited by provincial securities law from
providing investment advice."

It also noted that securities regulators have recently declared
that there's "no justifiable rationale" for the practice of funds
paying trailers to discounters, and that the Canadian Securities
Administrators (CSA) are planning to introduce measures to outlaw
it.

In the meantime, the investor class action will be allowed to
proceed. The allegations have not been proven.

The court said TDAM basically argued that the plaintiff doesn't
have standing to bring the class action. It argued that the fund
manager is obliged to act in the best interests of the fund, not
its unitholders.

However, the court rejected the argument, at least at the
certification stage.

It said that TDAM may succeed with this argument during a trial but
that on a certification motion, it's not clear that this is the
case.

"In my view, it is not at all plain and obvious on the facts as
pleaded that the plaintiff as unitholder and beneficiary has no
right to sue the defendant trustee in respect of the alleged
breaches of the prescribed standard and duty of care," the ruling
said.

Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff has a viable claim
for breach of trust and fiduciary duty. Several other claims —
for knowing assistance, knowing receipt and unjust enrichment —
were ordered struck.

A claim of prospectus misrepresentation is also a viable cause of
action, the court said, noting that TDAM's "Fund Facts documents
have consistently stated that trailing commissions are paid for the
‘services and advice' provided by dealers to their clients."

It certified the action to proceed on the claims that it deemed to
be viable.

This is the first to be certified in a number of similar class
actions against asset managers over trailing commissions to
discount brokers. [GN]



TIVITY HEALTH: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tivity Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TVTY) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tivity securities between March 8,
2019, and February 19, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/tvty.

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 materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) following the Nutrisystem Acquisition, Tivity's
Nutrition segment faced significant operational challenges; (2) the
foregoing would foreseeably have a significant impact on Tivity's
revenues; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 19, 2020, Tivity issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended
December 31, 2019. Tivity disclosed, inter alia, that its
"Nutrition segment had a disappointing end to 2019," which included
"a non-cash impairment charge of $(377.1) million," contributing to
a net loss for the Company of $272.8 million in the fourth quarter.
Concurrently, Tivity announced the resignation of the Company's
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Donato Tramuto, effective
immediately. Discussing the Company's financial results on an
earnings call, the Company's interim CEO, Robert Greczyn, stated
that "[a]dmittedly, the nutrition business has not worked out as
well as planned since the completion of the [Nutrisystem
Acquisition] in March 2019. Following this news, Tivity's stock
price fell $10.43 per share, or 45.49%, to close at $12.50 per
share on February 20, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tvty 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 Tivity
you have until April 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. 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:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
         212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
[GN]




VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Emissions Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Volkswagen AG and a major German consumer
group said that they had reached an 830 million euro $916.65
million agreement in a class action lawsuit over the carmaker's
rigging of diesel emissions tests.

The deal marks a further step in the German carmaker's efforts to
make amends after it admitted in 2015 to using illegal software to
cheat U.S. diesel engine tests.

The effort has cost Volkswagen more than $30 billion in vehicle
refits, fines and provisions.

In the deal, the $917 million will be divided among about 260,000
members of the class action. The exact amount depends on the age
and model of the owner's car.

Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States, but VW has
said there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany to seek
compensation due to differences in law.

An initial attempt to reach the $917 million settlement with VZBV
failed this month, for which VW blamed demands for $55.2 million in
fees by lawyers representing the consumer groups. [GN]



[*] Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Court Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed
various Ninth Circuit class action rulings.

Becerra v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., No. 18-16721, __ F.3d __,
2019 WL 7287554 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019)
Consumer failed to allege that reasonable consumers understood the
word "diet" in Diet Dr. Pepper's brand name to promise weight loss,
and reference to an alleged consumer survey was insufficient to
avoid dismissal.

