/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200325.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 61

                            Headlines

ADVANCED AQUATIC: Bissell Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ALLERGAN: Fegan Named Co-Lead Counsel in BIOCELL Class Action
AMERICAN REALTY: Court Approves Plan Allocation of Settlement Funds
AMERICAN REALTY: Court OKs $100MM Attorney’s Fees in Class Suit
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces Investor Fraud Lawsuit

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Pawar Announces Securities Class Action
BACARDI: Court Tosses Class Action Over Gin "Adulteration"
BECTON DICKINSON: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Filing
BELLEFONTE DOMINO'S: Delivery Drivers File Wage Class Action

BEST BUY: Settles COBRA Class Action in Florida
BOB HOWARD MOTORS: Robbins Sues Over Unauthorized Marketing Texts
BREWSTER CHEESE: Cook Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY: May Face Another Class Action Over VLTs
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shahid Sues Over Untimely Final Payment

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Gas Royalties
CIOX HEALTH: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss 6th Cir. Ruling
CLARK & SCHWENK: Leavelle Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
COLS INC: Sued by Smith for Not Providing Meal and Rest Breaks
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

CRST DEDICATED: Smith Suit Seeks Penalties for Hourly Drivers
CULTURAL CARE: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
DARTMOUTH: Sexual Harassment Class Unique in Extraordinary Size
DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Sherman Suit Challenges Sale to BorgWarner
DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Property Tax Bills

DEVA CONCEPTS: No-Poo Product Is Defective, Ciccia Suit Claims
DEVACURL: Provides Update on Recent Testing of Products Amid Suit
DEVON ENERGY: Wilson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Almond Beverage Content
EARTH FARE: Selling Part of Company, Bidding Underway

EMERSON ELECTRIC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Ruling
EPIC GOLF CLUB: Sweeney Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Pine Bluff Litigation Dismissed
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Tel Aviv Suit Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Litigation over Liberty Merger Stayed

EXPEDIA GROUP: Trial in Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit Set for June 2020
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Edmunds Disputes Erroneous Credit Report
FACEBOOK INC: Laner Muchin Attorneys Discusses FLSA Court Ruling
FASTRAK: Must Face Class Action Over Toll Evasion Penalties
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agreement Reached in Patterson Suit

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Transmission
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Automatic Transmissions
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Suit Challenges Sale to Advent
FRESH FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
FRONT YARD RESIDENTIAL: Faces Rosenblatt Suit Over Amherst Sale

GENERAL MOTORS: Harris Sues Over Excessive Engine Oil Consumption
GENERAL MOTORS: Martell Sues Over Defective Piston Rings
GENERAL MOTORS: Sierra Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump
GETT: Faces $45MM Class Action Over Alleged Racism
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Calderon BIPA Suit Over Use of Biometric Info

HOMEOWNERS MANAGEMENT: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Ruling
HP INC: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
INSURANCE SERVICES: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads, Lehman Says
JP MORGAN: Faces Roeder Suit Over 1979 Hostage Crisis in Iran
KANSAS: Vote Anywhere Class Action Continues in State Foster Case

KONZA PRAIRIE: Seawell Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
LINCOLN PARK, MI: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Flynn Suit
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rumpke Suit Says
LUCKIN COFFEE: Klein Reminds Investors of Shareholder Class Action
LUXNOW LLC: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts

MALLINCKRODT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Acthar Price Hike
MARS INC: Myers File Product Mislabeling Case in Calif.
MICHIEL JAN MOL: Class Action Mulled Over $27MM Space Scam
MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston's Section 1692f(8) Claim Dismissal Reversed
MOTEL 6: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

MUSKEGON FAMILY: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Wills Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
OLERO INC: Cal. Northern Dist. Narrows Claims in Bruger Labor Suit
ONESOURCE EHS: Powell Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
OPERA LIMITED: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit

PAYSIGN INC: Faces Shi Securities Suit in District of Nevada
PETER NYGARD: More Than 100 Witnesses Came Forward Amid Lawsuit
PROVIDENT FIN'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
RICHARD CRAMPTON: Faces Montgomery Civil Rights Suit in Maryland
RING LLC: Politis Sue Over Unsecured Smart Home Security Devices

RING: More Homeowners Joins Suits Over Security Camera Hacking
SABER HEALTHCARE: Chapman Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
SAFE HAVEN: Knighton Seeks Overtime Pay for BHTs Under FLSA
SALESFORCE: Epiq Discusses Data Breach Consumer Class Action
SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Montoya ADA Lawsuit

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS: Williams ADA Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Schall Announces Class Action Filing
SSP AMERICA: Wilson-Davis Remanded to L.A. County Superior Court
STERLING BANCORP: Hagens Inform Investors to Class Action Filing
STERLING BANCORP: Kaplan Fox Investigates Investor Claims

STERLING BANCORP: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Filing
SUBARU: 15 More Plaintiffs Added to Windshield Class Action
SUN LIFE: Faces $10-Mil. Class Action in Canada Over LTD Payments
SUNRISE SENIOR: Says Claims in California Class Action "Baseless"
TELENAV INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

TIVITY HEALTH: Klein Reminds Investors of Shareholder Class Action
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Klein Reminds of Shareholder Class Action
VENATOR MATERIALS: Jurisdiction & Venue Order in Macomb Reversed
VOLKSWAGEN: To Appeal Australian Record Dieselgate Fines

WESTERN MILLING: $650K Benitez Labor Suit Deal Gets Prelim Approval
WHATCOM COUNTY, WA: 60-Ft. Right of Way Judgment in Yorkston Upheld
[*] CBD Companies Respond to New Consumer Class Actions
[*] Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Revised PRC Securities Law
[*] Consumer Protection Class Actions on the Rise, Report Shows

[*] Wisconsin Health Care Providers Face Wave of Litigation

                            *********

ADVANCED AQUATIC: Bissell Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Bissell and Robert Clark, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. Advanced Aquatic Technology Associates,
Inc. a/k/a AATA International Inc., and John G. Aronson,
President/Employer in his individual and corporate capacities, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00765 (D. Colo., March 19, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Colorado Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have worked for AATA as
employees but have not been paid their wages, including the federal
minimum wage, or have only been partially paid for a period of
years. The Defendants willfully and fraudulently refuse to pay
wages due to their employees, refusing to pay employees at all
while waiting out applicable statutes of limitation or creating
fraudulent and false "loans" to employees in lieu of wages to evade
responsibilities and obligations of employers under federal and
state law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they have been deprived of benefits,
including social security payments, worker's compensation
insurance, and eligibility for unemployment because of Defendants'
willful and fraudulent misclassification and/or misreporting of
wages due and employee status.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Colorado and worked
for ATTA during the last three years.

AATA is an interstate and international environmental and social
consultancy specializing in management, permitting, and technical
services for natural resource development projects worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. William Rowe, Esq.
          ROWELAW, LLC
          2000 South Colorado Boulevard
          Building 1, Suite 2000-16
          Denver, CO 80222
          Phone: (303) 770-6775
          Email: will@rowe-colaw.com


ALLERGAN: Fegan Named Co-Lead Counsel in BIOCELL Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Fegan, founder and managing partner of FeganScott, was
named co-lead counsel in the U.S. district court class-action
litigation involving Allergan, the manufacturers of BIOCELL
textured and "gummy" breast implants and tissue expanders.

FeganScott filed a national class-action lawsuit against Allergan
on October 4, 2019, claiming that although the FDA issued a recall
for Allergan's BIOCELL products, the company has no plans to
provide medical monitoring for individuals at risk of developing
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
(BIA-ALCL).

More recently, FeganScott filed an emergency motion to stop what
the firm describes as an effort by Allergan to mislead plaintiffs
and convince them to sign away their rights to sue the
manufacturer.

The motion alleges Allergan targeted class members, claiming they
can receive up to up to $7,500 for removing their implants and
signing a release. The motion also contends, however, that the
manufacturer did not make class members aware that they would
relinquish their ability to make any claims against the company or
take part in existing litigation, even if they develop cancer
caused by the implants.

Fegan noted that Allergan's efforts to convince victims to sign
away their rights is especially galling, because Allergan often
uses physicians as the company's advocates.

"We've learned that when patients ask their physicians for medical
help, Allergan in turn presents the physicians with paperwork -
including the language that extinguishes the patient's right to sue
- to give to the patient," Fegan said. "We know that patients often
have a special, trusting relationship with their physician, and are
much more likely to follow their direction than if Allergan
communicated directly with the patient."

The court has requested that the parties conduct expedited
discovery on Allergan's procurement of releases, and then
plaintiffs will refile their motion with a full record.

"I'm honored to be named as co-lead counsel in this case, and along
with my co-leads, Shanon Carson, Jennifer Lenze and Virginia
Buchanan, vow to fight to hold Allergan accountable for their
actions," Fegan said. "We have talked with so many women who feel
victimized and abandoned by Allergan. The manufacturer demonstrated
it has no intent to live up to its responsibilities, so we plan the
use the court system to force it to do just that."

If the court certifies the class action, patients affected by the
BIOCELL recall will be contacted for inclusion.

                       About FeganScott

FeganScott is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class-action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable. [GN]


AMERICAN REALTY: Court Approves Plan Allocation of Settlement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the Lead Plaintiff's motion
for approval of the Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Proceeds
in In re AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC. LITIGATION, This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No.
1:15-mc-00040-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).

Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court finds and concludes
that due and adequate notice was directed to all persons who are
Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort,
advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to
object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all
persons and entities who are Class Members to be heard with respect
to the Plan of Allocation.

The District Court further and concludes that the formula for the
calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants which is set
forth in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action sent to
the Class Members provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established by
the Stipulation among the Class Members, with due consideration
having been given to administrative convenience and necessity.

Finally, the District Court finds and concludes that the Plan of
Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair
and reasonable.

For these reasons, the District Court approved the Plan of
Allocation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/UD4GK8 from Leagle.com.

Perry Ciraulu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

State Teachers Retirement Systems of Ohio, Plaintiff, represented
by Glen DeValerio-- glen@andrewsdevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Bernard Priever, Plaintiff, represented by Fei-Lu Qian --
fqian@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A. & Robert Craig Finkel --
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, College
Retirement Equities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley M.
Price, Robbins Geller rudman & Dowd LLP, Debra J. Wyman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jennifer Nunez Caringal, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jessica T. Shinnefield, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Stuart Rubinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Jeffrey Craig Block, Block & Leviton LLP,
Lawrence Paul Kolker, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP &
Steven P. Harte, Jones Day.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. & ARC Properties Operating
Partnership, L.P., Defendants, represented by Antonia Marie Apps --
aapps@milbank.com -- Milbank LLP, Jed Mastren Schwartz --
jschwartz@milbank.com -- Milbank LLP, Jerry Lee Marks, Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Jonathan Ohring -- johring@milbank.com
-- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Kingdar Prussien --
kprussien@milbank.com -- Milbank LLP & Scott Alexander Edelman --
sedelman@milbank.com -- Milbank LLP.

Nicholas S. Schorsch, Defendant, represented by Audra Jan Soloway,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Daniel Jonathan
Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lorin L.
Reisner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Neil Robert
Lieberman, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, Theodore Von Wells, Jr.,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alexia Dorothea
Korberg, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher
Lee Filburn, Paul Weiss, Erin Jennifer Morgan, Paul Weiss, Justin
David Lerer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP &
Kristina Anne Bunting, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

David S. Kay, Defendant, represented by Beth Mueller, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, James Philip Gillespie, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Kristen
Leigh Bokhan, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Brian Block, Defendant, represented by Khristoph Becker, Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP, Lara Elizabeth Romansic, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Leah
Margaret Quadrino, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Michael Campion Miller,
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Michael Gerard Scavelli, Steptoe & Johnson,
LLP, Michelle Lynn Levin, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Morgan Paige
Lucas, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Reid Weingarten, Steptoe & Johnson,
LLP, Larry Howard Krantz, Krantz & Berman LLP, Mark Francis Murphy,
Steptoe & Johnson LLP & Molly Bruder Fox, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Peter M. Budko, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Scott J.
Bowman, Brian D. Jones & ARC Properties Advisors LLC, Defendants,
represented by Andrew Edward Goldsmith, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick PLLC, Bradley E. Oppenheimer, Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Collin White, Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Rebecca A. Beynon,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Reid Mason Figel, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Robert Klipper, Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC & Sean Michael Nadel, Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel, and Frederick, PLLC.


AMERICAN REALTY: Court OKs $100MM Attorney’s Fees in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses in In re AMERICAN REALTY
CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC. LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL
ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 1:15-mc-00040-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).

The Court awards attorneys' fees equal to $100,000,000 of the
Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of $5,154,721.91.
The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair,
reasonable, and appropriate under both the lodestar and
percentage-of-recovery methods.

The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses shall be paid to Lead
Counsel as follows:

   (i) the full amount of expenses ($5,154,721.91) shall be paid
       immediately upon entry of the Order;

  (ii) one-third of the fee award shall be paid immediately upon
       entry of the Order;

(iii) one-third of the fee award shall be paid 90 days after
       entry of te Order; and

  (iv) one-third of the fee award shall be paid upon the initial
       distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the
Court has considered and found that:

   (a) the Settlement has created a fund of $1,025,000,000 in cash
that is already on deposit, and numerous Class Members who submit,
or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim and Release forms will
benefit from the Settlement created by Lead Counsel;

   (b) over 246,000 copies of the Notice were disseminated to
potential Class Members indicating that Lead Counsel would move for
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 13% of the Settlement
Amount and for costs, charges and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $6 million, plus interest on both amounts, and no objections
to the fees or expenses were filed by Class Members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 23, 2020 Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/tn29wa5 from Leagle.com

Perry Ciraulu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul McConville -
fmcconville@labaton.com -  Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman - jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

State Teachers Retirement Systems of Ohio, Plaintiff, represented
by Glen DeValerio , Berman DeValerio, One Liberty Square Boston, MA
02109.

Bernard Priever, Plaintiff, represented by Fei-Lu Qian -
fqian@saxenawhite.com - Saxena White P.A. & Robert Craig Finkel -
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com - Wolf Popper LLP.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. & ARC Properties Operating
Partnership, L.P., Defendants, represented by Antonia Marie Apps -
aapps@milbank.com - Milbank LLP, Jed Mastren Schwartz -
jschwartz@milbank.com - Milbank LLP, Jerry Lee Marks , Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001,
Jonathan Ohring - johring@milbank.com - Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, Kingdar Prussien - kprussien@milbank.com - Milbank LLP
& Scott Alexander Edelman -sedelman@milbank.com - Milbank LLP.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces Investor Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Christopher Osher, writing for The Gazette, reports that
allegations from a former engineer for Anadarko Petroleum who now
lives in Colorado are at the center of a federal lawsuit filed on
Feb. 19 alleging the company engaged in a multibillion-dollar fraud
against investors by misstating the value of an oil field it owned
in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lawyers filed the investor fraud lawsuit against Anadarko,
Colorado's largest oil and gas driller over the last decade, in
U.S. District Court in Houston. They are seeking to expand it to a
class-action. The litigation follows disclosures in The Gazette
about the allegations from the company's former engineer, Lea Frye,
now working as a wildlife photographer in Buena Vista.

She and her lawyer, David Minces, of Bellaire, Texas, have declined
comment.

Gerard Pecht, legal counsel with Occidental Petroleum, which bought
Anadarko for $38 billion last March, also declined comment on the
litigation.

The litigation is one of two shareholder lawsuits filed in the past
three years to allege Anadarko misled investors. The other
class-action lawsuit alleged the company set up conditions that led
to a fatal home explosion in April 2017 in Firestone by violating
safety rules and laws. That lawsuit, which helped propel Colorado
legislators to overhaul regulations guiding oil and gas
development, was dismissed last year.

The litigation filed claims Anadarko "made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the company's business and operations."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Georgia Firefighters' Pension
Fund and other similarly situated investors, states the company
fraudulently stated to investors that its holdings in the
Shenandoah field, located in the Gulf about 170 miles off the coast
of Louisiana, would produce lucrative profits.

In reality, the value of those assets were vastly overstated, which
became apparent when the company wrote off hundreds millions of
dollars of losses in the Shenandoah project, the shareholder
lawsuit claims.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common
stock, plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered
significant damages," the lawsuit claims.

The shareholder litigation references allegations in a
whistleblower lawsuit filed on behalf of Frye, which remains under
seal. Frye was a senior reservoir engineer and team lead for the
Shenandoah project, south of Louisiana's Port Fourchon.

Reporting by The Gazette showed that Frye's lawsuit contends
Anadarko officials exaggerated findings from appraisal wells in the
Shenandoah, according to court records, and excoriated her after
she refused to falsify maps inflating the value of the oil field
and appraisals.

She filed a lawsuit against Anadarko, claiming she was retaliated
against for filing a complaint with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission contending her employer misled investors.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal dismissed her lawsuit, which
claims the company's retaliation became so severe she found the
workplace intolerable and had to resign in 2016. She appealed.

A four-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals of New
Orleans, in a ruling unsealed in January, upheld Rosenthal's
dismissal of Frye's lawsuit, but ordered Rosenthal to reconsider
whether Frye can make public the complaint she filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The appellate panel noted "the high value of the information at
issue" as well as "potential liability" if the SEC complaint "is
released and contains the information that Frye alleges."

The lower court judge has given the lawyers representing Frye and
Occidental Petroleum through the end of February to "meet and
confer" over whether the SEC complaint can be disclosed to the
public.

Frye contends she fears she will be sued if she discloses what she
wrote to the SEC because Anadarko had her sign a confidentiality
agreement.

Also named as defendants in the shareholder litigation referencing
Frye's allegations were R. A. Walker, Anadarko's former chief
executive officer, who received a golden parachute payout of $98
million, following Occidental's buyout of Anadarko; and Robert
Gwin, Anadarko's former president, who received a golden parachute
of $55 million, following the company's buyout. They could not be
reached for comment. The shareholder lawsuit was filed by the
Houston law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

A court order was issued on Feb. 20 directing the lawyers to file a
list of potential plaintiffs.

A pretrial conference has been scheduled for April 20 at U.S.
District Court in Houston. [GN]


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 19
disclosed that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC)
("Anadarko") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Anadarko common stock between February 20, 2015 and May 2, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action, captioned Georgia
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00576, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

Important Deadline Reminder:  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Anadarko common stock during the Class Period may, no
later than April 20, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class.  For additional information or to
learn how to participate in this litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/anadarko-petroleum-securities-class-action.

Anadarko is an energy company that develops oil and natural gas
resources in the United States and worldwide.  In August 2019,
Anadarko became an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation ("Occidental").  Prior to Anadarko's
acquisition by Occidental, Anadarko common stock traded on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "APC."  In 2009,
Anadarko discovered the "Shenandoah" oil field in the Gulf of
Mexico.  After drilling an initial exploratory well named
Shenandoah-1, Anadarko spent the following eight years appraising
the field by drilling and evaluating five appraisal wells
(Shenandoah-2, Shenandoah-3, Shenandoah-4, Shenandoah-5 and
Shenandoah-6). During that time, including throughout the Class
Period, the defendants made repeated positive representations about
the prospects and value of the Shenandoah assets.

The Class Period commences on February 20, 2015, when Anadarko
filed its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2014, with
the SEC on a Form 10-K.  In its annual report, Anadarko reported
that it had "spud the Shenandoah-3 well," which had "found
approximately 50% (1,470 feet) more of the same reservoir sands
1,500 feet down-dip and 2.3 miles east of the Shenandoah-2 well,
which encountered over 1,000 feet of net oil pay in excellent
quality Lower Tertiary-aged sands."  Anadarko further stated that
"[t]he Shenandoah-3 well confirmed the sand depositional
environment, lateral sand continuity, excellent reservoir
qualities, and down-dip thickening." Defendants continued to make
additional positive representations about the Shenandoah assets and
touted the progress of Shenandoah.

The truth about the value of Anadarko's Shenandoah assets was
partially disclosed on May 2, 2017, when Anadarko filed financial
results with the SEC on a Form 10-Q, for the first quarter of 2017.
In the financial results, Anadarko recorded a $467 million
impairment charge and expensed $435 million in suspended
exploratory well costs related to the Shenandoah project.  Anadarko
stated that "[g]iven the results of [Shenandoah-6] and the present
commodity-price environment, [Anadarko] has currently suspended
further appraisal activities," and the Shenandoah exploratory well
costs could no longer be capitalized.  Following this news, the
price of Anadarko common stock fell $4.33 per share, or
approximately 8%, from a close of $56.28 per share on May 2, 2017,
to close at $51.95 per share on May 3, 2017.  However, this partial
disclosure did not fully inform investors about Anadarko's scheme.
Indeed, investors did not learn that defendants had fraudulently
overstated the value of the Shenandoah assets until November 4,
2019, when allegations in a whistleblower case against Anadarko
were publicly disclosed in an opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals in Frye v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., No. 18-20543 (5th
Cir.).

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
value of the Shenandoah assets and the success of the Shenandoah
appraisal wells were overstated; (2) Anadarko lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the defendants' statements about Anadarko's
Shenandoah assets lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.

Anadarko investors may, no later than April 20, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country
involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other
violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). [GN]


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: 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 Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation (OXY) from February 20, 2015 through May 2,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Anadarko investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/join-action-form/?slug=anadarko-petroleum-corporation&id=7533
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) the value of the Shenandoah assets and the success of the
Shenandoah appraisal wells were overstated; (2) the Company lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's
Shenandoah assets lacked a reasonable basis; and (4) accordingly,
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 20, 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]

BACARDI: Court Tosses Class Action Over Gin "Adulteration"
----------------------------------------------------------
Dakotah Burns, Esq. -- dburns@pbwt.com -- and Jonah Knobler, Esq.
-- jknobler@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, related that grains of paradise (aframomum
melegueta) are a peppery, citrusy spice indigenous to West Africa,
related to ginger and cardamom.  The name purportedly derives from
medieval merchants' claims that the plant grew only in the Garden
of Eden.  Common to West African cuisine, grains of paradise are
also one of the botanicals sometimes used to give gin its
characteristic flavor.

In Florida, however, an obscure 1868 law makes it a third-degree
felony to "adulterate[] . . . any liquor" with certain specified
substances, ranging from grains of paradise and capsicum (chili
pepper) to potentially deadly opium and "sugar of lead."  Fla.
Stat. Sec. 562.455.  Some have postulated that this law's original
intent was to prevent consumer deception, as the banned ingredients
were once added to liquor to make it taste stronger (more
alcoholic) than it actually was.  That same practice spurred an
1816 law of Parliament (56 Geo. III, ch. 58) making it illegal for
brewers and dealers in beer to possess grains of paradise.  Unlike
merrie olde England, however, the Sunshine State never got around
to repealing its law.

Fast forward to the present day, when Florida resident Uri Marrache
purchased a bottle of Bombay Sapphire gin at a Winn-Dixie store in
Florida.  After consuming the gin, Marrache filed suit under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, claiming that
Bacardi (the producer of Bombay Sapphire) and Winn-Dixie had
engaged in "unfair," "unconscionable," and "deceptive" practices by
selling gin "adulterat[ed]" with grains of paradise.  Am. Compl.,
¶ 38, Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., No. 2019-023856-RNS (S.D.
Fla. Filed Oct. 14, 2019).  Marrache did not allege that the grains
of paradise in the gin had actually caused him any physical injury
or otherwise interfered with his enjoyment of the beverage.
Instead, he claimed that he was damaged in that he "did not receive
what it [sic] bargained for: to wit a product which did not
violate" the 1868 Florida statute.  Id. ¶ 67.  On this basis,
Marrache sought certification of a class of Florida gin purchasers,
as well as injunctive relief, class-wide refunds, and attorney's
fees.

In January, federal district judge Robert Scola, Jr. made short
work of Marrache's complaint.  The court's opinion began by
observing: "Numerous class actions have greatly benefited society
such as Brown v. Board of Education, In re Exxon Valdez, and In re
Agent Orange Products Liability Litigation.  This is not one of
those class actions."  Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., No.
19-23856-CIV, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13668, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan.
28, 2020) (emphasis in original).  We'll drink to that.

First, the court held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics
Act (FDCA) preempted Florida's ban on grains of paradise.  Congress
amended the FDCA in 1958 for the purpose of "advanc[ing] food
technology by permitting the use of food additives at safe levels."
Cong. Rec. 17413 (daily ed. Aug. 13, 1958).  The legislative
report accompanying this amendment explained that it "s[ought] to
prevent rules" -- like Florida's -- "that unnecessarily proscribe
the use of additives that could enable the housewife to safely keep
food longer, the processor to make it more tasteful and appetizing,
and the Nation to make use of advances in technology calculated to
increase and improve our food supplies."  2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13668, at *4-6 (citation omitted).  The FDA, in turn, promulgated
regulations to implement this legislation, and those regulations
list "grains of paradise" among those "[s]pices and other natural
seasonings and flavorings" that are "generally recognized as safe"
(GRAS).  21 C.F.R. § 182.10.  The court held that Florida's
"antiquated" 1868 statute "frustrates the purpose" of federal law
by prohibiting an additive that the FDA had deemed safe and
permissible for use.  Id.  This holding is noteworthy because,
until now, relatively few court decisions have addressed the
preemptive effect of the FDA's GRAS regulations.  Cf. Backus v.
Gen. Mills, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208198 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10,
2018) (finding preemption of lawsuit challenging defendants' use of
partially hydrogenated oils, when those ingredients were regarded
as GRAS at the time of plaintiff's purchase but later
reclassified).

As a second ground for dismissal, the court held that Marrache had
suffered no cognizable injury.  2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13668, at
*6-9.  The court explained that, to state a claim under Florida's
consumer protection statute, a plaintiff must allege "actual
damages."  Id.  Generally, such damages are measured "by
subtracting the difference in market value of the product in the
condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the
condition in which it should have been delivered."  Id.  2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13668, at *6-9.  Rather than pointing to any impact of
grains of paradise on the market value of Bombay Sapphire, Marrache
argued that purchasers were entitled to a refund of their full
purchase price because the gin's "illegal" status rendered it
"worthless."  Id.  However, because the Florida statute was
preempted, the Court observed, the gin was "not illegal" in the
first place.  Id.  And beyond the bare assertion of illegality, the
complaint "d[id] not set forth allegations explaining" how the gin
was worthless—e.g., that it was undrinkable or caused the
plaintiff any injury.  Id.

While this is all correct, the court unfortunately included dicta
suggesting that, if the 1868 statute had not been preempted,
Marrache's "unlawful product" theory might have been sufficient to
state a claim.  Id. at *8-9.  For that proposition, the court cited
the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Debernardis v. IQ Formulations,
LLC, 942 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2019), where the court "accept[ed],
at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that a dietary supplement
that is deemed adulterated and cannot lawfully be sold has no
value."  Id at 1085.  We think Debernardis was wrongly decided.
Cf. Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46405,
at *23 (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2014) (holding that a plaintiff
"cannot" state a consumer protection claim "by simply pointing to a
regulation . . . that [the manufacturer] violated" and "summarily
claiming that the product is [therefore] illegal to sell").  In any
event, in Debernardis, the Eleventh Circuit stressed that its
decision was "limited to the specific facts alleged in th[at]
case," where the plaintiffs had purchased dietary supplements
containing an untested new ingredient that the FDA had
affirmatively warned was unlawful and potentially unsafe.  942 F.3d
at 1088.  Thus, Debernardis does not suggest that "any consumer who
purchase[s] a product that could not legally be sold for any
reason" -- e.g., because it contains a harmless cooking spice—has
thereby acquired a "worthless" product.  Id. (emphasis added).

Again, because the Marrache court found the plaintiff's claims
preempted, it did not have to engage fully with the relationship
(if any) between a product's legality and its "value" for damages
purposes.  But with the meteoric rise of the commercial cannabis
and CBD industries, that distinction will likely play an
increasingly important role in future consumer protection suits.
If so, Mr. Marrache's ginned-up complaint may be just a taste of
the spicier litigation to come. [GN]


BECTON DICKINSON: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
         Web site: https://www.bernlieb.com/
[GN]

BELLEFONTE DOMINO'S: Delivery Drivers File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Metts, writing for WJAC, reports that four Domino's delivery
drivers filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Feb. 13. They are
accusing Bellefonte Domino's Pizza franchise owner, Sheldon Port,
of improperly taking tips and failing to meet the minimum wage
requirements.

Robert Gee, Dylan Grubb, Darl Hoffman, and Eric Rittenhouse, all
individually and on behalf of those also mispaid, filed the
three-count, 17-page lawsuit in the U.S. Middle District Court of
Pennsylvania. The lawsuit says they believe it could cover more
than 30 other employees.

They are claiming Port violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
state's Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The lawsuit says Port owns and operates approximately 10 Domino's
locations in Pennsylvania, including the one in Bellefonte.

Gee, Grubb, Hoffman, and Rittenhouse are seeking back pay,
liquidated damages, interest, and monetary penalties. They are
claiming the stores managers and supervisors participated in
illegal and unlawful tip pooling. The lawsuit states they would
deduct money from the tip pool to balance out the cash register,
and then would take the remaining amount and store it in a safe.

They say the delivery drivers' net earnings after accounting for
vehicle-related expenses failed to meet the states minimum wage
requirement.

The FLSA and Minimum Wage Act require employers to visibly post the
legislations, however, Gee, Grubb, Hoffman, and Rittenhouse say in
the lawsuit that the Bellefonte location has its posted behind a
closet in the manager's office. [GN]


BEST BUY: Settles COBRA Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Best Buy has settled a proposed class action in
Florida federal court claiming the retailer sent former workers
"confusing and incomplete" COBRA notices instead of using a model
form created by the U.S. Department of Labor in an apparent attempt
to stave money. [GN]


BOB HOWARD MOTORS: Robbins Sues Over Unauthorized Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christi Robbins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOB HOWARD MOTORS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00244-J (W.D. Okla., March 17, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. This case
arises from the Defendant's unauthorized text messages and
pre-recorded calls to cellular subscribers, who never provided the
Defendant with prior express consent, as well as cellular
subscribers who expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's
text messages and calls.

As a result, the Defendant caused thousands of text messages and
calls to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
Class Members who either never provided the Defendant with consent
to contact them or who had revoked any prior express consent, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Oklahoma
County.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BREWSTER CHEESE: Cook Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Cook, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Brewster Cheese Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00445 (N.D. Ohio, February 27, 2020), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys’
fees, and costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

Brewster Cheese Company engages in the processing of milk, cheese,
and whey and the production and packaging of Swiss cheese. Cook
claims that she was not compensated for her hours spent donning and
doffing of sanitary clothing and other protective equipment,
handwashing, hand sanitizing and other anti-contamination
procedures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 949-1181
     Fax: (614) 386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY: May Face Another Class Action Over VLTs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Thompson, writing for CasinoReports, reports that British
Columbia Lottery Corporation might have to face another legal
battle in the foreseeable future, as a class-action lawsuit targets
video lottery terminals overseen by the Crown corporation. The
popular gaming offerings sprinkled across the province have been
targeted by a lawsuit claiming that they have addictive
characteristics while also being deceptive by nature. Corina
Riesebos of Kelowna launched the legal battle.

When it comes to the diversity of gambling opportunities across
Canada, there are many various devices players could use in their
daily gaming activities. Video lottery terminals are among the most
popular machines offering players the chance of winning big in no
time. Canadians have shown their preference for the vibrant gaming
opportunities these devices have up for grabs.

Class-Action Lawsuit

Locations such as bars and restaurants often have video lottery
terminals available for the players to give their luck a try and
perhaps win an unexpected prize. However, the recently filed
class-action lawsuit against them claim that they have a deceptive
nature and often misrepresent the eventual outcome of the game.
Moreover, the lawsuit also claims that these devices are inherently
addictive due to the various stimuli they have.

Even though they might resemble traditional slot machines that have
been a staple of every casino venue and gambling location, video
lottery terminals have a rather different nature. They bring
continuous gambling closer to the players, engaging them for longer
periods of time. This happens thanks to the cognitive distortions
creating a false reality.

Players might be losing but they are left with the impression that
they are winners. As a result, they engage in the gaming activity
for longer and end up spending more than originally intended. This
makes the devices deceptive, according to the claims of the
class-action lawsuit. It also clarifies that these devices have
hidden odds of winning big, making it unclear for the player how
much they would win.

Legal Battle Commences
Players are left to their own devices, as they are unable to guess
the odds correctly. Such a feature should not be allowed to affect
their gaming experience in a negative way. Ms. Riesebos is one of
the individuals personally affected by the gaming traits of video
lottery terminals. She has about two decades of history with the
aforementioned gaming devices or electronic gaming devices as they
are commonly referred to.

She has been participating in this gaming offering in British
Columbia ever since 2015. The plaintiff has gone through a lot due
to regular engagement. This included financial loss, emotional
damage, as well as mental distress, as the devices can take their
toll on a person's life. Relationships often suffer from the
addictive tendencies of the players. The class-action lawsuit could
include individuals that have participated in this activity after
February 7, 2018.

Moreover, the lawsuit further claims that video lottery terminals
within the province breach the existing Criminal Code. It should be
taken into account that the lawsuit is after CA$1 million in
punitive damages, as well as more information on the gaming profits
amassed by the said devices. Atlantic Lottery Corporation is part
of a similar class-action lawsuit claiming that these devices have
a deceptive nature. The outcome of that legal battle might
influence this one, as well as the Canadian gaming space as a
whole. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shahid Sues Over Untimely Final Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shahid Rahmatullah, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Charter Communications LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Does 1 through 25, Case No.
5:20-cv-00354-PSG-SP (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., Feb. 19,
2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to timely pay final
wages and to pay unreimbursed business expenses, in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to provide Class
members their final wages immediately upon termination or within 72
hours of voluntarily leaving employment. He adds that to perform
their jobs they were required to use their home Internet access and
personal automobile but the Defendants did not fully reimburse
their expenses.

Charter Communications provides broadband communications
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Lattin, Esq.
          OSTERGAR LAW GROUP PC
          9110 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949 357 4590
          Facsimile: 949 305 4591
          E-mail: jlattin@ostergarcom

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW APLC
          777 S Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: 213 358 7046
          Facsimile: 310 820 1258
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Gas Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a proposed
class action over how much Chesapeake Energy Corp. subsidiaries
must pay in royalties on oil and gas sales may proceed, a federal
court in Kentucky ruled.

Thomas Back alleges his ancestors leased an interest in a
property's gas and oil to a predecessor company to Chesapeake
Operating LLC and Chesapeake Appalachia LLC. The parties to the
agreement modified the royalty from a fixed rate per thousand cubic
feet to a percentage of the price at which Chesapeake sells the
gas, he alleges. [GN]



CIOX HEALTH: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss 6th Cir. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that in the case styled Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593
(6th Cir. 2019), the Sixth Circuit holds that an order granting a
defendant's motion for summary judgment -- issued after class
certification, but before class notice -- binds only the named
plaintiffs.

In a case alleging that the defendant, a medical records company,
overcharged the plaintiffs for their medical records, the Sixth
Circuit considered a relatively rare procedural question: What
happens when a district court grants a defendant's motion for
summary judgment after the class has been certified but before
class notice has been sent? The defendant argued that the panel
should remand the case to the district court for the purpose of
issuing opt-out notices, while the plaintiffs argued that the
district court's order should be limited to the named plaintiffs.

The panel agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that "[w]hen the
defendant moves for and obtains summary judgment before the class
has been properly notified, the defendant waives the right to have
notice sent to the class, and the district court's decision binds
only the named plaintiffs." The panel held that this "general rule"
was supported by "Rule 23's text and structure" because some of the
Rule's provisions -- notice must inform class members that they may
enter an appearance through an attorney, and a court may inform
class members of the litigation process -- are "largely pointless
if a district court grants summary judgment before notifying the
class." The panel also held that post-judgment notice was not
appropriate or equitable in this case because "class members would
be prejudiced upon receiving notice of certification for a case
they already lost on the merits."

Even though the panel held that the district court's order only
applied to the named plaintiffs, it noted that its holding was
"limited" to the scenario "[w]here a defendant moves for and
obtains summary judgment before the absentee class members have
been notified." It also noted that the defendant "still obtained
something valuable -- a judgment in its favor on the merits that
has been affirmed on appeal," and that "principles of stare decisis
(and possibly preclusion) will prove to be valuable assets for
[defendant] should any absent class members choose to bring similar
claims." [GN]


CLARK & SCHWENK: Leavelle Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEIGHA LEAVELLE, MARISSA PENTA, and BRENDAN HALL, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CLARK & SCHWENK
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., A Georgia Corporation, JONATHEN TODD
SCHWENK, RICHARD HUGO CLARK, JR., and BRANDON KEOKE, Case No.
1:20-cv-00769-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime premium pay, liquidated damages,
costs and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of C&S.

C&S is owned by Clark and Schwenk. C&S currently operates three
restaurants: C&S Chowder House, located in Roswell, Hugo's Oyster
Bar, located in Roswell and C&S Seafood and Oyster Bar, located in
Vinings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Linwood Gunn, IV, Esq.
          THE GUNN LAW FIRM LLC
          244 Roswell Street, Suite 100
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: 470 508 0020
          E-mail: elg@atldiscriminationlawyers.com


COLS INC: Sued by Smith for Not Providing Meal and Rest Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Smith, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys
General v. COLS, INC., a California business organization; and DOES
1 through 250, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV11089 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 19, 2020), is brought to recover damages
pursuant to the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff was denied meal and rest breaks, and no premium was
paid for the denial of either for the entire of the Plaintiff's
employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff became employed by the Defendants as a Driver in
April 2018.

The Defendant is a California business organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neama Rahmani, Esq.
          Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
          Rosie Zilifyan, Esq.
          WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 927-3700
          Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
          Email: nr@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                 ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
                 rosie@westcoasttriallawyers.com


CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (NYSE: CVU) resulting from allegations
that CPI Aerostructures may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On February 8, 2019, CPI Aerostructures disclosed that its
financial statements for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2018 reported in its Form 10-Q could no longer be relied upon
due to an "error . . . in the Company's billing process." According
to CPI Aerostructures, the alleged error inflated the company's
revenue and income before provision for income taxes, net income,
and earnings per share for each such period.

Then, on February 14, 2020, CPI Aerostructures announced that its
financial statements for fiscal year 2018, the last three quarters
of 2018, and the first two quarters of 2019 should no longer be
relied upon due to errors in those financial statements relating to
the Company's recognition of revenue from contracts with customers
under ASC Topic 606.