In this case, plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated
various California consumer-fraud laws by branding Diet Dr. Pepper
using the word which allegedly misled consumers by promising that
the product would "assist in weight loss" or at least "not cause
weight gain," and that the alleged promise was false because
aspartame caused weight gain. Plaintiff cited dictionary
definitions of "diet" to support her allegation that consumers
would reasonably believe the word "diet" to promise assistance in
weight loss. She also included references to television
advertisements and articles to support her allegation that
reasonable consumers understand "diet" to promise weight loss. And
she summarized results of a survey of California and national
consumers, which she contended was proof that most soft-drink
consumers believe "diet" soft drinks will help them lose or
maintain their weight.

In affirming a decision granting defendants' motion to dismiss, the
Ninth Circuit first noted that plaintiff's citations to dictionary
definitions involved the use of "diet" as a verb or noun, as in "he
is dieting" or "she is starting a diet." The court noted that in
contrast, "diet" as used in "Diet Dr. Pepper" is either an
adjective or proper noun, which puts the word in a different light.
The court held that plaintiff's selective quotations omit the
definitions of "diet" as an adjective and the frequent usage of
"diet soft drinks" as the primary example of the word's usage in
that context to mean "reduced in or free from calories." The court
held that, when considering the term in its proper context, no
reasonable consumer would assume that Diet Dr. Pepper's use of the
term "diet" promises weight loss or management. The court also held
that the articles plaintiff cited did not support her claims as a
matter of law, because the content of these articles emphasizes
that other lifestyle changes beyond merely drinking diet soft
drinks are necessary to see weight-loss results. Finally, the court
held that the survey plaintiff cited did not address a reasonable
consumer's understanding of "diet" in this context to be a relative
claim about the calorie or sugar content of the product.

Henson v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., 943 F.3d 434 (9th Cir.
2019)
Based on intervening change in law, Ninth Circuit gives plaintiffs
the opportunity to pursue class allegations that had been
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In this decision, the Ninth Circuit clarified the standard that
applies to a request under Rule 60(b) for relief from judgment.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, alleging that Fidelity had improperly
received kickbacks in connection with directing business to certain
vendors. Plaintiffs moved for class certification, which the
district court denied, and then voluntarily dismissed the action
with prejudice by stipulation. Under then-existing Ninth Circuit
authority, that stipulation would create an adverse final order,
and thus the right to pursue a non-discretionary appeal of the
certification ruling.

While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court
issued its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702
(2017), holding that plaintiffs cannot use a voluntary dismissal
with prejudice to transform an interlocutory order into an
appealable final judgment. The Court reasoned that a contrary
conclusion would be inconsistent with the "firm finality principle"
stated in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and Rule 23(f), which confers
discretion upon district courts to permit interlocutory review of
class certification orders.

Fidelity moved to dismiss the Henson appeal based on Microsoft. The
Ninth Circuit denied the motion and remanded for further
proceedings in the district court. Following remand, plaintiffs
moved to vacate the dismissal under Rule 60(b), arguing that
Microsoft was an intervening change in the law and, as such, they
were entitled to relief. The district court denied the motion and,
upon review, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district
court erred in the Rule 60(b) analysis.

The Ninth Circuit held that the appropriate analysis involves
consideration of the following factors, along with any others that
might be relevant: (1) the nature of the intervening change in law;
(2) the petitioner's diligence in pursuing relief; (3) whether
granting relief would upset the parties' interests in finality; (4)
the delay between the finality of the judgment and the Rule 60(b)
motion; (5) the closeness of the relationship between the decision
underlying the judgment and the intervening change in law; and (6)
comity considerations.

Applying the requisite factors, the Ninth Circuit found that
plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the judgment, stating that
the factors "heavily [tipped] the scales" in plaintiffs' favor. In
particular, the Ninth Circuit noted that plaintiffs reasonably
relied on its prevailing authority at the time in agreeing to a
dismissal so as to seek appellate review of the certification
denial. Also, because the parties reached this agreement for
purposes of the appeal, Fidelity "could not have reasonably
believed that the dismissal was immutably final."

In re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litigation, 942
F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2019)
Unhappy spectators at a sporting event fail to state consumer fraud
claims against boxer who did not disclose injury prior to a bout.