The Company also announced that investors should no longer rely
upon the independent auditor's reports on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting for the year ended
December 31, 2018, as well as the management's reports on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, press
releases, and investor communications describing the Company's
financial statements for those periods.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80, or
approximately 27%, to close at $4.87 per share on February 14,
2020, injuring investors.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by CPI Aerostructures investors. If you purchased
shares of CPI Aerostructures please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1506.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


CRST DEDICATED: Smith Suit Seeks Penalties for Hourly Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEENAN SMITH v. CRST DEDICATED SERVICES, INC.; CRST EXPEDITED,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00633 (Cal.
Super., Fresno Cty., Feb. 19, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated hourly, non-exempt drivers
seeking civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants employed many of their
employees, including him, as hourly, non-exempt, drivers. However,
he contends, the Defendants maintained polices, practices and/or
procedures that failed to compensate them for all hours worked.

CRST offers trucking jobs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  aburton@lelawfirm.com


CULTURAL CARE: Consultants Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernanda Maldonado, Christine Sgueglia and Thais Blando, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cultural
Care, Inc., Goran Rannefors, Natalie Jordan and Jens Appelkvist,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10326 (D. Mass., February 19, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and labor statutes of Massachusetts,
New York and California.

Cultural Care is designated by the U.S. Department of State to
place foreign "au pairs" with host families in the United States.
Plaintiffs worked for Cultural Care as "local childcare
consultants." They claim to be paid straight time with no overtime
compensation and were classified as independent contractors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
      Josh Gardner, Esq.
      GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
      1 State Street, 4th Floor
      Boston, MA 02100
      Tel: (617) 390-7570
      Fax: (617) 972-7983
      Email: nick@gardnerrosenberg.com


DARTMOUTH: Sexual Harassment Class Unique in Extraordinary Size
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Adler, writing for The Dartmouth reports, that in January,
federal judge Landya McCafferty preliminarily approved a $14
million settlement in the class action sexual harassment lawsuit
brought against Dartmouth regarding the conduct of three former
professors in the psychological and brain sciences department. The
sexual harassment class itself -- which is likely to be approved at
a July 9 fairness hearing -- is unique in the extraordinary size,
according to discrimination and civil rights lawyer Bruce
Fredrickson '73,

"This is an extraordinary case," Frederickson said. "A lot of class
actions are a lot larger than that, but when you're talking about
three individuals in particular, I'd say 90 is a large number —
an appallingly large number."

In the lawsuit, first brought in November 2018 by seven former
students, the plaintiffs alleged that the former professors engaged
in sexual misconduct over several years and that the College was
aware of allegations but did not act on them.

While class action lawsuits regarding discrimination or a hostile
work environment can be quite large, sexual harassment class action
lawsuits tend to be smaller because of the number of people who
cross paths with a certain perpetrator or rules surrounding the
statute of limitations on harassment incidents, according to
Fredrickson.

Fredrickson said that while class action discrimination lawsuits
are relatively common, class action lawsuits specifically regarding
sexual harassment are rare, because sexual misconduct can be
individualized and difficult to demonstrate — and usually one
individual's actions do not demonstrably affect enough people to
form a class. He said that although 90 people is small for class
action lawsuits generally, the fact that this is a class action
suit at all is indicative of an extreme case.

"The fact that they got a class certified and settled with 90
plaintiffs in a psychology department that's not even that large
… that's what really shocked me," Fredrickson said. "Think about
the number of women affected over a five-year period, and Dartmouth
didn't effectively shut it down. Just appalling."

While the case itself is unique, many in the community are glad to
see the settlement nearly finalized.

Diana Whitney '95, a founding member of the organization Dartmouth
Community against Gender Harassment and Sexual Violence, expressed
her support for the preliminary approval.

"I'm really heartened that [the plaintiffs] were able to come to a
settlement that was positive for them and actually move on with
their lives after everything - you know, years of trauma and the
aftermath that they'd been through," Whitney said. "There was a
small part of me that was disappointed because the opportunities to
really shine light on these issues through a very public trial
would have been pretty striking, and yet I absolutely wanted what
was best for the plaintiffs and completely understood as a survivor
myself why coming to settlement and not going through a public
trial was a really good decision."

Whitney and several other alumni founded DCGHSV after the lawsuit
was filed in 2018. The organization sent a letter supporting the
plaintiffs that was signed by over 800 current and former Dartmouth
students to College President Phil Hanlon and the Board of
Trustees. DCGHSV also sent Hanlon and the Trustees a list of
demands aimed at cutting down on sexual violence and gender
harassment and has since continued to advocate for institutional
changes.

Although Whitney said she is happy with the probable outcome of the
lawsuit and encouraged that plaintiffs will work with the College
on new sexual misconduct policies, she is concerned that the
College is attempting to "quickly sweep this under the rug and move
forward rather than looking back." She said that the plaintiffs had
to sign a non-disparagement agreement with the College, which will
prevent plaintiffs from criticizing or discrediting the College on
this issue in the future.

"All class members who do not opt out of the settlement will
release Dartmouth from any and all claims against it arising out of
the same factual circumstances that were or could have been
asserted in this lawsuit," the preliminary settlement notes. [GN]


DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Sherman Suit Challenges Sale to BorgWarner
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Sherman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TIMOTHY M. MANGANELLO, RICHARD
F. DAUCH, ROBIN J. ADAMS, JOSEPH S. CANTIE, NELDA J. CONNORS, GARY
L. COWGER, DAVID S. HAFFNER, HELMUT LEUBE, HARI N. NAIR, MARYANN
WRIGHT, and BORGWARNER INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00385-UNA (D. Del.,
March 18, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Delphi will be acquired by BorgWarner Inc., a Delaware
corporation.

On January 28, 2020, Delphi's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BorgWarner.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Delphi's
stockholders will receive 0.4534 shares of BorgWarner common stock
for each share of Delphi common stock they own. On March 11, 2020,
the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, including omission of material information regarding
the Company's, BorgWarner's, and the combined company's financial
projections.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint. Because of the false and
misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Delphi common stock.

Delphi is a global provider of propulsion technologies.[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


DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Property Tax Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Winchester and Amber Ainsworth, writing for ClickonDetroit,
report that a lawsuit filed against Detroit and Mayor Mike Duggan
alleges the city is to blame for inflated property tax bills that
caused some residents to lose their homes.

According to the class-action suit, the city was allegedly late
delivering more than 250,000 property tax notices, which may have
raised the tax bill for thousands of residents.

The lawsuit names number of victims who say they lost homes because
of high tax bills. Many low income people were impacted, and the
victims said they just want to make sure what happened never
happens again.

The city denies wrongdoing and claims it complied with the law.
[GN]


DEVA CONCEPTS: No-Poo Product Is Defective, Ciccia Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN CICCIA, MARCY MCCREARY and JACQUELINE BALLARINO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEVA CONCEPTS,
LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, Case No. 1:20-cv-01520-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20,
2020), alleges that the Defendant conceals and fails to disclose
the defective nature of its No-Poo Product by actively misleading
consumers into believing that the hair loss and shedding caused by
the Products is "normal" and "common," that even excessive shedding
of over 100 strands of hair per day is "common," and that shedding
is not preventable.

The case is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of consumers, who purchased the Defendant's "DevaCurl No-Poo
Original" non-lathering conditioning cleanser (the "No-Poo
Product"), DevaCurl One Condition (TM) Original hair-conditioner,
DevaCurl Light Defining Gel, DevaCurl Low-Poo Original cleanser,
DevaCurl Low-Poo Delight cleanser, DevaCurl No-Poo Decadence
cleanser, DevaCurl One Condition (TM) Delight hair-conditioner,
DevaCurl One Condition (TM) Decadence hair-conditioner, Melt into
Moisture Mask, Styling Cream, DevaCurl Leave-In Decadence
conditioner, Super Stretch Coconut Curl Elongator, Wavemaker, and
DevaCurl Ultra Defining Gel, which are used for personal cosmetic
purposes.

According to the complaint, many consumers, including the
Plaintiffs have used the No-Poo Product as a complete shampoo
replacement once or twice a week to cleanse hair rather than using
traditional shampoo. Therefore, consumers seeking a complete
alternative to traditional shampoo end up purchasing the No-Poo
Product. However, despite the "DevaCurl phenomenon" that has caused
many curly haired consumers across the United States to purchase
and use the Products, use of the Products cause scalp irritation,
excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding
during normal use by consumers. Indeed, thousands of consumers have
reported their hair failing out shortly after or during actual use
of the Products.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant provides no warning about
these consequences and, in fact, makes numerous assertions about
the gentle and beneficial nature of the Products. The Plaintiffs
seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves, and for the
proposed Class and Subclasses.

The Defendant manufactures hair care products. The Company produces
and markets a range of products for cleaning, conditioning, and
styling curly hair.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay I. Brody, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: 845-356-2570
          Facsimile: 845-356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          East 45th Street, 5th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230
          Facsimile: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com


DEVACURL: Provides Update on Recent Testing of Products Amid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC3340 received an update from DevaCurl on the company's recent
testing of its products:

"Based on rigorous testing completed as recently, consultation with
medical professionals, scientists and stylists, we can conclusively
say: our products are safe, they do not cause hair breakage or hair
loss, and are proven to be nonirritating."

The company has also set up a new website: FactsAboutDevaCurl.com

Customers can find an ingredient glossary, test results, changes in
formulas, along with more in depth answers to questions.

  http://factsaboutdevacurl.com/

Mounting complaints against a popular line of hair care products
are making the rounds on social media. Some DevaCurl customers
claim their hair has been severely damaged, even fallen out after
using the products. A class action lawsuit is in the works.

The product line founded in New York is designed for curly hair.
It's promoted as free of harsh ingredients, nourishing and
hydrating for your hair, and tested on actual people.

Stylist Stephanie Mero says she once promoted the DevaCurl. Now
after bad experiences for herself and others, she no longer pushes
the product. "The cuticle of the hair, it's like it exploded," Mero
told WABC-TV.

DevaCurl sent this statement via email to ABC3340 News:

"At DevaCurl, we have been laser-focused on our testing as the best
way to confirm the safety and quality of our products. All of our
products have gone through rigorous testing that has confirmed they
are safe and adhere to both quality assurance and regulatory
standards. We also recognize that any changes to curly hair – for
whatever reason – demand a special type of attention that safety
tests alone can't address. That's why DevaCurl is committed to
creating a Professional Curl Care Council of trusted medical
professionals, dermatologists, independent industry experts,
professional stylists, and members of our curl community to help us
all better understand healthy curls and scalp. We will continue to
share updates on our website www.devacurlcare.com."

Laurice Rawls, Manager, Communications

These products have been on the market for two decades with issues
surfacing about five months ago. The FDA has logged 120
complaints.

The product line is sold locally at Ulta and Sephora. Store clerks
tell us they haven't had any negative feedback. Deva Curl is one of
their best sellers.

Hoover hairsylist Missy Hodges hasn't used DevaCurl, but says when
trying new products check reviews online For healthier hair stay
away from parabens and sulfates which can strip color and choose
products with less alcohol. Try also to shampoo less often. [GN]


DEVON ENERGY: Wilson Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Wilson, individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P. and RPC, INC.
d/b/a EPI CONSULTANTS, Case No. 5:20-cv-00245-C (W.D. Okla., March
17, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and
the Defendants' other employees, who are paid on a day rate plan.

According to the complaint, the Defendants do not pay their
employees overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead of paying
overtime wage, the Defendants pay their employees a set "day rate"
for each day worked regardless of the total number of hours worked
in a week.

The Defendants' day rate plans violate the FLSA because employees
paid on a day rate basis are still owed overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Wilson worked as a Night Consultant for the Defendants
beginning in July 2018.

Devon "is a leading independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company" with its operations "focused onshore in the
United States."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Almond Beverage Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gutierrez, writing for IEG Vu Agribusiness, reports that the
New York-located Sheehan & Associates attorney firm, on behalf of
the US citizen Lafremia Powell, has started a class action lawsuit
against the US retailer Dollar Tree Stores because the plaintiff
claims that the company is misleading information on its labelling
about the vanilla content of its almond beverage. [GN]




EARTH FARE: Selling Part of Company, Bidding Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Frank Kracher, writing for WLOS, reports that new court documents
reveal what could be next for Earth Fare. The grocery chain founded
in Asheville announced earlier in February it was closing all
stores.

The latest court documents filed make way for the sale of property,
and that might mean a new grocery chain could replace part of the
old one.

Two weeks ago the bankruptcy filing happened. Days later, two
employees filed a class-action lawsuit claiming Earth Fare broke
federal law intended to protect them. Now, there's a chance some of
those workers may be back on the job.

"It looks promising, I think, for the people in those 20-some
stores that it'll turn into another supermarket taking over,"
Asheville attorney Paul Erickson said.

A federal bankruptcy court has made it official -- portions of the
50-store Earth Fare company are going on the auction block, with
the bidding already underway.

This leaves the door open for some of the stores to reopen under
different ownership. The questions are how many and where.

No stores are listed in the documents, just a rundown of everything
up for bid. But there is hope here in the mountains that will mean
at least one other place to shop.

"It's very complicated, it's explicit," Erickson said about the
filing.

The order from bankruptcy court sets up the procedure and mechanism
for the sale of parts of Earth Fare, broken up piecemeal and the
famous name gone.

"They're not going to keep Earth Fare," Erickson said. "That's not
going to make it out again."

But there's everything else -- from contracts, to furniture, to
fixtures and store equipment. And there's also rumors there's
already a prospective buyer who wants to keep the most successful
20 stores intact.

"I have heard rumors the store on Hendersonvile Road, that's being
targeted by this new group," Erickson said.

But, picking up part of the failed Earth Fare chain comes with
major pitfalls -- some 15,000, vendors and workers owed money.

"That's their creditors list, and it's massive," Erickson said of
some of the paperwork.

But, Erickson said, where business has been good, paying off debt
may be worth it.

"They're going to buy their best locations, get their best
contracts and so forth, pick it up and start running a new grocery
store in that location," Erickson said.

The bidding is set to end at the end of February.

Erickson is confident some communities with at least one former
Earth Fare will be lucky enough to recover what is now gone.

"There's a good chance another grocery store of some sort will be
moving in that spot and all those employees have a good opportunity
to get a job there, if that's what happened" Erickson said. [GN]


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that in the case styled Hale v. Emerson Elec. Co., 942 F.3d 401
(8th Cir. 2019), the Eighth Circuit determines that differences in
state consumer-protection laws may preclude nationwide class
certification.

This case involved a proposed nationwide putative class action
alleging that Emerson Electric Company violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by marketing its RIDGID brand
vacuum cleaner as capable of achieving "peak horsepower," which is
only possible in a lab setting. The plaintiffs also brought claims
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, and violations of other states' consumer-protection
laws.

After the district court certified a nationwide class under Rule
23(b)(3), the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal to the Eighth
Circuit, challenging whether the claims of non-Missouri residents
relate to "trade or commerce . . . in or from the state of
Missouri," and whether "the district court should have conducted
separate choice of law analyses for the breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment claims."

Agreeing with the defendant, the Eighth Circuit held that the
claims from non-Missouri plaintiffs did not involve commerce in or
from the state of Missouri, that the MMPA would not cover those
transactions, and that the laws of the states where the
transactions occurred should govern. As a result, the Eighth
Circuit concluded that class certification was inappropriate for
the non-Missouri plaintiffs.

The Eighth Circuit also noted that a district court "must conduct
an individualized choice-of-law analysis" to ensure that
application of a given state's law is neither arbitrary nor unfair,
but that the district court here did not do so. Given those errors,
the Eighth Circuit decertified the class and remanded back to the
district court. [GN]


EPIC GOLF CLUB: Sweeney Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Sweeney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Epic Golf Club, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00556-SMB (D.
Ariz., March 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

As part of its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing
consists of automated text messages to consumers soliciting them to
purchase its goods and/or services. The Defendant caused thousands
of text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the state of
Florida.

The Defendant operates the "premier private golf society with VIP
concierge booking service for executive who love golf."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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


EXPEDIA GROUP: Appeal in Pine Bluff Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
court ruling in the Pine Bluff Litigation has been dismissed as
premature and the case has been remanded for further proceedings in
trial court.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Orbitz, alleging that defendants failed to collect
and/or pay taxes under hotel occupancy tax ordinances.

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants appealed the
class certification decision and, on October 10, 2013, the Arkansas
Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

On February 1, 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the issue of tax liability. Defendants appealed, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as premature.

On December 12, 2019, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal as premature and remanded for further proceedings in the
trial court.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Bid for Class Certification in Tel Aviv Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for class
certification in the putative class action lawsuit filed in the
District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, is pending.

In or around September 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel against Hotels.com.


The plaintiff generally alleges that Hotels.com violated Israeli
consumer protection laws in various ways by failing to calculate
and display VAT charges in pricing displays shown to Israeli
consumers.

The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which
Hotels.com has opposed.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Litigation over Liberty Merger Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has granted
the request of the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Expedia Group for issuance of an order staying a
consolidated class action suit related to Liberty Expedia Holdings,
Inc.("LEXE") merger.

On December 11, 2019, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board
of Directors of Expedia Group, Inc. ("SLC") filed a motion to stay
the litigation pending completion of the SLC's investigation into
the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs
opposed the motion to stay and filed a motion for leave to file an
amended consolidated complaint.

On January 9, 2020, the court granted the SLC's motion for a stay,
ordered the action stayed for six months from the filing date of
the motion, and granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended consolidated complaint.

On April 15, 2019, Expedia Group, Inc. entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of June 5, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"),
by and among the Company, LEMS I LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Expedia Group ("Merger
LLC"), LEMS II Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Merger LLC ("Merger Sub"), and Liberty Expedia
Holdings, Inc. ("LEXPE").  

The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things and subject
to the satisfaction or waiver of certain specified conditions set
forth therein, (i) the merger of Merger Sub with and into LEXPE
(the "Merger"), with LEXPE surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Merger LLC, and (ii) immediately following the
Merger, the merger of LEXPE (as the surviving corporation in the
Merger) with and into Merger LLC (the "Upstream Merger", and
together with the Merger, the "Combination"), with Merger LLC
surviving the Upstream Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Expedia Group.

On August 12, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
stipulated motion consolidating three lawsuits that had been filed
by Expedia shareholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery in
connection with the Company's acquisition of Liberty Expedia
Holdings, Inc.  ("LEXE"): (1) Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension
Fund v. Barry Diller, et. al.; (2) Plaut v. Diller, et al.; and (3)
Steamfitters local 449 Pension Plan v. Diller et al. These actions
purported to assert, among other things, direct and derivative
claims against current and one former members of the Company's
board of directors, and the Company as a nominal defendant.

Plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties by wrongfully causing the Company to enter into
certain agreements with the Company's Executive Chairman, in
connection with the Company's acquisition of LEXE on July 26, 2019.
On September 20, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and its
counsel, and ordered the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint.

On December 11, 2019, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board
of Directors of Expedia Group, Inc. ("SLC") filed a motion to stay
the litigation pending completion of the SLC's investigation into
the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs
opposed the motion to stay and filed a motion for leave to file an
amended consolidated complaint.