In this case, consumers and commercial entities brought putative
class actions against boxers, personnel associated with them, and a
broadcaster, alleging they had been defrauded by concealment of a
shoulder injury suffered at training camp by the boxer who lost the
bout in question. Upholding the district court's order dismissing
the case, the Ninth Circuit held that the consumers and commercial
entities were not defrauded by the failure to disclose this
information and had not suffered cognizable injury, because, in
short, they got what they paid for. Specifically, the plaintiffs
merely purchased a license to view the sporting event in question
and see what transpired, even if it was not as exciting or good a
fight as they may have expected because one of the contestants was
recovering from an injury. The court distinguished this case from
cases where games were cancelled, strike replacement players were
used, or the contestants did something absurd, such as play a
different sport.

Johnson v. MGM Holdings, Inc., 943 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2019)
Ninth Circuit encourages courts to cross-check their attorneys' fee
awards using a second method of fee calculation.
Following a settlement in a consumer protection class action
against a seller of movie boxsets, plaintiff moved for an award of
$350,000 in fees. The district court conducted a lodestar analysis
of class counsel's billing and applied a 25% cut to the class
counsel's hours, and ultimately awarded $184,665 in attorneys'
fees. The district court explained that the 25% cut was to account
for 1) some block billing; 2) excessive time spent on law firm
conferences that did not advance the case or interests of the
class; 3) unreasonable travel time billed without any showing that
substantive work was performed; 4) duplicative work; 5) unsupported
identical conclusory statements of class counsel as the only
explanation for why the hours requested were reasonable; and 6)
puffery in describing work performed. Plaintiff appealed, arguing
that the entire award was arbitrary because the district court did
not adequately explain its decision to cut the number of hours by
25%.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award and held that the district
court's cross-check provided support for the ultimate
reasonableness of the district court's award. The Ninth Circuit
noted that the district court 1) provided an explicit lodestar
calculation to determine the reasonable hourly rate and number of
hours expended by class counsel; 2) provided six reasons why a 25%
reduction was appropriate; and 3) conducted a
percentage-of-recovery analysis as a cross-check. Thus, the
district court had provided more than sufficient basis for the
Ninth Circuit to evaluate the award.

Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019)
Ninth Circuit reverses class action settlement approval based on
inadequate notice program and concerns for unfairness.
Exotic dancers brought claims under state law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act against various clubs in San Francisco, alleging that
they were misclassified as independent contractors. Before
certification of any class, the parties reached a class settlement
that provided for monetary and injunctive relief, with a claims
process. The settlement agreement provided that mailed notice would
go out once, after a National Change of Address update; the claims
administrator would post notice on the settlement website; and
notice posters would be displayed in the clubs' dressing rooms.
Following preliminary approval, which was granted over various
objections, the administrator mailed 4,681 notices and, after
returns and then skip tracing, 560 never were delivered. The
district court granted final approval, again over objections.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding, as an initial matter, that the
notice program did not meet Rule 23's due process standard –
i.e., "the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances." The Ninth Circuit accepted the proposition that, in
the modern age, it is common to send notice by email, to send
notice more than once and even to use social media or electronic
message boards. The Ninth Circuit also noted that, for former
employees, the notice was particularly insufficient. Those dancers
were more likely to not have a current address on file, and also
would not have seen the poster displays at the clubs. The Ninth
Circuit therefore found that the notice program was not "reasonably
calculated" to be effective. In addition, the Ninth Circuit
criticized various elements of the settlement, such as a "clear
sailing" attorneys' fees agreement, a potential reversion of
certain settlement funds to defendants, and large incentive awards
provided to two named plaintiffs, as compared to the others.

Willis v. City of Seattle, 943 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2019)
Allegations of individual instances of mistreatment, without more,
do not constitute an overarching policy of wrongdoing.
Homeless individuals who lived outdoors on public property filed a
putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
against the City of Seattle and Washington Department of
Transportation (DOT), claiming these authorities engaged in a
policy and practice of "sweeps" of encampments that destroyed
individuals' property, violating the unreasonable seizure and due
process clauses of both the United States Constitution and the
Washington State Constitution. Plaintiffs presented voluminous
declarations, photographs, and videos of sweeps in support of their
motion for class certification. The district court, however, denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, finding that, while the
homeless individuals satisfied the numerosity requirement, they
failed to establish sufficiently the existence of a practice that
applied uniformly to all proposed class members. Plaintiffs
appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that plaintiffs
failed to articulate a practice that was common to the claims of
the proposed class. Even though plaintiffs had presented a
voluminous record of individual instances of sweeps, there was no
evidence that every homeless individual experienced the same
challenged practice or suffered the same injury under the
government's policy and practice. In fact, plaintiffs had
acknowledged that each sweep was different. Thus, the Ninth Circuit
held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying certification.

Holcomb v. Weiser Security Services, Inc., No. 219CV02108ODWASX,
2019 WL 6492244 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019); Lopez v. First Student,
Inc., 2019 LEXIS 218515 (C.D. Cal 2019)

In wage-and-hour cases, courts evaluate the reasonableness of
assumed violation rates on motions to remand following CAFA
removal.

In Holcomb, plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action against his
employer, on a proposed class-action basis, alleging failure to
provide wages and rest periods, among other things. The employer
removed the case and plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing
that the removal relied on "speculative violation rates" to
establish the amount in controversy. The court noted that
"violation rates" in wage-and-hour cases are "key to the
calculations" necessary to the amount-in-controversy analysis, and
that there are two notable "end points." On the one hand, it could
be reasonable to assume a 100% violation rate based on an
allegation of a "uniform practice." On the other hand, it would be
unreasonable to do so based on an allegation of a "pattern and
practice" of violations. Applying these principles, the court found
that the evidence submitted -- a declaration stating only the
number of employees in the proposed class, the weighted hourly rate
for the employees, and the number of work weeks -- did not support
the use of a 100% violation rate. The court also noted the presence
of pattern and practice allegations (e.g., engaging in certain
conduct repeatedly) in the complaint, and allegations suggesting
less than a uniform practice. The court therefore granted the
motion to remand.

Meanwhile, in Lopez, plaintiffs sued their employer for, among
other things, failure to pay split-shift wages and failure to
provide adequate wage statements. The employer removed, and
plaintiffs moved to remand, contesting the showing on
amount-in-controversy. In this instance, the court denied the
motion to remand, finding that plaintiff's allegations, on their
face, supported an assumption of a 100% violation rate. The court
noted that plaintiffs' allegations were "as general and expansive
as possible, presumably for the purpose[s] of alleging as large a
class of individuals as possible [and maximizing recovery]" and
that plaintiffs' "failure to limit their allegations in any
meaningful way" justified the assumptions of a 100% violation
rate.

Wishnev v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 8 Cal. 5th 199
(2019)
California Supreme Court holds that insurers are exempt from
disclosing compound interest charges under state law.
An insured commenced a putative class action in state court against
a life insurer, asserting causes of action for declaratory
judgment, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), violation
of usury law under the California Civil Code, and unjust enrichment
and money had and received, based on allegations that the insurer
charged compound interest on life insurance policy loans without
his written agreement that interest would be compounded.
Northwestern Mutual removed the action to federal court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and moved to dismiss. The
district court denied the motion to dismiss. Northwestern Mutual
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the case was consolidated with
appeals in similar proposed class actions filed against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and New York Life Insurance Co.
over the interest charges. After hearing arguments in the
consolidated appeals, a Ninth Circuit panel sought the California
Supreme Court's guidance on whether insurers are exempt from the
restrictions on compound interest charges.

The California Supreme Court unanimously found that insurance
carriers are not subject to a provision of the state's constitution
that generally requires lenders to obtain borrowers' signed consent
before they can charge compound interest on loans. The restriction
initially went into effect in 1918 after California voters approved
an initiative measure designed to streamline the regulation of
California lenders. But in 1934, an amendment to the measure
exempted certain lenders from the restrictions, including credit
unions and some banks. Subsequently, in 1979 and 1981, additional
amendments expanded the list of exempt lenders. The California
Supreme Court held that the 1934 amendment implicitly repealed the
limitation on compound interest charges for exempt lenders,
including insurers such as Northwestern Mutual. However, the court
clarified that this "does not mean exempt lenders may charge
compound interest without a contractual or legal basis to do so. It
simply means they are not subject to statutory liability and
penalties otherwise imposed by the 1918 initiative on nonexempt
lenders."