On January 9, 2020, the court granted the SLC's motion for a stay,
ordered the action stayed for six months from the filing date of
the motion, and granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended consolidated complaint.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Trial in Buckeye Tree Lodge Suit Set for June 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that trial in the Buckeye
Tree Lodge Lawsuit is set for June 2020.

On August 17, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in the Northern District of California
against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Expedia Australia Investments
Pty Ltd. and trivago relating to alleged false advertising.

The putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of
overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia Group
defendants’ websites with whom the defendants allegedly did not
have a booking agreement during the relevant time period.

The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia Group defendants
for violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business &
Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and restitution.


On January 12, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims for intentional and negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage without prejudice.


On March 7, 2017, a related putative class action was filed in the
same court asserting similar claims. The cases were consolidated,
and an amended consolidated complaint was filed (which did not name
trivago as a defendant).

On May 17, 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification, and, on March 13, 2019, the court denied
certification of a damages class but granted certification for a
narrow injunctive relief only class.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on January 21, 2020.
Expedia will file its own motion for summary judgment on or before
February 19, 2020. Trial is scheduled for June 2020.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Edmunds Disputes Erroneous Credit Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keturah Edmunds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans
Union, LLC, Cach, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00288, (D. Del., February 27, 2020), seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Experian, Trans Union and Cach are consumer reporting agencies
regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating and
disbursing information concerning consumers for the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports. Edmunds alleges that Experian and
Trans Union prepared and issued credit reports concerning the
inaccurate information regarding a Cach debt despite the fact that
Cach previously discharged this debt and provided Edmunds with a
1099 as proof of the discharged debt and he report this discharged
debt as income. Edmunds disputed the accuracy of this information
back in April 18, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1010 N. Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
      Wilmington, DE 19805
      Tel: (302) 722-6885
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Laner Muchin Attorneys Discusses FLSA Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Williams, Esq. -- dwilliams@lanermuchin.com -- of Laner
Muchin, Ltd., in an article for JDSupra, reports that valid
arbitration agreements may prevent class notices from being sent to
employees that would otherwise be putative class members in
collective action lawsuits according to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals in Bigger v. Facebook, Inc.

Former Facebook employee Susie Bigger (Bigger) filed a collective
action lawsuit against the company alleging that she was
misclassified as ineligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). A "collective action," similar to a class
action, permits a plaintiff to represent themselves and others
"similarly situated" in the prosecution of a lawsuit.

Courts overseeing collective actions or class actions have
discretion to send notice of the lawsuit to potential plaintiffs --
those "similarly situated" -- in the class. Here, Bigger proposed
providing notice to a group of Facebook employees to inform them of
her lawsuit and their potential participation in the lawsuit, and
the district court authorized the notice.

Facebook appealed the decision, arguing that the district court's
authorization of notice was improper because many of the proposed
notice recipients had entered arbitration agreements that precluded
them from joining the action.

In addressing "this issue of first impression," the Seventh Circuit
set forth "specific steps" that a trial court must take when an
employer in a collective or class action opposes issuance of a
notice by asserting that the proposed recipients of the notice have
entered into mutual arbitration agreements.

Specifically, if the plaintiffs challenge the employer's allegation
of valid arbitration agreements that preclude notice, the trial
court must hear evidence on the agreements' existence and validity.
Notably, the court may not authorize notice of the class or
collective action to any employee who has been shown to have a
valid arbitration agreement with the employer, if that arbitration
agreement prohibits the employee from participating in the action.

In sum, valid arbitration agreements may provide employers with a
shield against employees receiving notice of a collective or class
action lawsuit against the employer. This in turn provides the
benefit of reducing the potential class size -- and corresponding
potential damages and settlement value -- at an early stage of
litigation.

Of course, arbitration agreements in Illinois must be carefully
drafted to comply with the new Illinois Workplace Transparency Act
in order to be valid and enforceable. Companies should consult with
their counsel for additional information and advice on Illinois
arbitration agreements. [GN]


FASTRAK: Must Face Class Action Over Toll Evasion Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for KGO, reports that a San
Francisco judge refused on Feb. 19 to dismiss a class action
lawsuit against FasTrak and the Golden Gate Bridge District. The
lawsuit claims thousands of drivers were charged unfair penalties
for toll evasion when they crossed the Golden Gate Bridge without a
FasTrak account.

This case has been mired in legal back-and-forth for nearly six
years. FasTrak and the company that operates it asked the court
several times to dismiss the claims, to throw the class action
lawyers off the case -- even ban the public from the courtroom.
Now, finally the last hurdle is clear -- and the trial is set to
begin.

You may recall the dispute began when the Golden Gate Bridge
switched to all electronic tolling in 2013. Drivers without a
FasTrak account are supposed to get toll invoices in the mail. The
lawsuit claims possibly thousands of motorists never received their
invoices in the first year -- mostly due to mailing mistakes. And
instead of trying to reach those drivers, FasTrak kept tacking on
toll evasion penalties. Some were charged thousands of dollars in
penalties they had to pay in order to register their cars.

"There have been hundreds or even thousands of people who were
charged penalties for invoices they never received. What Fastrak
did was they just shredded the invoices and imposed the penalties,"
said Adam Gutride, class action attorney.

The suit also claims FasTrak makes it too difficult to dispute
those penalties. Motorists must pay all the charges up front before
they can get a hearing, and some could not afford the huge fees.
FasTrak and the company that operates it denies they did anything
wrong. They asked the judge to dismiss all those claims saying they
did everything the law requires to notify drivers of their fees.
The judge disagreed and rules those issues must be decided at
trial. The case is set to begin March 2.

The other issue is whether the judge will ban the public from the
courtroom during part of the trial. FasTrak wants to prevent us
from hearing certain testimony about how it handles tolls and
penalties. 7 On Your Side is objecting, saying public policies are
supposed to be transparent to the public, not kept hidden from the
people they serve. [GN]


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agreement Reached in Patterson Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
parties in Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, et al. have reached an agreement in principle.

In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., originally filed on October 27,
2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters
violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts
in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate.

The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania
Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL
requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes
certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for
summary judgment.

On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’
motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the
Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of
1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if
any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should
bear the responsibility of identifying class members and
calculating damages.

The Company's requests for interlocutory appeals of both the
liability and damage multiplier issues were denied. The parties
have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, and
are in the process of documenting the settlement agreement for
submission to the court for approval.

Fidelity National said, "We do not believe the settlement will have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition."

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------
Shane McGlaun, writing for Ford Authority, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed in the state of Massachusetts
on behalf of Ford F-150 owners with the 10-speed automatic
transmission. The Ford 10R80 transmission class-action lawsuit
alleges that the transmission shifts erratically and causes the
truck to lurch, jerk, and hesitate between gears. The plaintiff in
the case says the issues are potentially life-threatening.

Some Ford 10R80 transmission class-action lawsuit plaintiffs say
that the clunking noise can be so loud they think other vehicles
have hit their trucks to the extent of causing whiplash. According
to the lawsuit, Ford allegedly knew or should have known the
10-speed automatic transmissions were defective, and a recall
should've been issued a long time ago according to the plaintiff.
Also, the suit alleges that Ford refuses to properly repair the
automatic transmissions when customers complained about harsh
shifting.

Dealers typically tell customers the transmission is performing
normally according to the lawsuit. The Massachusetts plaintiff is
Robert Marino, who leased a 2019 Ford F-150 Sport in March 2019.
Marino says only two months later he noticed a loud bang and clunk
noise when starting the engine. He also claims that the automatic
transmission jerked and slipped when shifting gears.

Marino says that in December 2019, he took the truck to the
dealership because he claims to have been unable to drive it due to
transmission issues. Marino says he had to rent a vehicle while the
truck was worked on and that technicians updated the automatic
transmission software. He says that after the software was updated,
the truck still had problems with its automatic transmission. The
lawsuit says that Ford issued at least two technical service
bulletins due to the automatic transmissions to let technicians
know about customer complaints with harsh or bumpy shifting.

The shift issues allegedly happened with all available engines in
the F-150 line. The class action alleges that the trucks have lost
value due to the transmission issues and that the vehicles create
an "unreasonable and extreme risk of serious bodily harm or death"
to all occupants in the vehicle and others on the road. The lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston division. Another class-action lawsuit was
filed in Pennsylvania in January. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Automatic Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Ford
F-150 automatic transmission problems have caused a class action
lawsuit for Massachusetts owners and lessees of 2017-2020 F-150
trucks equipped with 10R80 10-speed automatic transmissions.

The lawsuit alleges the automatic transmissions shift erratically
and cause the trucks to lunge, jerk and hesitate between gears,
allegedly causing "potentially life-threatening" safety issues.

F-150 drivers say the clunking noise can be so loud they think
other vehicles have hit their trucks to the extent of causing
whiplash.

Ford allegedly knew or should have known the 10-speed automatic
transmissions are defective and the plaintiff says a recall should
have been issued long ago.

In addition, the plaintiff says Ford refuses to properly repair the
automatic transmissions when customers complain about harsh
shifting, and dealers typically tell customers the transmissions
are performing normally.

Massachusetts plaintiff Robert Marino leased a 2019 Ford F-150
Sport in March 2019, but two months later he noticed a loud bang or
clunk noise when starting the engine. He also claims the automatic
transmission jerked and slipped when shifting gears.

In December 2019 he took the F-150 to his dealership because he
allegedly couldn't drive it because of the transmission problems.
Marino says he had to rent a vehicle while the truck was worked on,
with technicians updating the automatic transmission software.

However, the plaintiff says the F-150 still has problems with the
10R80 transmission.

According to the class action lawsuit, Ford issued at least two
technical service bulletins (TSBs) due to the automatic
transmissions. The TSBs were sent to dealerships letting
technicians know about F-150 customer complaints about harsh or
bumpy shifting.

TSB 18-2274 was issued in September 2018: "Some 2018 F-150 vehicles
equipped with a 2.7L, 3.5L or 5.0L engine and 10R80 automatic
transmission and built on or before 15-May 2018 may exhibit
harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concerns."

According to the bulletin:

The trucks were "equipped with an adaptive transmission shift
strategy which allows the vehicle's computer to learn the
transmission's unique parameters and improve shift quality. When
the adaptive strategy is reset, the computer will begin a
re-learning process. This re-learning process may result in firmer
than normal upshifts and downshifts for several days."

Ford dealer technicians were told the reprogram the powertrain
control modules.

Ford's "adaptive transmission shift strategy" allegedly fails to
fix the automatic transmission shifting problems in the F-150s, and
the plaintiff says Ford has done nothing more for customers.

The class action alleges the trucks have lost value because of the
automatic transmission problems and because of the dangers of
driving trucks that lurch, hesitate and stall. According to the
plaintiff, driving the F-150 trucks creates an "unreasonable and
extreme risk of serious bodily harm or death" to all occupants and
others on the road.

The Ford F-150 automatic transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division:
Marino, et al., v Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Greg Coleman Law PC, the Carlson
Law Firm, P.C., and Brent Coon and Associates.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the 2017 Ford F-150, 2018
F-150, 2019 F-150 and other model years. [GN]


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Suit Challenges Sale to Advent
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Smith, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THERESIA GOUW, MICHAEL
DECESARE, JAMES BEER, DAVID DEWALT, ELIZABETH HACKENSON, MARK
JENSEN, KATHY MCELLIGOTT, ENRIQUE SALEM, and HEZY YESHURUN, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00376-UNA (D. Del., March 17, 2020), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Forescout will be acquired
by affiliates of Advent International Corporation.

On February 6, 2020, Forescout's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Ferrari
Group Holdings, L.P. and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Forescout's stockholders will
receive $33.00 in cash for each share of Forescout common stock
they own.

On March 3, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections; omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; and fails to disclose the
timing and nature of the past services MS provided to the parties
to the Merger Agreement and their affiliates, and when MS informed
defendants of such past services.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint. The Proxy 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 Proxy Statement, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Forescout common stock.

Forescout delivers device visibility and control to enable
enterprises and government agencies to gain complete situational
awareness of their environment and orchestrate action.[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


FRESH FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Volk, writing for Kelo, reports that nobody likes receiving
unwanted text messages.

Now, a Sioux Falls-based company is at the center of a class action
lawsuit out of Kansas; accused of sending unwanted texts to
thousands of people.

On its Facebook page, the business, Fresh Farms, LLC says its
mission is to bring farm-fresh foods in bulk to families year
round.

The company's website says it brings fresh fruit, vegetables and
meat to people in 22 states.

But the woman who brought the lawsuit against the company says she
didn't agree to receive their text messages.

Danyale Yarger says Fresh Farms, LLC, should pay her and others
$1,500 for each unwanted text because she didn't consent to the
messages.

According to the lawsuit, the texts were an 'invasion of privacy,
an intrusion into her life and a private nuisance'.

An attorney for Yarger says Fresh Farms, LLC. didn't respond to the
lawsuit by deadline, which was in January.

An attorney for Fresh Farms, LLC says he "first learned of the
existence of this lawsuit on Feb. 17. My clients only recently
became aware of this lawsuit. Fresh Farms looks forward to clearing
its name in this matter."

Fresh Farms, LLC. is listed as delinquent on South Dakota's
Secretary of State website for turning in an annual report in 2019.
[GN]


FRONT YARD RESIDENTIAL: Faces Rosenblatt Suit Over Amherst Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FRONT YARD RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION, ROCHELLE
R. DOBBS, LELAND ABRAMS, GEORGE G. ELLISON, MICHAEL A. ERUZIONE,
LESLIE FOX, WADE J. HENDERSON, LAZAR NIKOLIC, GEORGE WHITFIELD
MCDOWELL, BAF HOLDINGS, LLC, and BAF SUB, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00386 (D. Del., March 18, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Front Yard will be acquired by
affiliates of Amherst Single Family Residential Partners VI, LP.

On February 17, 2020, Front Yard's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BAF
Holdings, LLC ("Parent"), a Delaware corporation, and BAF Sub, LLC
("Merger Sub," and together with Parent, "BAF"). Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Front Yard's stockholders will
receive $12.50 in cash for each share of Front Yard common stock
they own. On March 11, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections; omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; fails to disclose
whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure agreements that
contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions
that are or were preventing other potential acquirors from
submitting offers to acquire the Company; and fails to disclose
whether the Individual Defendants intend to pay DB the "additional
fee of $2,000,000," and under what circumstances.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint. Because of the false and
misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Front Yard common stock.

Front Yard provides affordable rental homes.[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


GENERAL MOTORS: Harris Sues Over Excessive Engine Oil Consumption
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00257, (W.D. Wash., February 19, 2020), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, negligence, deceit by
concealment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Harris owned a 2012 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation
IV Vortec 5300 Engine. He claims to have experienced continually
misfiring spark plugs due to excessive oil consumption and
corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
     Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq.
     TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
     1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 682-5600
     Fax: (206) 682-2992
     Email: kstephens@tousley.com
            kpowell@tousley.com

            - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     John E. Tangren, Esq.
     Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
            jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
            dferri@dicellolevitt.com

            - and -

     W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
     H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
     J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     272 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Tel: (334) 269-2343
     E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
             Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
             Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Martell Sues Over Defective Piston Rings
--------------------------------------------------------
William Martell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00284, (D. Or., February 19, 2020), seeks damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and such other and further relief resulting from
breach of contract, negligence, deceit by concealment and violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Martell owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation
IV Vortec 5300 Engine. He claims to have experienced continually
misfiring spark plugs due to excessive oil consumption and
corresponding inadequate engine lubricity and that the piston rings
do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the crankcase.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
     TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
     1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 682-5600
     Fax: (206) 682-2992
     Email: kstephens@tousley.com

            - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     John E. Tangren, Esq.
     Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
            jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
            dferri@dicellolevitt.com

            - and -

     W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
     H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
     J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     272 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Tel: (334) 269-2343
     E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
             Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
             Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sierra Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Dawson and John Tamburini, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-10506, (D. N.J., February 27, 2020),
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and
further relief resulting from breach of contract, negligence,
deceit by concealment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Dawson owns a 2011 GMC Sierra 3500 pickup truck while Tamburini
owns a 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 pickup truck, both manufactured by
General Motors. They claim that their vehicles contain the CP4 fuel
pump that is not compatible with American diesel fuel. The latter
allegedly contains less lubrication thus running the fuel pump
nearly dry. Air pockets form inside the pump during operation,
causing metal to rub against metal, generating metal shavings which
are dispersed throughout the fuel injection system, contaminating
and destroying the fuel system. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     Shoshana Savett, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: rpaul@bm.net
            elechtzin@bm.net
            stsavett@bm.net


GETT: Faces $45MM Class Action Over Alleged Racism
--------------------------------------------------
David Israel, writing for JewishPress.com, reports that Gett,
a.k.a. GetTaxi, an Israeli on-demand mobility company that connects
customers with transportation, goods and services, in 2015 launched
a new exclusive service called Gett Mehadrin, dedicated to the
religious and Haredi sector, connecting passengers with operators
who signed an affidavit confirming that their taxi is not used on
Shabbat and Jewish holidays.

Gett CEO Mark Oun said at the time: "We are excited to launch
another new fleet in our dedicated fleets system, mainly directed
at religious-Haredi passengers, providing a perfect service
experience for the population whose use of taxis is extensive, even
essential. We are confident that Gett Mehadrin will provide a
convenient and comfortable platform for those passengers who are
interested in a wonderful taxi ride experience."

Attorney Assaf Pink of Jerusalem has filed a 150 million shekel
(US$45 million) class action suit against Gett Taxi, claiming that
its Mehadrin app is a guise intended to ensure service by Jewish
taxi drivers only, and not Arabs.

The lawsuit attached documentation from a hidden camera which
allegedly proves the company's Mehadrin service is not offered for
religious reasons. The documentation shows a Gett representative
responsible for recruiting drivers to the Mehadrin service in
Jerusalem, who says, "I'll tell you something, a secret: Gett
Mehadrin is not for the religious, it's for not wanting an Arab
driver. My daughter today wants to travel -- I order her Gett
Mehadrin. She doesn't care if he's religious or not, she wants a
Jewish driver. Now, I can't write 'I want a Jewish driver.' I have
here 1,500 Arab drivers, but not even one of them is Mehadrin. Not
one will be."

The lawsuit filed against the company is asking for financial
compensation for 940 Arab taxi drivers operating in the Jerusalem
area, as well as 1,500 shekel for every passenger who feels that he
or she were also affected by the app's discrimination. The total
could reach as much as 200 million shekel ($60 million).

Attorney Pink said the entire premise of the app looks odd on its
face from a halachic point of view: "If there were a sincere
religious intent here, they should have insisted on Arab drivers
for the Mehadrin taxis, because it is well-known that if you fear
desecrating the Shabbat, you would prefer the services of a Gentile
on Shabbat, who is not obligated to keep the laws of Shabbat."

Gett responded: "Gett offers its services to all taxi drivers and
all users. We staunchly oppose any kind of discrimination. As to
Gett Mehadrin -- any taxi driver who wants to join this fleet,
including non-Jewish drivers, can join, provided he states that his
taxi does not travel on Shabbat and Jewish holidays."