Modaraei v. Action Property Management, Inc., 40 Cal. App. 5th 632
(2019)
California Court of Appeal holds that if the parties' evidence is
conflicting on the issue of whether common or individual questions
predominate, the trial court is permitted to credit one party's
evidence over the other's in determining whether the requirements
for class certification have been met.
Plaintiff, a former community manager (CM) of a property management
company that provided services for common interest developments,
brought a proposed class action for misclassification of CMs and
general managers (GMs) as exempt employees rather than non-exempt
employees under Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No.
5-2001. Plaintiff moved to certify two subclasses of employees: CMs
and GMs from 2008 to 2017, based on a common core of non-exempt
tasks. Plaintiff presented eight declarations of and deposition
testimony from nine CMs and GMs stating that while the properties
they managed were different, responsibilities and tasks the
managers performed were the same. In contrast, Action Property
Management, Inc. (APM) presented declarations of more than 30
putative class members, showing variations in complexity of the
tasks performed and time CMs and GMs spent on those tasks. For
instance, properties that CMs and GMS managed varied "in size from
a single building with 28 units to a property with 2,892
single-family residences . . .  Individual home values across
properties rang[ed] from $200,000 to $30,000,000. Amenities varied
from properties with a few amenities to a property with a club
house, swimming pool, tennis courts, bocce ball courts, fitness
center, learning center, ballroom, café, spa, conference rooms,
and a golf course. Some managers supervised no other employees,
while one supervised as many as 80."

The trial court compared and contrasted evidence presented by both
parties, crediting APM's evidence over plaintiff's and concluding
that the liability for each class member would turn on how
individuals actually spent time on a property-by-property basis and
manager-by-manger basis. Thus, the trial court denied Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, stating that plaintiff failed to
show predominance of common questions and superiority.

The California Court of Appeal for Second Appellate District
affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for
class certification. It held that when "the parties' evidence is
conflicting on the issue of whether common or individual questions
predominate (as it often is . . . ), the trial court is permitted
to credit one party's evidence over the other's in determining
whether the requirements for class certification have been met."
Thus, the trial court's weighing and crediting one party's evidence
over conflicting evidence from another party did not constitute an
"improper criteria" or "incorrect legal analysis" that would
warrant a finding of an abuse of discretion. In addition, the Court
of Appeal also detailed the wide variety of tasks performed by CMs
and GMs identified in APM's evidence and held that substantial
evidence supported the trial court's finding.

Sarun v. Dignity Health, 41 Cal. App. 5th 1119 (2019)
California Court of Appeal holds that trial court erred in finding
no ascertainable class where the definition was defined in
objective terms that would allow members to identify themselves
without an unreasonable commitment of expense or time.
A patient filed a putative class action against a hospital,
alleging unfair and/or deceptive business practices under Business
and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) and violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and seeking declarations that
the hospital's billing practices as they related to uninsured
patients who received emergency care were unfair and/or
unconscionable. The trial court denied the motion for class
certification, finding the class was not ascertainable. According
to the trial court, common issues of fact did not predominate
because it would be necessary to determine whether thousands of
individual rates were reasonable or unconscionable to provide
meaningful relief. For the same reason, a class action was neither
manageable nor a superior method for resolving the litigation. The
patient timely appealed.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed the
trial court's denial and remanded with directions. Applying the
California Supreme Court's recent decision in Noel v. Thrifty
Payless, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 955 (2019), the Court of Appeal noted
that "the threshold requirement of ascertainability for class
certification is satisfied when the class is defined in terms of
objective characteristics and common transactional facts that make
the ultimate identification of class members possible when that
identification becomes necessary. We regard this standard as
including class definitions that are sufficient to allow a member
of the class to identify himself or herself as having a right to
recover based on the class description." According to the Court of
Appeal, the trial court had used an unduly restrictive standard to
evaluate the proposed class's ascertainability and erred when it
found no ascertainable class existed. Thus, the class of patients
treated at the hospital and either billed at full published rates
or at rates with uninsured discounts was an ascertainable class.