We searched for the Gett Mehadrin app on our smartphone but when we
found it, the app that was downloaded was the company's regular
app. We also searched for Haredi Jews who care whether the taxi in
which they ride was parked outside a shul on Shabbat, as long as it
took them where they wanted to go. None could be found. For now, if
you want to avoid an Arab taxi driver in Israel -- just do what
everyone else does: don't click on Mohammed. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Faces Calderon BIPA Suit Over Use of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01264-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb.
19, 2020), seeks to recover damages and other remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of Google in collecting, storing, and
using biometric identifiers and biometric information without
informed written consent, in violation of the Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts, Google has created, collected,
and stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based "Google Photos"
service, the "face templates" (or "face prints")--highly detailed
geometric maps of the face--of millions of users of the Google
Photos service and hundreds of thousands of individuals who are not
even enrolled in the Google Photos service.

Google creates these templates using sophisticated facial
recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the
points and contours of faces that appear in photos taken on Google
"Droid" devices and uploaded to the cloud-based Google Photos
service. Each face template that Google extracts is unique to a
particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or
voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person.

The Plaintiff contends that Google failed to obtain consent from
anyone when it introduced its facial recognition technology. The
Plaintiff adds that not only do the actions of Google fly in the
face of FTC guidelines, they also violate the right to privacy
conferred by the BIPA.

Mr. Calderon is an owner and user of a Google Android device and is
an account holder and user of the Google Photos service.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
                  fhedin@hedinhall.com


HOMEOWNERS MANAGEMENT: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., and Stephen L. Saxl, Esq., of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that in the case styled Robinson v. Homeowners Mgmt. Enter. Inc.,
---S.W.3d---, 2019 WL 6223128 (Tex. 2019), the Texas Supreme Court
held that, absent a clear contractual provision to the contrary, a
court should decide the threshold issue of whether class
allegations must be arbitrated. The ruling overturned prior
precedent holding that class arbitration was an issue for the
arbitrator where the contract submitted all disputes arising out of
the agreement to the arbitrator.

The case arose out of a dispute between homeowners, the Robinsons,
with their home-warranty company. The Robinsons sued in Texas state
court concerning construction-related defects. The defendant moved
to compel arbitration. The arbitration provision in the warranty
compelled mandatory binding arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). The warranty did not address who decides
issues of arbitrability. On the eve of the arbitration hearing, the
Robinsons submitted an amended statement of claim adding class
allegations against the defendant alleging it required overbroad
releases as a precondition to fulfilling warranty obligations.
Defendant vigorously contested this amendment before the arbitrator
and filed a motion with the state court. The trial court ruled in
the defendant's favor, holding that whether the parties agreed to
class arbitration was a question to be decided by the court and the
parties' warranty agreement did not permit class arbitration.

The Texas Supreme Court noted that this issue was consequential
because courts have exceptionally limited scope to review the
decisions of an arbitrator even when wrong on issues of law.
Accordingly, the Court addressed two fundamental questions: (1)
whether class arbitration is a question of arbitrability
presumptively for the court or a question to be arbitrated and,
thus, presumptively for the arbitrator; and (2) whether the
arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably evinces a contrary
intent.

On the first issue, the Texas Supreme Court held that the question
was presumptively for the courts. The Court was persuaded in part
based on the unique nature of class litigation and the observation
that "arbitrators are not generally knowledgeable in the
often-dominant procedural aspects of certification, such as the
protection of absent parties."

On the second issue, the Court held that silence on the issue of
class arbitration could not be equated to consent. "[T]o interpret
silence or ambiguity on the 'who should decide arbitrability' point
is giving arbitrators the power . . . [and] might too often force
unwilling parties to arbitrate a matter they reasonably would have
thought a judge, not an arbitrator, would decide." For class
arbitration to be an issue decided by an arbitrator, the contract
must unambiguously and explicitly delegate such authority. The
default position will be for the court to decide whether class
arbitration is arbitrable. [GN]


HP INC: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of HP
Inc. (HPQ).

Such investors are advised to contact

        Robert S. Willoughby
        POMERANTZ LLP
        E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
        Tel: 888-476-6529, ext. 7980

The investigation concerns whether HP and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

Click https://form.jotform.com/pomerantzllp2/HPQ for information
about joining the class action.

On February 27, 2019, HP reported disappointing total Supplies
revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2019, citing
weaker-than-predicted demand from commercial customers in the
Company's Europe, the Middle East, and Africa market. In reporting
these results, HP acknowledged that its traditional "four-box
model"-focused on in-store base, usage, market share, and price
(i.e., the four key drivers of revenue growth)-had been based upon
incorrect data concerning inventory, market share, and pricing
assumptions. HP also revealed that it lacked telemetry data to
determine reliable market share assumptions for its Supplies
business. Accordingly, the Company revised its previous estimate of
Supplies revenue for fiscal 2019 to a decline of 3%, versus prior
guidance of flat to slightly up revenue year over year. On these
disclosures, HP's stock price fell $4.12 per share, or 17.27%, to
close at $19.73 per share on February 28, 2019.

On May 30, 2019, at the Sanford C. Bernstein Strategic Decisions
Conference, HP's President and Chief Executive Officer Dion J.
Weisler disclosed that the consumer segment of the Company's
supplies business had had telemetry data for years, meaning that
management had known the importance of telemetry data for an
accurate model and that the commercial Supplies business lacked
this key input. On this news, HP's stock price fell $0.46 per
share, or 2.4%, to close at $18.68 per share on May 31, 2019. Then,
on August 22, 2019, HP announced that Weisler would step down from
his roles at the Company at the end of October 2019 due to a family
health matter. HP also announced mixed earnings results from the
third quarter of fiscal 2019, with Supplies revenue down 7%
year-over-year. On this news, HP's stock price fell $1.12 per
share, or 5.92%, to close at $17.81 per share on August 23, 2019.

Finally, on October 3, 2019, HP announced that it was departing
from the purely transactional Supplies-centric business model" and
moving away from using the four-box model, transitioning instead to
a hardware-driven business model. Under the new business model, HP
would de-emphasize Supplies revenue as "the singular metric to
determine our progress" and instead focus on "the key metrics [of]
service growth and operating profit dollars, which better reflect[]
the system profitability." HP also announced mass layoffs as part
of a major restructuring. On these disclosures, HP's stock price
fell $1.76 per share, or 9.57%, to close at $16.64 per share on
October 4, 2019.

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

INSURANCE SERVICES: Illegally Sent Faxed Ads, Lehman Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Sherelynn Lehman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Insurance Services For You Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00384, (N.D. Ohio, February 19, 2020)
seeks actual and statutory damages, pre-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Insurance Services markets health insurance plans for individuals,
families and small businesses. In an attempt to generate sales
leads and ultimately increase its revenues, it created a fax-based
marketing campaign wherein it sends numerous unsolicited faxed
advertising its products and services. Lehman has no previous
relationship with them and never gave consent to receive such
faxes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown, PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


JP MORGAN: Faces Roeder Suit Over 1979 Hostage Crisis in Iran
-------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Roeder, Susanne A. Roeder, Rodney V. Sickmann, Don Cooke,
Mark Schaefer, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., successor by
merger to CHASE MANHATTAN CORPORATION, and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., successor by merger to CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, Case No.
1:20-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020), is brought for
compensatory and punitive damages arising from the November 1979
seizure of American hostages in Iran.

In the spring of 1979, Chase's senior executive and advisers, led
by Chairman and CEO David Rockefeller, entered into an unlawful
agreement with the Shah of Iran, according to the complaint. Their
aim was to defeat the Carter Administration's policy of denying the
Shah entry and, thereby, avoid hostilities with Iranian
revolutionaries. Chase called this conspiracy "Project Eagle." In
furtherance of the "Project Eagle" conspiracy, Chase orchestrated
the Shah's entry to the United States, induced the U.S. government
to rely on its misrepresentations, and then--after the American
embassy was seized in retaliation--sabotaged the Iran Hostage
Talks.

Acting on behalf of the Iranian monarchy, Chase's Project Eagle
team flew the Shah on private jets, arranged his security forces,
procured visas and housing for his entourage, and knowingly made
false representations to the Carter Administration asserting that
the Shah required life-saving surgery that could only be performed
in New York. President Carter relied on Chase's misinformation and
agreed to admit the Shah for medical treatment.

Iran erupted in rage. Within weeks, Iranian revolutionaries took
more than 50 Americans hostage. The Plaintiffs and their loved ones
were among those hostages. Over a period of 444 days, they were
blindfolded, tortured, taunted, and threatened with death. They
would have been freed sooner--but for the actions of Chase, the
Plaintiffs allege. Worried that billions of dollars would be
repatriated to Iran as part of a release deal, Chase gathered and
spread rumors of payoffs to sabotage President Carter's hostage
talks. Chase purposefully delayed the hostages' release until after
the Presidential election in November 1980. As a direct and
proximate result of Chase's acts, the Plaintiffs assert, the
hostages languished even longer in their captors' hands.

For decades, Chase concealed its role in the Hostage Crisis,
according to the complaint. It failed to register as a foreign
agent of the Iranian monarchy under the Foreign Agent Registration
Act. It denied there was ever a campaign to pressure the White
House to admit the Shah, and it kept the records of Project Eagle
secret. That secret was finally made public by the New York Times
on December 29, 2019. Thanks to the Times' reporting, the
Plaintiffs discovered that records of Project Eagle had been held
under seal at Yale University until the death of Chase's former
Chairman David Rockefeller on March 20, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek judgment against the Defendants--the successors
by merger of The Chase Manhattan Corporation and Chase Manhattan
Bank following their merger with JP Morgan--for conspiracy to
injure officers of the United States; negligence; negligence per se
for violating the Logan Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act; gross
negligence; false imprisonment; intentional infliction of emotional
distress; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Plaintiffs were taken as hostages in Iran in November 1979.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company incorporated in
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent W. Landau, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 985-3270
          Fax: (215) 985-3271
          Email: blandau@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
          Scott A. Gilmore, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202)540-7201
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                 ngiddings@hausfeld.com
                 mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

               –and–

          V. Thomas Lankford, Jr., Esq.
          Terrance G. Reed, Esq.
          Robert K. Moir, Esq.
          LANKFORD & REED, P.L.L.C.
          120 N St. Asaph St.
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Phone: (703) 299-5000
          Fax: (703) 299-8876
          Email: tlankford@lrfirm.net
                 tgreed@lrfirm.net
                 rkmoir@lrfirm.net


KANSAS: Vote Anywhere Class Action Continues in State Foster Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Samples, writing for KVOE, reports that legal proceedings are
either underway or continue in two notable cases at the state
level.

Vote Anywhere lawsuit

Kansas Democrats are upset that Secretary of State Scott Schwab
hasn't moved ahead with the federal Vote Anywhere law, and they
have taken him to court as a result.

National Democratic groups, including the National Committee,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, are also involved in the lawsuit,
according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the Vote Anywhere legislation,
which gives county election officials the power to let voters cast
ballots at any polling place in their county, last year and it
officially took effect this past July.

Democrats say Schwab is trying to suppress voting. Schwab, however,
says not all the preparations will be ready for either the primary
election in August or the general election in November. He also
says Democrats have not discussed how to develop the new
regulations as needed.

Foster care lawsuit

Lawyers representing foster children look to hold Governor Laura
Kelly responsible for the state of the foster system in Kansas.

Attorneys representing foster kids filed a motion in the ongoing
case saying Gov. Kelly's requset to be dismissed from the lawsuit
should be denied, saying Kelly is trying to avoid any legal
responsibility.

Besides Kelly, Children and Families and Disability and Aging
Services Secretary Laura Howard and Health and Environment
Secretary Lee Norman are named in the lawsuit. Attorneys
representing the governor filed the motion in October, saying the
governor is not responsible for regulating the foster care system
according to The Kansas City Star. Her office says this is routine
business, especially when other state agencies -- in this case,
DCF, KDADS and KDHE -- are involved and leading different efforts
challenged in lawsuits such as this one.

The foster care system has come under repeated fire over the past
decade, especially under previous DCF director Phyllis Gilmore but
the current administration has not been immune to complaints. The
lawsuit, which now represents nearly 15 children, says foster
children have been trafficked for sex, sexually abused inside
adoptive homes, sexually assaulted inside a child welfare office or
mistreated to the point where they have either suffered mentally or
run away from foster homes.

Kelly says the state is making progress in limiting the number of
foster children who have to sleep in agency or contractor offices
because of the number of students needing homes and the lack of
available foster families. The lawsuit, filed in late 2018,
continues after Kelly announced plans to combine KDADS, KDCF and
parts of the Kansas Department of Corrections juvenile justice
system into the Department of Human Services pending lawmaker
approval. [GN]


KONZA PRAIRIE: Seawell Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Marie Seawell, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. KONZA PRAIRIE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA,
and JEFFREY MADDOX, Case No. 2:20-cv-02130-JAR-KGG (D. Kan., March
19, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants until April 2019 as a
delivery driver at one of the Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
throughout Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 984-8100
          Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 Laura@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


LINCOLN PARK, MI: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Flynn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY FLYNN, PETER FLYNN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
LINCOLN PARK, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12187 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

Rental property owners Mary and Peter Flynn have filed a proposed
class action against the City of Lincoln Park claiming that the
City's ordinances requiring inspections of rental property violate
their constitutional rights against warrantless searches under the
Fourth Amendment, their due process rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments and give rise to several other civil claims.


Under Michigan law, a city may adopt a law, code, or rule that has
been promulgated and adopted by an authorized agency of the state
pertaining to fire, fire hazards, fire prevention, or fire waste,
and a fire prevention code, plumbing code, heating code or an
international maintenance code.  Accordingly, the City of Lincoln
Park adopted a code of ordinances for rental dwellings with the
stated purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare
by establishing minimum standards governing the state of repair and
maintenance of rental dwellings.  They also enable the City to
provide an efficient system for compelling both absentee and local
landlords to correct violations and maintain, in proper condition,
rental property within the city.

The ordinances require that rental properties pass inspection by a
City Building official at least once every three years to ensure
they are in compliance.  Passing inspection is also a prerequisite
to obtaining the certificate of compliance all rental properties
must have to operate within the City.  The City's rental ordinances
also include enforcement provisions, one of which provides that if
the owner of any rental dwelling fails to promptly comply with
inspection requirements "after being properly notified" of them,
the Building Department will post a notice requiring that the
occupant of the unit provide entry for inspection purposes at a
specified date and time.

The Flynns' Fourth Amendment challenge focuses on one provision of
the City's inspection ordinances, which reads as follows: Where it
is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of
this code, or whenever the code official has reasonable cause to
believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a
condition in violation of this code, the code official is
authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times
to inspect or perform the duties imposed by this code, provided
that if such structure or premises is occupied the code official
will present credentials to the occupant and request entry. If such
structure or premises is unoccupied, the code official will first
make a reasonable effort to locate the owner, owner's authorized
agent or other person having charge or control of the structure or
premises and request entry.  If entry is refused, the code official
will have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure
entry."

The Plaintiffs argue that the last sentence of the said ordinance
authorizes mandatory, warrantless inspections.  As counsel for the
Flynns acknowledged during oral argument, however, the City's
inspection ordinances also provide rental-property owners with an
opportunity to challenge violation notices they receive.

The Flynns own eight residential rental properties in Lincoln Park.
Their lawsuit focuses on a single violation the City Building
Department issued them in connection with the property located at
1542 Morris.  That property was initially registered as a rental
property in 2008 and has been continuously occupied by tenants for
the past several years.  It was re-inspected in 2011 and, finding
everything in order, the City issued a new certificate of
compliance.  But when the property was again inspected in 2014 as
part of the process of issuing a new certificate of compliance, the
City Building Inspector identified several problems.  It took
Plaintiffs approximately two years from the date of the initial
August 2014 inspection to address these issues.  

The City re-inspected the Morris property on Nov. 14, 2016 and,
finding the previous issues resolved, finally issued the property a
new certificate of compliance.  That certificate listed an
expiration date of Sept. 24, 2017, approximately three years from
the date the Flynns paid the inspection fee but less than one year
from the date the City completed its final inspection and deemed
the building's compliance issues resolved.  The Flynns assert the
certificate should have been valid for three years from the date
the City determined the property was in compliance with the
ordinance's requirements, not from the date they paid the
inspection fee.

The case is now before the Court on a motion for summary judgment
filed by the City.  

Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties and all the
relevant authorities, Judge Berg concludes that summary judgment
should be entered in favor of the City of Lincoln Park on each of
the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Judge finds that it is undisputed that
no rental property of the Flynns' was ever searched by any City
Building Inspector or other official without their consent or a
valid warrant.  Further, there is no evidence that the City has
ever conducted any inspection of a rental property without the
property owner's consent or a warrant pursuant to the challenged
ordinance.  John Meyers, the City's building official, testified
that the City has previously sought administrative warrants when
needed to justify entry into rental homes when the owner or tenant
refused entry.  Moreover, the Flynns were never criminally charged
in connection with their failure to comply with the City's
inspection ordinances, and the civil infraction notice they were
initially issued for refusing inspection was dismissed.

Despite this, the Flynns allege that Lincoln Park's "policy and
custom" of "performing mandatory, warrantless searches of all real
property within the City" pursuant to its ordinances violates the
Fourth Amendment.  They also make related allegations about claimed
violations of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, as well as Michigan law.  These claims lack merit, the
Court opines.

For these reasons, the District granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.  Summary judgment is entered in favor of the
Defendant on Count One ("Violation of Due Process/Unconstitutional
Conditions Doctrine"), Count Two ("Violation of Fourth Amendment"),
Count Three ("Unjust Enrichment/Remedy of Assumpsit"), Count Four
("Unjust Enrichment"), Count Five ("Injunctive Relief"), Count Six
("Declaratory Relief"), and Count Seven ("Violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983").

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/yb4re8 from Leagle.com.

Mary Flynn & Peter Flynn, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark K.
Wasvary -- mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Mark K. Wasvary, P.C. & Aaron D.
Cox -- @aaroncoxlaw.com -- Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC.

City of Lincoln Park, Defendant, represented by James E. Tamm --
jetamm@odtlegal.com -- O'Connor, DeGrazia & Paul Michael Indyk --
pmindyk@odtlegal.com -- O'Connor, DeGrazia, Tamm and O'Connor,
P.C.


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rumpke Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rumpke, Nicholle Frank, and Sean Wolfe, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01411-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants require Hourly Managers
to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However, the
Defendants do not compensate Hourly Managers for all hours worked.
Instead, the Defendants require their Hourly Managers to perform
compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and
during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not clocked into
the Defendants' timekeeping system. These policies result in Hourly
Managers not being paid for all of the time they worked, including
overtime pay.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as an MSM Manager, as a
Front End Department Manager, and as a Front Ent Support Manager.

The Defendants are an American retail company specializing in home
improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (800) 274-5297
          Fax: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                 jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 ebailey@sommerspc.com


LUCKIN COFFEE: Klein Reminds Investors of Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Luckin Coffee Inc. (LK). There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Luckin Coffee Inc. (LK)
Class Period: November 13, 2019 to January 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2020

The LK lawsuit alleges that Luckin Coffee Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in LK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/luckin-coffee-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5545&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Tel: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
         Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]

LUXNOW LLC: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomy Halawani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUXNOW LLC, Case No. CACE-20-004892 (Fla., 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing
consists of sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to
purchase Defendant's goods and services. The Defendant caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The Plaintiff is a sui juris resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of renting and/or leasing
luxury automobiles, yachts and homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 tom@jibraellaw.com


MALLINCKRODT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Acthar Price Hike
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meris Lutz, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports
that the city of Marietta, Ga., has filed a class action lawsuit
against a drug company after the price of a decades-old medicine
went from $40 a vial to more than $39,000.