Williams-Sonoma Song-Beverly Act Cases, 40 Cal. App. 5th 647
(2019), review denied (Jan. 2, 2020)

California Court of Appeal holds that Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 does not prohibit merchants from requesting a consumer's
personal identification information unless the request is made
under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe
the information is required to complete a credit card sales
transaction.

This case involved alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly Act"). The Song-Beverly Act makes
it unlawful for merchants to request or require customers to
provide personal identification information as a condition to
accepting a credit card payment. Plaintiffs alleged that retailer
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. violated the Song Beverly Act by requesting
and recording zip codes and/or email addresses from customers who
used credit cards for in-store purchases between 2007 and 2011.
Williams-Sonoma argued that liability under the Song-Beverly Act
depends on requesting or requiring personal identification
information as a condition to accepting credit card payment.
Williams-Sonoma presented testimony and evidence that its employees
were trained to explain that zip codes and email addresses were
requested solely for marketing purposes and were not required to
make purchases. Williams-Sonoma had also posted signs at the cash
registers stating the same. Moreover, the employees had discretion
not to solicit a customer's zip code or email and were neither
rewarded for collecting personal identification information nor
disciplined for not soliciting such information.

The trial court initially granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class of all persons from whom Williams-Sonoma requested and
recorded such information in conjunction with a credit card
purchase, but subsequently decertified the class. It held that any
violation under the Song-Beverly Act would depend on the conditions
of individual transactions (i.e., presence and visibility of posted
signs or verbal advisements by the sales clerk) and whether any
given customer provided personal identification information under
circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that
such a provision was necessary to complete the credit card
transaction. Because of the variations and plaintiffs' lack of a
trial plan to manage the individual liability issues, the trial
court held that the class action was not manageable.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the First District
affirmed the trial court's order decertifying the class, holding
that the trial court correctly applied the legal standard stated in
Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co., 236 Cal. App. 4th 1259 (2015), and
that its ruling was supported by substantial evidence. In Harrold,
the Court of Appeal held that the Song-Beverly Act does not
prohibit merchants from requesting personal identification
information unless the request is made under circumstances that
would lead a reasonable person to believe the information is
required to complete the transaction. Consistent with Harrold and
other authorities, the trial court had correctly ruled that the
Song-Beverly Act is violated only if the retailer requests personal
identification information under circumstances in which a
reasonable customer would understand the information was required
to complete the credit card transaction. [GN]


[*] Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Various 7th Cir. Rulings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed
various Seven Circuit class action rulings.

Dennis v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., 946 F.3d 368 (7th Cir.
2019)

Seventh Circuit affirms judgment on the pleadings that a debt
collector's notice clearly identified the current creditor and did
not violate the FDCPA.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action, claiming that defendants
violated Section 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA by "fail[ing] to identify
clearly and effectively the name of the creditor to whom the debt
was owed." Plaintiff had fallen behind on his debt owed to
Washington Mutual Bank and, after plaintiff's default, LVNV Funding
bought the debt. Niagara Credit sent a notice of collection letter
to plaintiff on LVNV's behalf, identifying Washington Mutual as the
"original" creditor and LVNV as the "current" creditor.

The Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed judgment on the pleadings
for defendants, calling the plaintiff's claim "meritless" because
the letter "expressly" identified LVNV as the current creditor. The
district court opined that the letter could have elaborated that
LVNV had purchased the debt from Washington Mutual and that LVNV
was defendant Niagara's client, but Section 1692(g)(a)(2) of the
FDCPA does not require such a detailed explanation of the
transactions leading to the debt collector's notice. All that is
required is that the debt collector's notice state the required
information clearly enough that a debtor would understand it.

Plaintiff further asserted that the district court wrongly
prevented him from introducing extrinsic evidence of consumer
confusion to prove his case. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, stating
that where a letter accurately and clearly identified the creditor
to whom the debt was owed, "no evidence of confusion could change
the result."