The city, which covers health care costs for employees and their
families, says it has already spent more than $2 million on the
drug for a single patient.

Stacie Dusetzina, an associate professor of health policy at
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, reviewed the complaint
and said it's indicative of a national problem with market-driven
drug prices.

"A company can choose to do this to any drug a person is taking at
any time," she said. "I think it's important for people to realize
this has some particularly egregious elements, but this is not the
only drug where we see this behavior."

The drug, called Acthar, was first approved in the 1950s, and today
is used primarily to treat infantile spasms -- a seizure disorder
in babies. It has other indications as well.

Marietta declined to answer questions about the case, but the
complaint says the drug was prescribed to a covered individual for
a "serious medical condition."

A spokesperson for Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures
Acthar, said the company had not been served with the lawsuit yet.

He provided a written statement saying the largest price hike
occurred before Mallinckrodt acquired Acthar in August 2014.

"Under our stewardship, any price adjustments to Acthar have been
limited to the mid-single digit percentage range," the statement
said, adding that the company has invested more than $600 million
in the drug.

Marietta says Mallinckrodt has been able to keep Acthar's price
artificially high by acquiring and then shelving the rights to a
cheaper synthetic alternative.

In 2017, Mallinckrodt settled a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit
over alleged antitrust violations for $100 million. It also had to
agree to license development of the synthetic alternative to a
competitor.

In 2019, it paid more than $15 million to the United States
Department of Justice to settle claims that it paid illegal
kickbacks to doctors. A pending DOJ lawsuit alleges the company
illegally paid patients.

Reuben Guttman, an antitrust lawyer who has handled similar cases,
said pharmaceutical companies consider such litigation the cost of
doing business when profits are in the billions.

"When the government settles, the companies are effectively paying
a fee for a license to break the law," he said. "It's pennies on
the dollar that are being paid."

The rising cost of drugs can be passed on to the public in the form
of higher taxes, higher premiums and less coverage, even for those
on employer-sponsored health plans. In 2018, for example, Medicare
spent $725 million on Acthar for fewer than 2,500 patients,
according to government data.

Liza Vertinsky, an associate professor of law of Emory University,
said she worries lawsuits like Marietta's don't address the
underlying issue of drug pricing.

"This is another example of using a blunt instrument to address a
systemic problem," she said. [GN]


MARS INC: Myers File Product Mislabeling Case in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lori Myers, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation, Mars,
Inc., The Quaker Oats Company and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00335 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2020), seeks
restitution, injunctive relief and any other relief deemed
appropriate pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act of California's Business and
Professions Code.

Defendants are some of the largest retailers of chocolate products
in the United States. Myers claim that their chocolate is a product
of unethical child and slave labor in West Africa despite their
labeling that says that its chocolate products are made with
"ethically sourced cocoa." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
      Ben Travis, Esq.
      SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-4990
      Email: hzeldes@sshhlaw.com
             btravis@sshhlaw.com

             - and -

      Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
      John C. Washington, Esq.
      SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
      200 Pier Avenue, #226
      Hermosa Beach, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 396-0731
      Email: hoffpaul@aol.com
             jwashington@sshhlaw.com

             - and -

      Catherine E. Sweetser, Esq.
      SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
      11543 West Olympic Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 396-0731
      Email: csweetser@sshhlaw.com

             - and -

      Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.
      INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
      621 Maryland Ave NE
      Washington, D.C. 20002
      Telephone: (202) 543-5811
      Email: tc@iradvocates.org


MICHIEL JAN MOL: Class Action Mulled Over $27MM Space Scam
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown, writing for European Interest, reports that space
exploration is rapidly becoming one of the main endeavors involving
the future of mankind. Given the number of private and state-owned
companies engaged today in space exploration and funds allocated
for it -- not to mention the budget of the U.S. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) -- there are grounds to
predict that the world is on the cusp of a new large-scale
technological breakthrough that will open man's way to the stars.

The revolution underway is not only about launching more satellites
and other spacecraft, or sending astronauts to the moon, Mars and
other planets, but also about the more "mundane" use of new
opportunities, such as space tourism.

So far, this service is very complicated and costly, and is
available only to a small circle of very rich people.

Almost 20 years have passed since the first "tourist" flight to the
International Space Station. To date, there have only been seven
space tourists. This is not surprising, because the cost of one
tourist flight ranges, according to various estimates, from $20 to
$35 million. Even the super wealthy find the price exorbitant.

However, the situation in the near future could change
dramatically. Several large companies, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue
Origin, Elon Musk's SpaceX and Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic,
are preparing cheaper flights for their customers to visit outer
space.

Virgin Galactic is already selling tickets for a space tour at a
price of $250,000. According to media reports, about 600 people
have already booked their flights to fly into orbit, including
well-known businessmen and show business stars.

NASA has decided not to stand aside and announced that it will open
the International Space Station (ISS) for tourists and other
commercial purposes.

"NASA is opening the International Space Station for commercial
purposes and is entering the market with this, something we have
never done before," said ISS Chief Financial Officer Jeff DeWit in
New York.

In fact, we can state that a new tourist destination appears in the
world - space, and its popularity will certainly grow.

Although the space tourism market is only emerging, there have
already been scam companies that have taken advantage of the hype.

Starting in 2010, Space Expedition Corporation (SXC), led by
Michiel Jan Mol, began actively selling tickets for future "space
tours." Large-scale "plans" were announced to create a space
research center, build a spaceport facility in the international
airport in Curacao, replete with an experimental center there to
entertain space tourists.

In June 2012, the SXC announced the sale of 175 tickets at a price
of $95,000 for the flights of XCOR Aerospace, the developer of
rocket engines and rocket plans.

In June 2014, XCOR took over the SXC, resulting in the creation of
the XCOR Space Expeditions Division, which continued to sell space
tickets. After the takeover, Michiel remained to lead the
division.

Plans remained unchanged until June 2017, when the company
announced financial difficulties. In November of the same year, the
company went bankrupt. According to the Boston Mail
(http://bostonmail.net/economics/2378-new-27-million-space-scam-class-action-lawsuit-being-prepared-against-michiel-jan-mol)
at the time of bankruptcy, in total 282 tickets had sold for almost
$26.8 million. The company did not reimburse the money to deceived
customers.

Now having lost hope of getting back their investments, ticket
holders decided to go to court. According to sources close to
ticket holders a class action lawsuit is being prepared against the
company and Michiel Jan Mol. In addition, prosecutors from several
states turned their attention to the case which is retained a scam
by the customers of the bankrupt company.

The ticket owners consider quite possible that in the near future
Mol may be on the court bench.

In an article dated February 19, 2020, Boston Mail reveals more
information about Michiel Jan Mol's business activities claiming
that the sale of space tickets is not the first dubious enterprise
in which Michiel Jan Mol participated.

According to the article since 2002, Mol has sponsored the Dutch
Formula 1 racing team led by Christijan Albers. In 2006, Spyker
Cars, a Dutch manufacturer of hand-built sports cars, acquired the
team, which was renamed Spyker MF1 Racing. Mol's father acquired a
30% stake in Spyker Cars, and, as a result, Michiel Jan Mol joined
the board and became Director of Formula One Racing. From May to
September 2007, Mol served as CEO of Spyker Cars. In August 2007,
Spyker was charged with concealing bankruptcy and $40 million in
arrears.

In October 2007, Mol's father and Indian businessman Vijay Mallya
bought Spyker MF1 Racing. The team was rebranded as Force India F1
and Michiel Jan Mol was put in charge of it. The activities of
Michiel Jan Mol in the new post ended with the team accumulating
debts. In July 2018, due to a petition from creditors, the High
Court of London decided to introduce an interim administration for
the subsequent sale of the Force India F1 team.

Now the court in the United States will deal with what Boston Mail
depicts as "Mol's space scam case".

The case of Michiel Jan Mol and defrauded customers of XCOR is one
more confirmation that any promising venture attracts not only real
businessmen and innovators, but also various supposed businessmen
who swindle unsuspecting customers using hype and then disappear.

The U.S. system of justice, however, is considered to be one of the
best, one that punishes criminals and swindlers. According to
sources the ticket owners believe that is very likely Michiel Jan
Mol will be brought to account for "swindling XCOR's customers in
the nearest future". [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston's Section 1692f(8) Claim Dismissal Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEAL PRESTON, individually and on behalf of a
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-3119 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in
part the judgment of district court dismissing Mr. Preston's FDCPA,
15. U.S.C. Section 1692f(8) claims.

Preston brought the putative class action in which he claimed that
Midland had sent him a collection letter that violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Specifically, he claimed
that the words "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT" on the envelope violated
Section 1692f(8)'s prohibition against using any language or
symbol, other than the Defendant's business name or address, on the
envelope of a debt collection letter.  He also claimed that these
words, and other language employed in the body of the letter, were
false and deceptive, in violation of Section 1692e(2) and (10).

On Midland's motion, the district court dismissed the complaint.
The district court noted that the plain language of Section
1692f(8) prohibited any writing on the envelope, but nevertheless
concluded that there was a benign-language exception to the
statutory language.  Because the language "TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT"
did not create any privacy concerns or expose Mr. Preston to
embarrassment, the district court held that it fell within the
exception.  The district court found no merit with respect to Mr.
Preston's claims under Section 1692e.

The district court therefore dismissed Mr. Preston's FDCPA claims
on the merits.  It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over his claims under Illinois state law and, therefore, dismissed
those without prejudice.  Following entry of judgment, Mr. Preston
timely appealed.

Mr. Preston maintains that the district court erred in dismissing
his Section 1692f(8) claim based on the language on the envelope.
He also renews his Section 1692e claims based on the envelope, the
letter, and the collective language of both.

The Seventh Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.  The
Appellate Court concluded that the language of Section 1692f(8) is
clear, and its application does not lead to absurd results.  To the
contrary, the prohibition of any writing on an envelope containing
a debt collection letter represents a rational policy choice by
Congress.  Consequently, the Appellate Court concludes that the
district court erred in dismissing Mr. Preston's claim under
Section 1692f(8).  However, the Appellate Court agreed with the
district court that the language on the envelope and in the letter
does not violate Section 1692e and, therefore, affirmed the
dismissal of the claims brought under that section.  The Appellate
Court expresses no view on whether the class Mr. Preston seeks to
represent should be certified.  Each party will bear its costs in
the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's Jan. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rFojFA from Leagle.com.

Stephen R. Swofford -- sswofford@hinshawlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

James C. Vlahakis -- jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Noel J. Francisco, for Amicus Curiae.

Jennifer Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Mary E. McLeod, for Amicus Curiae.


MOTEL 6: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaila White, writing for azcentral.com, reports that a federal
judge gave final approval on Feb. 18 for the settlement of a
national class-action lawsuit involving Motel 6 employees
disclosing guests' personal information to federal immigration
agents.

The roughly 2,000 members of the class will receive a part of the
$10 million settlement, with payouts ranging from $75 to $200,000,
according to a press release from the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund.

"We are grateful that Motel 6 will change practices and is
compensating those harmed," Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and
general counsel, said in the statement.  "The substantial
settlement should stand as a warning to all other proprietors not
to engage in similar conduct."

Motel 6 also must abide by a three-year decree on guest privacy,
the release stated.

What is the lawsuit against Motel 6?

A lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund and the Ortega Law Firm in 2018 claiming Motel 6
staff members were giving guest information to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement without having evidence on their legal status.

"The suit alleged that providing guests' personal information to
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents without a
warrant violated federal and state civil rights and privacy laws,
including those barring discrimination based on national origin,
and those protecting against unreasonable searches and breaches of
privacy," according to the press release.

That came after a report from Phoenix New Times that motel staff
reported Latino guests to ICE despite lacking evidence about their
legal status.

Specifics on the amount for claimants

The settlement states that claimants whose personal information was
given to immigration officers but who did not experience "adverse
consequences" will receive $75, which is the cost to stay one night
at a Motel 6.

It says claimants who encountered immigration authorities will
receive between $5,075 and $200,000, as determined by a formula
involving "arrests, detentions, placement in removal proceedings,
the involvement of children, legal fees incurred in defending
against immigration actions, and out of pocket costs."

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich had argued that the
settlement awarded too much money to organizations and not enough
to claimants, but U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell overruled
his objections.

In the settlement, part of the money not awarded to claimants will
go to The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, The
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, The National Immigrant Justice
Center, and TheDream.US. [GN]


MUSKEGON FAMILY: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Darren Cunningham, writing for FOX17, reports that former employees
of the embattled Muskegon Family Care have filed a class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

On Feb. 14, the facility fired employees because of financial
problems. On Feb. 17, MFC announced it will close on March 31.

The suit, filed Feb. 16, states that about 150 full-time employees
"were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their
terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act. (WARN Act)"

Plaintiffs in the case seek 60 days of wages and benefits under the
WARN Act from Muskegon Family Care. The brief states that MFC
employed about 200 people. On Feb. 17, interim CEO Mitze Alexander
told FOX 17 those who remain are helping the facility during its
winding down period.

On Feb. 19, Hackley Community Care announced it's stepped up to
help take on some of the thousands of patients affected. CEO Linda
Juarez says HCC heard rumblings of the financial woes at MFC in
December.

Juarez told FOX 17, "Their new board and interim CEO was focused on
keeping the doors open. That was their strategy. So our focus was
worse case scenario what if they can't?"

She says HCC has been on standby to help a fraction of what she
says may be closer to about 17,500 people.

The efforts include bringing on new medical providers.

"Currently, in the transition we believe we could take up to half
of those patients. So there's realistically 6,000 dental and
(11,500) of the medical," she explained.

Juarez says it's a process taking on new patients, and people will
need to be patient.

FOX 17 reached out to a spokesperson for Muskegon Family Care on
the lawsuit and was told they have no comment at this time.

As previously reported, state police are investigating possible
embezzlement under the previous CEO Sheila Bridges. Attempts to
reach her have been unsuccessful. [GN]


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Wills Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Wills, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, a Virginia corporation, Case No. 2020CH00990, was
removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 19,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01216 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The suit demands $75,000 in damages.

The Norfolk Southern Railway is a Class I freight railroad in the
United States. With headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, the Company
operates 19,420 route miles in 22 eastern states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Raymond Hugo Groble, III, Esq.
          Laura S. Platt, Esq.
          DALEY MOHAN GROBLE P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-9999
          E-mail: groble@daleymohan.com
                  lplatt@daleymohan.com


OLERO INC: Cal. Northern Dist. Narrows Claims in Bruger Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPAN BRUGER and DMYTRO BRUGER, Plaintiffs, v. OLERO,
INC., EMB GROUP, INC., OLEG ROMANYUK, and EUGENE MINOCHKIN,
Defendants, Case No. 19 CV 2277 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Joan H. Lefkow
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.  

Plaintiffs Stepan Bruger and Dmytro Bruger bring several claims
alleging defendants underpaid them and a similarly situated class
for their work as truck drivers.  The Brugers, who are brothers,
worked as truck drivers for Defendants Olero, and EMB Group, Inc.,
which are trucking companies owned by Defendants Oleg Romanyuk and
Eugene Minochkin.  The Brugers allege that Defendants underpaid
them and misclassified them as independent contractors rather than
employees.

Both named Plaintiffs make similar allegations about how their
relationship with the Defendants unfolded in reality.  They allege
that, while all drivers were required to complete log books showing
the distance they drove, Romanyuk and Minochkin would regularly
alter those books to lower drivers' miles and their corresponding
compensation.  The Defendants also reduced the Brugers'
compensation based on "charges" they had not disclosed when the
Brugers took their jobs.  Charges were assessed for things like
completing the log books, washing trucks, repairing the trucks, and
violations assessed by the Department of Transportation.

Stepan Bruger alleges he was underpaid for at least 10% of the
actual miles he drove for defendants, amounting to at least $7,150
over the eleven months of his employment.  He also alleges
defendants imposed unwarranted charges of $7,538.83, yielding total
underpayment of at least $16,188.83.

Dmytro Bruger alleges he was underpaid $5,150 based on the
Defendants' false reduction of his mileage driven and assessed
$7,870 in unwarranted charges, yielding total underpayment of at
least $15,220.  Dmytro worked for defendants for nine months.

The Brugers allege the Defendants also failed to fully compensate a
class of similarly-situated truck drivers, defined as all persons
who have worked for the Defendant companies as truck drivers and
truck driver trainees in Illinois or otherwise have driven the
Defendant companies', their predecessors', successors',
subsidiaries' and/or affiliated companies' trucks at any time
during the relevant statutory period, and who personally provided
freight cargo transportation services pursuant to independent
contract agreements entered into individually or on behalf of other
entities to the Defendant companies and who have not been
classified as employees of the Defendant companies.  The putative
class members at all times performed their work by driving trucks
owned by one of the Defendant companies.

The Brugers originally filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Cook County.  The Defendants removed the action to the District
Court in April 2019.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
bringing claims under the Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act
("IWPCA") and various Illinois common law theories generally
seeking unpaid compensation.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in its
entirety for failure to state a claim.  They attach to their motion
"Independent Contractor Agreements" that both Brugers signed, which
the Defendants argue govern the entirety of the parties'
relationship and bar the Brugers' claims.

Judge Lefkow granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Counts I (IWPCA), V (conspiracy to violate the
IWPCA), and IX (unjust enrichment) may proceed.  The remaining
counts are dismissed.

Among other things, the District Court finds that the Defendants
make no argument that, absent the existence of the independent
contractor agreement, they would not have an employment
relationship with the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege the
existence of an employment agreement, the heart of which was the
Defendants' promise to pay them $0.50 per mile, without any fees,
charges, or other deductions.  The Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to plead the existence of an employment relationship at
the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The Judge also finds that the Court previously has held to the
contrary to the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs' civil
conspiracy claim must be dismissed because such claims cannot be
predicated on IWPCA violations.  The Defendants present no argument
as to why the Court should depart from that holding.  Thus, their
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim that they conspired to
violate the IWPCA is denied.

Finally, Illinois law precludes an accounting claim unless a
plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.  The Plaintiffs have a
potential remedy via their IWPCA claim.  Thus, their accounting
claim is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/3UkMYR from Leagle.com.

Stepan Bruger & Dmytro Bruger, Plaintiffs, represented by Julia
Bikbova -- julia.bikbova@gmail.com -- Bikbova Law.

Olero, Inc., EMB Group, Inc., Oleg Romanyuk & Eugeny Minochkin,
Defendants, represented by Andrew Riley Brehm --
ABREHM@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis. Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary,
P.c., Andrew Joseph Butcher -- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.c. & Charles
Andrewscavage -- CANDREWSCAVAGE@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis,
Garvin, Light, Hanson, & Feary.


ONESOURCE EHS: Powell Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Powell, individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
ONESOURCE EHS, L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-00161-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.,
March 17, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as
required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead, the Defendant
pays the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Safety Manager from
July 2018 until March 2019.