Butler v. BRG Sports, LLC, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 841 (Ill. App. Ct.
2019)
Illinois appellate court affirms dismissal of claims against
football helmet manufacturers as time-barred.

An Illinois appellate court upheld dismissal on statute of
limitation grounds of more than 50 former NFL players' claims
against helmet manufacturers. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
were aware of the harmful effects of repeated concussive and
subconcussive traumas to players' brains but failed to warn users
about these dangers, and therefore should be liable for causing
plaintiffs' long-term brain damage.

The issue on appeal involved the "discovery rule," which states
that the statute of limitations period does not start until an
injured party knows or reasonably should know of his injury.
Plaintiffs claimed that the limitations period did not start until
they were diagnosed with neurodegenerative disorder, or that it
should be tolled due to alleged fraudulent concealment committed by
defendants.

The appellate court held that the case was time-barred because it
was filed over two years after the same plaintiffs previously sued
the NFL in federal court as part of a multi-district litigation.
The same plaintiffs had alleged the existence of "head problems"
while playing football, which the appellate court panel here found
to be an "incontrovertible admission of knowledge" of their
injuries. The statute of limitations, therefore, accrued at least
as early as the plaintiffs' class action filings against the NFL in
federal court. Furthermore, the appellate court rejected
plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim, finding that defendant
Riddell did nothing to "lull the plaintiffs" into not filing suit
earlier or discovering their harm.

Roberson v. Symphony Post Acute Care Network, 2019 IL App (5th)
190144-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)
Illinois appellate court overturns class certification in case
alleging violations of Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The plaintiff sued a health care network, Symphony Post Acute Care
Network (SPAN), due to alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed
that defendants violated sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA "by
'actively collecting, storing, and using' the plaintiff's biometric
information without providing notice to her, obtaining her written
consent, or publishing its data retention policies."

The circuit court granted class certification and certified a
primary class that included "[a]ll Illinois citizens whose
biometric information was collected, captured, purchased, received
through trade, or otherwise obtained in Illinois at any location
associated with [SPAN], as set forth in [BIPA]." The defendants
appealed, challenging the breadth of the certified class. While
noting that class certification is "within the discretion of the
circuit court," the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court
assessed the circuit court's certification ruling under 735 ILCS
5/2-801, which requires the satisfaction of traditional class
action elements similar to those within Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

Taking issue with the scope of the class, the appellate court held
"that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the
'primary' class as all Illinois citizens whose biometrics were
collected by any SPAN location." The court found that the named
defendants owned only the SPAN location in Swansea, Illinois.
Therefore, the class as certified could not establish "common
questions of law or fact common to the class that [would]
predominate over any questions affecting individual members of the
class beyond those who were employed [at the Swansea location]."
Ultimately, the appellate court modified the class certification to
include only plaintiffs "whose biometric information was collected,
captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained
. . . at the [SPAN], location in Swansea, Illinois . . .."

Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., 940 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2019)
On a Rule 23(f) appeal, Seventh Circuit emphasizes the importance
of alleging sufficient details to satisfy the diversity
requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
In this lawsuit, Christine Dancel alleged that Groupon improperly
used class members' photographs to promote its product and sued
under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act "on behalf of a class of
'[a]ll Illinois residents (1) who maintain an Instagram account,
and (2) whose photograph(s) from such Instagram account have
appeared on a Groupon Deal offer page'." The district court denied
plaintiff's motion to remand and later denied class certification.

Plaintiff received permission to appeal under Rule 23(f), but her
argument in this first appeal focused on the denial of her motion
to remand, including her argument that Groupon failed to allege
diversity of citizenship because the notice of removal merely
stated that the proposed class "undoubtedly would include at least
some undetermined number of non-Illinois and Non-Delaware citizens
as class plaintiffs." Finding that this allegation was
insufficient, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the trial
court so that the defendant could conduct discovery and identify
"at least one member of the putative class" who was a non-Illinois
or non-Delaware resident at the time of the case's removal.

Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., No. 19-1831, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37515
(7th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)
Seventh Circuit addresses when district courts must address merits
issues in deciding motions for class certification.
This was the second decision involving Christine Dancel's
allegation that Groupon violated the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act (IRPA) by including her social media account username on a
third-party business's website without her permission. After the
Seventh Circuit remanded the case, Groupon submitted declarations
from several putative class members showing minimal diversity under
CAFA. The Seventh Circuit issued this opinion affirming the denial
of class certification.

The key issue on this second appeal was when a court must address
merits issues in deciding class certification. Plaintiff argued
that the district court had improperly decided a merits issue when
denying class certification. She argued that her certification
theory was that a username was a categorically protected "identity"
under the IRPA, and that, by deciding this issue in defendant's
favor, the district court improperly addressed a merits question.

The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument because whether the IRPA
categorically protected usernames went to the merits and to
commonality. The court reasoned that, if plaintiff was right, a
substantial portion of the case was subject to common proof. But
this alone did not make class certification proper because, if
plaintiff was wrong, the case was not subject to common proof. As
the court explained, plaintiff was "trying to define the concept of
identity in a common way so that it covers up individual questions
that each class member might raise." This was not improper, the
Seventh Circuit explained, but whether it was successful required a
decision on whether the IRPA categorically protected usernames.

Turning to that issue, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that, although
the IRPA protects individuals' identities, the protection "extends
only so far as that photograph, that name, that username 'serves to
identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonable viewer.'" The
Seventh Circuit thus concluded that determining whether any given
username was an "identity" under the IRPA would require an
individualized analysis of the username and whether it reasonably
identified the associated class members, thus precluding
certification. [GN]


[*] Illinois' Biometric Privacy Law May Deter Innovation
--------------------------------------------------------
Cole Lauterbach, writing for The Center Square, reports that other
states are looking to copy Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act, but an innovation expert warned about a potential pitfall of
the state law.

Illinois' law protecting biometric privacy -- such as fingerprints
and face shape -- allows citizens to file a lawsuit, something
unique to the state. Since Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act was enacted in 2008, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed
against companies large and small.

Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act requires an entity to
get express consent from a person before obtaining, storing, or
using any of that person's physical characteristics.

One prominent case was a class-action suit against Facebook.
Facebook's use of Illinois-based accounts' facial data to suggest
whether a person could be in other photos could cost the company at
least $550 million.

A lawsuit against Amazon Web Services could cost the company
billions of dollars for allegedly storing biometric data without
their contracted companies getting permission to store that data.
The risk for these companies is not only a $1,000 or $5,000 fine,
but also court costs and damages.

"What makes the Illinois law unique is that one of its primary
methods of enforcement is called private right of action," said
Jennifer Huddleston, director of technology and innovation policy
at the American Action Forum.

Huddleston said other states should consider the potential
downsides of empowering residents of their state the ability to sue
for damages involving their biometric data.

One issue, she said, is that companies often work to avoid the
potential liability by not offering certain services to customers
in the state -- something she referred to as innovation arbitrage.


"You have the possibility that these lawsuits and this threat of
liability could deter innovation as a result of concern that
anything that doesn't clearly check all of those boxes is going to
be subject to very expensive litigation," she said.

Google-owned Nest, for instance, doesn't offer Illinois residents a
service where its cameras recognize a face, ask the owner if the
face is familiar, and then tailor notifications as such in the
future.

The American Tort Reform Association and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce's legal arm have both criticized Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act for creating a cottage industry of law
firms that specialize in filing class-action suits alleging
breaches of the law.

Others have praised the law as the "gold-standard" of biometric
privacy protections, noting civil action should be included in any
other similar law.

"Our biometrics are easy to capture. Once captured, we generally
cannot change our biometrics, unlike our credit card numbers, or
even our names," Adam Schwartz with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation said in 2019. "Databases of biometric information are
ripe targets for data thieves. That's why EFF strongly supports
Illinois BIPA as a necessary means to protect our biometric privacy
from intrusion by private entities."

Some Illinois lawmakers have filed legislation that would have
walked back some of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act
protections, but it died in a committee in 2019. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***