OneSource provides environment, health, and safety management
services for refineries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


OPERA LIMITED: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Opera
Limited (NASDAQ:OPRA) for violations of the federal securities
laws. Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering commenced
on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or between
July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period")
are encouraged to contact the firm before March 24, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=opera-limited&id=2220
to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Opera seriously overstated its market
opportunity and sustainable growth for its browser applications.
The Company funded and controlled loan services that engaged in
predatory lending practices. These practices were likely to impact
the Company's ability to make its apps available on the Google Play
Store. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements and
offering documents were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Opera,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
         Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/
[GN]



PAYSIGN INC: Faces Shi Securities Suit in District of Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
Yilan Shi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAYSIGN, INC., MARK R. NEWCOMER, and MARK ATTINGER,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-GMN-DJA (D. Nev., March 19, 2020), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Paysign securities
from March 12, 2019, through March 15, 2020, inclusive.

On March 12, 2019, the Company filed its annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2018 with the SEC (the "2018
10-K"). The 2018 10-K was signed by the Defendants Attinger and
Newcomer. The 2018 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Attinger and Newcomer
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to the
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Paysign's internal control over financial
reporting was not effective; (2) Paysign's information technology
general controls were not effective; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Paysign's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On March 16, 2020, before the market opened, Paysign filed a Form
12b-25, disclosing it was unable to timely file its annual report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, due to the requiring
addition time to complete the Company's financial audit. The
Company also identified material weaknesses in its internal
controls relating to its internal control over financial reporting
and its information technology general controls.

On this news, shares of Paysign fell $0.93 per share, or nearly
17%, to close at $4.59 per share on March 16, 2020, damaging
investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Paysign securities during the Class
Period.

Paysign purports to provide prepaid card programs and processing
services under the PaySign brand to corporations, government
agencies, universities, and other organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
          William R. Ginn, Esq.
          LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.
          832 Willow Street
          Reno, NV 89502
          Phone: (775) 322-6636
          Facsimile: (775) 322-3953


PETER NYGARD: More Than 100 Witnesses Came Forward Amid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Tsicos, writing for CTV News, reports that more than 100
witnesses, including dozens of alleged victims, have come forward
after a class action lawsuit was filed against Peter Nygard,
according to the lawyers representing 10 women.

In the civil claim, the Canadian fashion mogul is accused of rape,
sexual assault, and sexual trafficking. Nygard's lawyer has said
the allegations are completely false, and has vigorously denied the
claims.

The lawsuit alleges Nygard lured young, impressionable women and
teens, some as young as 14, with promises of cash and modelling
opportunities. Their identities are not being revealed in the
lawsuit due to the nature of the allegations.

In a joint statement released on Feb. 18, the lawyers representing
the alleged victims, Greg Gutzler and Lisa Haba, said since filing
their class action lawsuit less than a week ago, more than 100
witnesses, including dozens of alleged victims, have come forward.

The lawyers said they believe there could be more alleged victims,
and encouraged people to contact them. Something Nygard's Winnipeg
lawyer Jay Prober said is unprofessional.

"There are a lot of people that see dollar signs here, and are
jumping on the bandwagon, and if you look at the statement, at the
end of the statement, the lawyers are soliciting business," said
Prober in a phone interview with CTV News. "It's no wonder they're
saying they're getting all of these calls."

Prober also suggested the statement as a whole is highly unusual.

"Normally you don't issue statements, as a lawyer, on matters that
are before the courts," said Prober. "Quite frankly in my view,
it's all part of an orchestrated media campaign by those involved
in a conspiracy to bring Nygard down."

The lawsuit was initially filed on Feb. 13 on behalf of 10 women.
It alleges Nygard plied the women and girls with drugs and alcohol,
before raping, sodomizing, or sexually assaulting them, often at
"pamper parties" at his mansion in the Bahamas. It also alleges
Nygard asked many of them to defecate on him in return for money,
though the women and girls refused.

The lawsuit said after the alleged assaults, Nygard would offer the
women and girls money, sometimes upwards of $5,000.

The lawsuit describes the alleged "pamper parties" as events held
to both promote the Nygard Companies' brand and facilitate sex
acts, held in the Bahamas and California. It said women and girls
were lured to his Nygard Cay property for these events under the
false pretense of modelling opportunities. The lawsuit claims
Nygard was allegedly able to engage in sex trafficking, in part,
due to Bahamian culture, political corruption, and his power in the
Bahamas.

The lawsuit alleges corporate funds were used to pay for drugs,
alcohol, entertainment, and food for the parties, and also provided
the cash Nygard allegedly gave to the women and girls. The parties
were allegedly staffed by Nygard Company employees.

The alleged sexual assaults detailed in the lawsuit happened
between 2003 and 2015. It also said several were coerced into
labour trafficking, and were forced to work exceptionally long
hours with little sleep for no additional money. The lawsuit also
alleges some women and girls were forced to "recruit" others to
come to the "pamper parties."

Nygard has a net worth of approximately $900 million through
various business entities he owns in the fashion industry according
to the claim. Nygard International is a Canadian corporation, with
administrative offices in Winnipeg. Its global headquarters are
stationed in New York City.

The statement released by the alleged victims' lawyers on Feb. 18
also referenced the #MeToo movement.

"The #MeToo movement has been built and sustained by women who
decided they could no longer remain silent, even in the face of
pressure from wealthy and powerful men like Nygard, Jeffrey Epstein
and Harvey Weinstein," read the statement.

Prober said that statement could lead to a defamation lawsuit,
because these statements are public and were not filed in court.

"This statement, which refers to a reign of terror, and puts Nygard
in the same sentence as Epstein and Weinstein are defamatory, and I
think they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit, and I raised that
with our New York lawyers."

Prober previously said the allegations are false, and said they
stem from a land dispute, in which he claims another man paid women
to fabricate false sexual stories against Nygard. Prober said this
is a "vicious and malicious conspiracy" against Nygard, and said he
will be vindicated, exonerated, and will clear his name.

The class action lawsuit has not been certified.

None of the allegations have been tested in court. [GN]


PROVIDENT FIN'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Provident Financial Services, Inc. (NYSE: PFS) resulting from
allegations that Provident and certain of its officers and/or
directors may have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

On April 27, 2018, Provident released its financial results for the
first fiscal quarter of 2018, disclosing "deterioration in selected
commercial credits, including a $15.4 million credit to a
commercial borrower" that had filed for bankruptcy in March 2018.
Provident further disclosed that the Company had established a $2.5
million specific reserve for this impaired loan. On July 5, 2018,
Provident disclosed that the Company expected an additional reserve
would be required for the remaining balance of the previously
disclosed $15.4 million credit, and that its net income for the
quarter ended June 30, 2018 would be reduced by up to $9.3
million.

Then, on July 27, 2018, pre-market, Provident released its
financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2018, disclosing
that two additional loans from another commercial borrower became
impaired during the quarter, leading to a net charge-off of $4
million. Provident's Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), Christopher Martin ("Martin"), stated that the
losses "were primarily driven by two commercial relationships which
we believe involved borrower fraud in each instance."

On this news, Provident's stock price fell $1.46 per share, or
5.27%, to close at $26.23 per share on July 27, 2018, injuring
investors.

In December 2019, certain Provident emails were made public during
the course of litigation in New York state court, which indicated
that Provident was aware of the fraudulent nature of and/or risks
posed by at least one of its failed loans. Specifically, Provident
executives and top-level management, including CEO Martin,
seemingly ignored multiple red flags regarding a potential loan to
Lotus Exim International ("Lotus") before ultimately extending a
$17 million loan to Lotus.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Provident investors. If you purchased shares of
Provident please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1769.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


RICHARD CRAMPTON: Faces Montgomery Civil Rights Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Crampton, et
al. The case is captioned as Department of Health and Human
Services, for Montgomery County, Maryland, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Richard Crampton and
Crystal Crampton, Case No. 8:20-cv-00424-PWG (D. Md., Feb. 19,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The lawsuit involves civil rights violation.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


RING LLC: Politis Sue Over Unsecured Smart Home Security Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN AND JENNIFER POLITI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RING, LLC, Case No. 20STCV06955 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2020), alleges that Ring failed to
properly secure and safeguard its devices and accounts, in
violation of the California Legal Remedies Act.

Ring markets smart home security devices, including Wi-Fi enabled
video surveillance cameras and video doorbells.

The Plaintiffs contend that Ring's brand is built on its promise of
safety and security for its customers' homes, telling customers
that its products provide "peace of mind." However, Ring's lax
security standards resulted in third-parties' ability to use the
devices to intrude on Ring customers' home-shattering the promised
"peace of mind."

Consumers around the country have reported unauthorized individuals
accessing their Ring devices, spying on them through the Ring
cameras inside their homes, and harassing them through the
microphone function on the Ring devices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek public injunctive relief for themselves and all
others similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekim@carlsonlynch.com


RING: More Homeowners Joins Suits Over Security Camera Hacking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for KOMO News, reports that more
homeowners are joining lawsuits against Ring claiming lax security
allowed their home security cameras and speakers to be hacked.

Attorneys representing homeowners warn the privacy threat goes
beyond pranksters spying on your family.

Cyber security experts believe hackers use millions of
previously-compromised email addresses and passwords to break into
internet-connected cameras remotely. By hacking into your connected
cameras and speakers, someone might also be able to gain access to
the operating system that connects your devices, says Mike Simon of
CI Security.

"They have control of a thing in your home, they can do a lot with
it. It's as if they brought a laptop into your home and plugged it
into your network," Simon said.

Attorney Hassan Zavareei, one of the attorneys taking Ring and
parent company Amazon to court, said more people are coming forward
with video and audio of hackers engaging them with harassing
comments, racial slurs, and even threats since filing the initial
lawsuit in December seeking class action status.

"We have heard from clients from numerous states," Zavareei said.

At issue is who's responsible for keeping the hackers out -- the
people who sell the equipment, or you?

Ring insists it is not the problem, telling KOMO News, "While our
investigation is ongoing, we do not have any evidence that this
issue is related to a breach or compromise of Ring's system or
network."

Zavareei dismisses Ring's response as putting the blame on
consumers and maintains Ring should have required 2-factor
authentication from the start, rather than make it an option.
Further, Zavareei insists the company should have done more to
protect customer security.

"Another thing that they could have easily done but did not do, is
to notify people when someone is trying to get in to their account
from an unknown device; from a new IP address," Zavareei said.

As the legal battle plays out, security experts say if you have any
internet connected devices, take these 4 steps:

Have a designated WiFi router for each device.
Have a different password for each account.
Create longer, stronger passwords for every account.
Always use 2-factor authentication.

It's extra work and less convenient, but attorneys and security
experts said short of pulling the plug, it's the best way to
minimize your risk of a camera hacker intrusion.

Ring tells KOMO News that starting in February it will make
two-factor authentication the default setting for new accounts and
all new device setups. The company provided KOMO News with this
email response:

Regarding Ring's security:

While our investigation is ongoing, we do not have any evidence
that this issue is related to a breach or compromise of Ring's
system or network. It is not uncommon for bad actors to harvest
data from other company's data breaches and create lists so that
they and other bad actors can attempt to gain access to other
services.

We've emailed customers whose accounts we have identified as
exposed and have reset their passwords. In addition, we are
continuing to monitor for and block potentially unauthorized login
attempts. We've also contacted all Ring customers, encouraging them
to enable two-factor authentication, change their passwords, and
follow these important best practices for keeping their accounts
secure.

Currently, users are notified of any new client device that logs
into a Ring account with correct credentials and, if they do not
recognize the login, the user is prompted to change their account
password which automatically logs out the unknown device.

Starting in February, users will be able to use two-step
verification to manually authorize any new client device that
attempts to log in with correct credentials before that device can
gain access to the Ring account. New client device logins will have
to be validated by entering a code sent to the user's email.

Also in February, two-factor authentication will be the default
setting for new accounts and all new device setups, including those
on existing accounts.

We know that customers are understandably concerned about privacy
and data security. In the year ahead, we are committed to putting
control and privacy front and center, while providing the best
possible experience for users.

Regarding legal matters:

At Ring, our top priority is the safety and security of our
customers. We understand that Ring users put their trust in our
products, and we strive to maintain that trust. While we do not
comment on ongoing litigation, it is important to note that we have
found no evidence that Ring's systems or network were compromised.

Ring takes device security seriously and we will continue investing
in our systems and technology. We reinforced our long standing
commitment to users with the launch of Control Center, and will
continue to add additional features related to user privacy and
account security. These new features include requiring two-step
verification before a new device can log in to your Ring account
and making two-factor authentication the default setting during new
device setups. These features will help keep our Ring devices more
secure than ever. [GN]


SABER HEALTHCARE: Chapman Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tab Chapman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC and Autumn Care
of Portsmouth, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00106 (E.D. Va.,
February 27, 2020), seeks unpaid wages, compensation, penalties,
and other damages owed to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Saber Health operates a network of nursing care and rehabilitation
facilities that provide healthcare services to its patient
customers throughout the United States. Saber Healthcare operates
in Virginia through its wholly owned affiliate, Autumn Corporation.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a nurses' assistant in the
Autumn Care of Portsmouth location from April 2018 through March
2019. Chapman performed work during his meal breaks and performed
work while "off-the-clock" but was denied compensation for the time
spent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     Casey S. Nash, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Tel: (703) 424-7572
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
            aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
            casey@kellyguzzo.com

            - and -

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     Ori Edelstein, Esq.
     Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Tel: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

            - and -

     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Tel: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
            mlim@schneiderwallace.com
            whogg@schneiderwallace.com


SAFE HAVEN: Knighton Seeks Overtime Pay for BHTs Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KNIGHTON, ROSHAD RHODENE SMILEY, MICHAEL NESBITT, REMEL
DOUGLAS, EVETTE ELEBY, SHANRIKIA CATO, KATHY MORMAN, JOHNNY BARNEY,
WEDLYNE ALEXIS, all other similarly situated v. SAFE HAVEN
RECOVERY, INC, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 103662502
(Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as Behavioral Health
Technicians (BHT) and as managerial employees.

Safe Haven is a detox and residential recovery center.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpaattorneys.com


SALESFORCE: Epiq Discusses Data Breach Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Epiq, in an article for JDSupra, reports that California continues
to lead on data privacy protection. Since the adoption of the
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), cracking down on data
breaches and promoting consumer privacy has remained a priority in
the state. Recently, a California resident filed a federal class
action lawsuit against Salesforce, the cloud-based e-commerce
platform, and Hanna Andersson, which is a children's clothing
company. From Sept. 16 through Nov. 11, 2019, Salesforce
experienced a data breach due to a malware infiltration on their
network. Through the malware, hackers were able to access purchases
that Hanna Andersson customers made. Salesforce was under contract
with the Hanna Andersson to handle their customers' personal and
payment information when they engaged in a sale. The breach put a
significant chunk of consumer data at risk, including credit card
information and personal identifiers. The hackers scraped data from
about ten thousand consumers nationwide and sold it to criminals on
the dark web. Law enforcement was the first entity to discover the
breach in Dec. 2019, nearly 3 months after the attack started.

The class action counts were for negligence, declaratory relief,
and violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
The complaint claims that both companies failed to protect private
data, failed to detect the data breach, employed inadequate
security practices, and did not warn consumers about their
deficient practices. Curiously, there is no separate count for
violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). However,
the class action partially based their UCL claim on violations of
CCPA-imposed security standards and inadequate notice practices.
One reason the class action might have left out an explicit CCPA
cause of action is that the CCPA is experiencing on-going concerns
about ambiguities in the new law. It will be interesting to see if
the class later amends the claim to expressly plead under the CCPA
and how that plea would hold up in court.

How are the Companies Responding to the Salesforce Data Breach?

After law enforcement notified Hanna Andersson of the breach, the
company investigated and alerted all potentially affected consumers
as well as the state Attorney Generals. Hanna Andersson indicated
that it was taking steps to remedy the breach and tighten security
measures. Some of these measures included re-securing and hardening
security efforts on the purchasing platform, increasing the use of
multi-factor authentication, enhanced system monitoring, hiring
forensic experts to assist with the investigation, and offering
theft protection services to consumers. The Attorney General's
letter also stated that the malware was removed on Nov. 11, but did
not provide further details about the removal process. Hanna
Andersson is also looking for a new director of cybersecurity. All
of this suggests that there were not sufficient security safeguards
in place during the cyberattack.

According to the class action complaint, Salesforce never sent out
an independent notice of the breach and has not released a
"vulnerabilities and exposure" report. Both companies have not
commented on the class action lawsuit to date.

The Data Protection School of Hard Knocks

In a digital age filled with bad actors constantly looking for
security flaws to exploit, the case of Salesforce and Hanna
Andersson highlights the global problem of companies failing to
implement sufficient security safeguards. Scraping and skimming
from online purchases is an ongoing epidemic. The FBI even issued a
warning providing ways that businesses can protect themselves from
these attacks. Suggestions included using updated anti-malware
software, segregating network systems, and hosting employee
education seminars. Warning from national law enforcement agencies
illustrate that the heightened fears about consumer data
vulnerabilities are not unfounded. Consumers should be able to make
online purchases with ease and businesses need to take steps to
protect these transactions and limit breach potential.

The rates of new privacy and data laws that have been popping up
around the world are due to this escalating concern. Obviously,
severe consequences can follow when a company fails to have
significant security protocols in place. In this case, the failure
to implement stronger security measures resulted in a successful
data breach that could put consumers at a lifetime risk for
identity theft and purchase fraud since much of the stolen data is
already on the dark web. Prior to the breach, both company websites
noted that the e-commerce platform employed strong security
measures. However, this breach illustrates that the security
measures and monitoring practices were not strong enough.
Organizations offering products for sale to consumers should use
this as a teaching moment and review their current security
practices. Updating and monitoring security systems to maintain a
strong information governance plan is more crucial than ever to
limit breach exposure. [GN]


SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Montoya ADA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; PHILIP PRESSEL; and AARON
GRESSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; BIRD
RIDES, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a BIRD; NEUTRON HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a LIME; WHEELS LABS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a JUMP; LYFT, INC.; RAZOR USA, LLC, a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19cv0054 JM(BGS)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (i) denied Defendant City's
motion to dismiss, and (i) granted the remaining Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint asserting claims for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
California Civil Code section 51, et seq., ( "Unruh Act"),
California Civil Code section 54, ("Disabled Persons Act");
California Government Code section 4450, et seq., and California
Government Code section 11135.

On March 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC").  The FAC alleges that the Plaintiffs, who
are individuals with disabilities, have found their access to San
Diego's sidewalks diminished by the proliferation of dockless
electric vehicles currently in use in the City.  They allege that
people using the dockless electric vehicles either travel on the
sidewalks or block paths of travel because the vehicles are
discarded in the middle of sidewalks or at other rights of way,
making it difficult for people with disabilities to safely traverse
the pathways.

Further, the FAC alleges that as usage and abandonment of these
vehicles and the speed at which they travel increases, the
Plaintiffs are denied safe, equal and full access to the sidewalks.
In the Plaintiffs' words, the vehicles' burgeoning proliferation
and uncurbed growth comes at the detriment of the rights of all
disabled persons with mobility and/or visual impairments who are
residents and visitors of the City of San Diego, causing them
injury, severe anxiety, diminishing their comfort and
discriminating against them based on their disabilities.

The Plaintiffs direct allegations at the City regarding its
responsibilities as a municipality and the duty it has to maintain
the sidewalks.  Similarly, the FAC makes allegations against the
private entities that rent dockless scooters and bikes, via mobile
phone apps, to third-party individuals in San Diego, which the
Plaintiffs categorize as the "Dockless Vehicles Defendants."

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class consisting of all
persons with disabilities with mobility or visual impairments who
have been denied access to or full enjoyment of the system of
sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops, curb ramps, pedestrian
crossings and other walkways in the City of San Diego because of
their disabilities.

The prayer for relief seeks, amongst other things, an award of
statutory damages and an order enjoining the Dockless Vehicle
Defendants from continuing to operate on the system of sidewalks,
crosswalks, curb ramps, transit stops, pedestrian crossings and
other walkways in the City of San Diego.

On April 4, 2019, Defendants Neutron Holdings, Inc., doing business
as Lime, Bird Rides, Inc., and Razor, USA, LLC ("Scooter
Defendants") filed a joint motion to dismiss.  On May 31, 2019,
both Defendant Wheels Labs, Inc., and Defendant City filed motions
to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6).  The City also filed a Notice of
Joinder to the Scooter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  On June 3,
2019, Defendant Lyft filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  On June 7, 2019, Defendant Uber filed its
motion to dismiss.  Uber also joined the Scooter Defendants', Wheel
Labs', Lyft's and City's motions to dismiss.

Before addressing the motions to dismiss, the District Court first
turns to two motions to strike filed by the Plaintiffs.  The first
motion to strike, Request to Strike City's Purported Supplemental
Authority, was filed by the Plaintiffs on July 8, 2019.

Setting aside the propriety in which City brought the existence of
the ordinance to the Court's attention, the District Court does not
think it appropriate to address a mootness argument at this time.
While the ordinance may institute many of the solutions the
Plaintiffs suggested, the FAC does not yet clearly define the exact
injunctive and declaratory relief that they are seeking.  As such,
making a mootness determination at this stage would be premature.
Having decided not to consider the Supplement when ruling on the
motions to dismiss, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs'
Request to Strike City's Purported Supplemental Authority.

On Dec. 17, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to strike,
in response to the Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by the
Defendants on Nov. 22, 2019.  The District Court finds that while
it has reviewed the memorandum and finds nothing improper in the
notice, the supplemental authority submitted is not binding
authority on the court, was filed after the briefing period was
closed and without permission of the Court. Consequently, the
District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion, and struck the
supplemental authority from the docket.

Principally relying on various state statutory immunities contained
in the California Government Tort Liability Act, City moves to
dismiss the FAC on the basis that it is immune for discretionary
actions related to law enforcement or ordinances regarding the
operation and parking of the dockless vehicles on city streets.
City also moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis that
the FAC fails to state claims against it under Title II of the ADA,
the Rehabilitation Act, California Government Code sections 4450 or
11135, the DPA, nor under the Unruh Act.

The arguments of Dockless Vehicle Defendants for dismissal are
based on: (1) the requirement of the ADA that a Defendant own or
operate a "place of public accommodation;" (2) the Plaintiffs'
failure to allege that any of these Defendants received the
requisite State financial assistance to make the alleged section of
the California Government Code section 1135 applicable; (3) the
Plaintiffs' failure, absent an ADA violation, to identify any
California accessibility standard in the FAC, nor allege that any
of the Dockless Vehicle Defendants violated such standard; and (4)
the Plaintiffs' failure to allege an independent Unruh Act
violation.  Because the arguments made by each of the Dockless
Vehicle Defendants are substantially similar, if not identical, the
Court will consider them together.

Lyft and Uber also move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).  Lyft
argues the relief the Plaintiffs seek, namely an order requiring it
to preclude riders from operating scooters on sidewalks or parking
them in areas that occlude access already exists, thus making this
aspect of Plaintiffs' claim moot.  Lyft also contends that
Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury attributable to Lyft and
thus, there is no harm to redress.  Uber argues that the FAC does
not establish actual notice of discrimination, denial of access or
denial of equal treatment.

Among other things, among other things, the District Court finds,
with respect City's arguments, that (i) the Plaintiffs' allegations
are sufficient to support the contention that City may have engaged
in the simple exclusion of disabled persons through
"thoughtlessness" and "inaction" that constitutes discrimination
under the ADA; (ii) the Plaintiffs have alleged City is responsible
for removing barriers and ensuring the public sidewalks are readily
accessible for people with disabilities under the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act; (iii) the City's reading of the FAC grossly
oversimplifies the California Government Code section 4450 claims;
(iv) the City's immunity argument lacks merit as the relief
available to private citizens under this section of the code is
expressly limited to equitable relief; (v) the Plaintiff have
sufficiently pled that the City's action and inactions denied them
"full and free used of the streets, highways, sidewalks and
walkways; (vi) the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a damage award on
the DPA claim but may pursue injunctive and declaratory relief; and
(vii) although Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages on
the Unruh claim, equitable injunctive and declaratory relief is
available to them.

Judge Miller granted (i) the Plaintiffs' Request to Strike City's
Purported Supplemental Authority; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Defendants' Supplemental Authority.

Judge Miller denied (i) Defendant City's Motion to Dismiss the
entire complaint on immunity grounds; (ii) Defendant City's Motion
to Dismiss the Title II ADA Claim; (iii) Defendant City's Motion to
Dismiss the Rehabilitation Act Claim; (iii) Defendant City's Motion
to Dismiss the California Civil Code section 4450; (iv) Defendant
City's Motion to Dismiss the California Civil Code section 11135
claim; (v) Defendant City's motion to dismiss the California DPA
claim; (v) Defendant City of San Diego's motion to dismiss the
California Unruh Act claim; and (vi) Defendants Bird, Lime, Razor's
motion to strike class allegations as moot.

The Judge granted (i) Defendants Bird, Lime, Razor, Wheels Labs,
Uber, and Lyft's motions to dismiss the Title III ADA Claim with
leave to amend; (ii) Defendants Bird, Lime, Razor, Wheels Labs,
Uber, and Lyft's motions to dismiss the California Government Code
section 11135 claim with prejudice; (iii) Defendants Bird, Lime,
Razor, Wheels Labs, Uber, and Lyft's motions to dismiss the
California DPA Claim with leave to amend; and (iv) Defendants Bird,
Lime, Razor, Wheels Labs, Uber, and Lyft's motions to dismiss the
California Unruh Act Claim with leave to amend.

Defendant City was given until Feb. 18, 2020 to file an answer to
the FAC.  The Plaintiffs, should they elect to file a second
amended complaint amending their claims against the Dockless
Vehicle Defendants, must do so without delay.

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

Alex Montoya, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Rex Shirley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Philip Pressel, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Aaron Gresson, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ann E. Menasche, Disability Rights California, Matthew Ryan Souther
-- msouther@neildymott.com -- Neil Dymott Frank McCabe & Hudson
APLC, Nichole Marie Mendoza -- NicholeM@lassd.org -- Disability
Rights, Phillip Edmond Stephan -- pstephan@neildymott.com -- Neil
Dymott Frank McCabe & Hudson & Benjamin T. Conway --
ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org -- Disability Rights California.

City of San Diego, a public entity, Defendant, represented by
Charles E. Bell, Jr., Office of the City Attorney & Danna Marie
Whit Nicholas, City Attorney of San Diego.

Bird Rides, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Bronwyn F. Pollock, Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel E. Jones, Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan S. Klein, Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac
vice.

Neutron Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Anne Marie Estevez, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Kathy Hua Gao, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Stephanie Schuster, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice.

Razor USA LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Tyler J. Woods, Pacific Trial Attorneys.

Wheels Labs, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Jennifer P. Suberlak, Petti Kohn Ingrassia and Lutz PC, Thomas
S. Ingrassia, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin PC & Shelby Mae
Harris, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin PC.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Sean Patterson, Duane Morris LLP,
Courtney Lenore Baird, Duane Morris, Joseph Colin Knisely, Duane
Morris LLP, pro hac vice & Jason H. Dang, Duane Morris LLP.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kristina M. Launey, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Eden Edwards Anderson, Seyfath Shaw LLP.


SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS: Williams ADA Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Marcus Williams, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Save Mart
Supermarkets, Case No. RG19025489, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Feb. 20, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01300-JCS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.

Save Mart is an American grocery store operator. Save Mart owns and
operates stores under the names of Save Mart, S-Mart Foods, Lucky
and FoodMaxx.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hayley Singer Grunvald, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130-4092
          Telephone: (858) 720-8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
          E-mail: hgrunvald@sheppardmullin.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Schall Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. ("Spirit AeroSystems" or "the Company")
(NYSE:SPR) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
View photos

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
31, 2019 and January 29, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''),
are encouraged to contact the firm before April 10, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=spirit-aerosystems-holdings-inc&id=2246
to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Spirit Aerosystems failed to maintain
effective internal controls on financial reporting. The Company
also failed to comply with its existing accounting rules and
principles on potential contingent liabilities. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Spirit Aerosystems, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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

SSP AMERICA: Wilson-Davis Remanded to L.A. County Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAMON WILSON-DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SSP AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04375-ODW (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
Action to State Court, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Defendants SSP America, Inc. and SSP America LAX, LLC staff and
operate restaurants in airports throughout California.  Plaintiff
Wilson-Davis worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles, California.
On March 13, 2019, Wilson-Davis filed a putative class action
against SSP America, Inc., SSP America LAX, LLC, and other unnamed
Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.  

Wilson-Davis alleges eight causes of action under California law,
including: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure
to pay all wages due upon separation from employment; and (8)
violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200.

Wilson-Davis seeks to represent a class of all California citizens
currently or formerly employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees in the State of California within four years prior to the
filing of the action to the date the class is certified and who
were affected by the Defendants' Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, and IWC Wage Order violations.

On May 20, 2019, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court.  They claim that federal question jurisdiction exist under
section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), due to
the necessary interpretation of the Parties' collective bargaining
agreement ("CBA").

Wilson-Davis now moves to remand the action back to state court on
the grounds that the District Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and that no federal-question jurisdiction exists.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the LMRA does not preempt his
state law claims.

The Defendants argue that the LMRA preempts Plaintiff's claims
under both steps of the Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp. analysis.

The District Court finds that the Defendants' argument fails at
step one of the Burnside analysis because simply asserting the
section 514 exemption as a defense is not a basis for preemption.
It is well established that a defendant cannot, merely by injecting
a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a
state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under
federal law, thereby selecting the forum in which the claim will be
litigated.  Accordingly, a defense based on the terms of a CBA is
not enough to require preemption.  

The District Court then analyzes the Defendants' argument that
interpretation of the CBA is nonetheless necessary to determine
whether the exemption applies.  The District Court finds that (i)
the LMRA does not preempt the Plaintiff's state law minimum wage,
overtime claims, meal and rest period claims; (ii) the Defendants'
argument as to reimbursement of business expenses fails because
they do not explain why the Court would need to reference the CBA
at all, let alone interpret it; (iii) the Defendants' argument for
preemption of the waiting time claims fails becauase the CBA's
compensation provisions are clear and unambiguous, and thus require
no interpretation; (iv) he would not need to interpret the Parties'
CBA to resolve any of the Plaintiff's state law claims.

Judge Wright concludes that the District Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's class claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Dismis.  The District Court remanded the action to the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
19STCV08579, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles,
California 90012.  The Clerk of the Court will close the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/62aQ9Q from Leagle.com.

Tramon Wilson-Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica L. Campbell,
Aegis Law Firm PC, Kashif Haque, Aegis Law Firm PC, Samuel A. Wong,
Aegis Law Firm PC & Simon Kwak, Aegis Law Firm PC.

SSP America, Inc., a California corporation & SSP America LAX, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Denise M. Visconti -- dvisconti@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC
& Christina H. Hayes -- chayes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC.


STERLING BANCORP: Hagens Inform Investors to Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBT) invite
investors who have suffered losses in excess of $150,000 to submit
their losses now to learn if they qualify to recover compensable
damages.  A securities class action was recently filed against
Sterling, and important investor deadlines have been established.

Class Period: Nov. 14, 2017 – Dec. 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 27, 2020
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SBT
Contact An Attorney Now: SBT@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (SBT) Securities Class Action

According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented Sterling's
loan underwriting, risk management and internal controls, including
falsely touting its strict underwriting, asset quality and
Advantage Loan Program (Sterling's largest lending product).  In
truth, Sterling lacked effective controls, policies and procedures
over its lending practices.  As a result, the Company was
systemically violating its stated underwriting and documentation
procedures as well as various banking laws and regulations.

The truth began to emerge on June 21, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that it had entered into a formal agreement with the OCC
to enhance its procedures and ensure compliance with anti-money
laundering and Bank Secrecy Act laws and regulations.  The Company
also announced the immediate resignation of Director Jon Fox, who
had served on the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Then, on Dec. 9, 2019, Sterling stunned investors when it announced
the suspension of the Advantage Loan Program.  The Company
disclosed that it had engaged in an internal review of the
Program's documentation procedures, which revealed that it needed
to "put in place additional systems and controls to ensure the
Bank's policies and procedures are followed on loans originated
under the program."

Finally, on Jan. 29, 2020 CEO Thomas Lopp admitted that, as a
result of the suspension of the Advantage Loan Program, "we expect
our near-term total loan production to be below historical levels
and adversely impact our portfolio loan growth rates."

"We're focused on recovering investors' losses and proving Sterling
misled investors about its loan underwriting procedures," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Sterling should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein
         STERLING BANCORP, INC.
         Tel: 844-916-0895
         E-mail: SBT@hbsslaw.com
[GN]

STERLING BANCORP: Kaplan Fox Investigates Investor Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) is investigating
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBT).  A class action securities
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Sterling Bancorp common stock from November 17, 2017 through
December 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

On November 17, 2017, the start of the Class Period, Sterling
Bancorp commenced its initial public offering ("IPO") of 15 million
shares of common stock at a price of $12 per share.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Advantage
Loan program was the Company's largest lending product.

On December 9, 2019, Sterling Bancorp disclosed that its
subsidiary, Sterling Bank and Trust, FSB, had suspended its
Advantage Loan program in connection with an ongoing internal
review of the program's documentation procedures.   The internal
review entails auditing documentation on past loans and putting
into place additional "systems of controls to ensure the Bank's
policies and procedures are followed for loan origination."

Following this news, Sterling Bancorp's stock price fell $2.16 per
share, or 22.86%, to close at $7.29 per share on December 9, 2019.


If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than April 27, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.  If you would like to
discuss the complaint or our investigation, please contact us by
emailing pmayer@kaplanfox.com or by calling 800-290-1952.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions. For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our
website at www.kaplanfox.com.  If you have any questions about this
Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, please
contact:

         Donald R. Hall
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, New York 10022
         Tel: (800) 290-1952
              (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: dhall@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

         Laurence D. King
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, California 94612
         Tel: (415) 772-4700
         Fax: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
[GN]



STERLING BANCORP: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces filing
of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBT) between November 17, 2017
and December 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Sterling Bancorp investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Sterling Bancorp class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1792.htmlor call for
information on the class action:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         ROSEN LAW FIRM
         Toll-free: 866-767-3653
         E-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com

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.

On December 9, 2019, the Company disclosed that it "voluntarily and
temporarily suspended its Advantage Loan program in connection with
an ongoing internal review of the program's documentation." On that
same day, shares of Sterling common stock fell $2.16 per share to
close at $7.29 per share, a decline of nearly 23%.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made untrue statements of material
fact and omitted other facts necessary to make the statements not
misleading and failed to disclose material facts concerning, inter
alia, the Company's loan underwriting, risk management and internal
controls, including repeatedly touting its strict underwriting,
asset quality and the Advantage Loan Program.

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 27,
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-1792.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

SUBARU: 15 More Plaintiffs Added to Windshield Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that 15 new
plaintiffs have been added to a class action lawsuit that was
originally filed by Christine Powell against Subaru. The suit
alleges Subaru of America Inc. (Subaru) was "manufacturing,
marketing and selling new vehicles with defective and dangerous
windshields that were spontaneously and/or unreasonably cracking,
chipping and otherwise breaking." The plaintiffs are seeking a
trial by jury, according to court documents.

"Plaintiffs bring this consumer class action lawsuit because the
defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold 2017-2020
Subaru Forester, 2017-2020 Subaru Outback, 2017-2020 Subaru
Crosstrek, 2017-2020 Subaru Legacy and 2017-2020 Subaru Impreza
vehicles (collectively known as class vehicles) without disclosing
that the class vehicles' windshields are defective and dangerous
due to the fact that the windshields are spontaneously and/or
unreasonably cracking, chipping and otherwise breaking," a portion
of the consolidated complaint reads.

According to a consolidated complaint, filed earlier in February by
all of the suit's plaintiffs, Subaru "failed to disclose material
facts and a safety concern to purchasers and lessees of the class
vehicles." The consolidated complaint combines Powell's original
suit with two additional class action cases over the auto
manufacturer's windshields that were filed in California and New
Jersey.

In its advertising, Subaru emphasizes the safety, quality and
reliability of its vehicles knowing consumers rely upon such
representations when purchasing or leasing vehicles, according to
the consolidated complaint. Several class members allege the auto
manufacturer knowingly sold vehicles that did not fit its safety
standard.

"Selling vehicles with dangerously defective windshields and
refusing to take responsibility for the defects is directly
contrary to the safety conscious, trustworthy, and reliable image
Subaru advertises," a portion of the consolidated complaint reads.
"Nevertheless, Subaru refuses to honor its commitment to its loyal
customers, is jeopardizing the safety of the public, and is forcing
its customers to bear the expense of Subaru's mistakes and
malfeasance."

According to court documents, Subaru issued a technical bulletin to
its dealers describing the alleged defect in its windshields. The
National Highway Transportation Safety Authority also received
complaints from Subaru owners who experienced issues with their
windshields, according to the consolidated complaint.

"Defendants' failure to disclose the defect at the time of purchase
is material because no reasonable consumer expects to spend
hundreds of dollars to repair or replace windshields that crack
either spontaneously or due to a mild impact that should not result
in cracking," the complaint said.

Due to the allegations mentioned in the consolidated complaint, all
plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury. As of press time Subaru has
yet to respond, look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for more
information on this suit. [GN]


SUN LIFE: Faces $10-Mil. Class Action in Canada Over LTD Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Connolly Obagi LLP on Feb. 19 announced the
commencement of a proposed $10 million Canada-wide Class Action
against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), together
with a claim for $10 million in punitive and exemplary damages.

The proposed Class Action is brought by Giulia Belec, of Carleton
Place, Ontario, who was employed by the Federal Government for
thirty-seven (37) years as an administrator until her medical
retirement on or about August 31, 2011.

The proposed Class Members include all persons employed by the
Federal Government, or who were employed by the Federal Government,
and who received long term disability ("LTD") benefits from Sun
Life under Group Policy No. 12500-G, at any time dating back to
April 30, 1997 through to the present date.

The claim alleges that Sun Life incorrectly calculated the cost of
living increase to which all Class Members were entitled on an
annual basis. It is alleged that Sun Life calculated the cost of
living increase based on the Class Members' net LTD benefit after
the application of deductions rather than against the Class
Members' gross LTD benefits prior to the application of
deductions.

It is also alleged that Sun Life knew that the manner in which it
was calculating the cost of living increase, due and owing to the
Class Members, was contrary to the terms of the Policy and that it
willfully mislead the Class Members in doing so.

If any person is employed by the Federal Government, or formerly
employed by the Federal Government, and is in receipt of, or was in
receipt of, LTD benefits from Sun Life under the terms of the
Policy identified herein, please email info@connollyobagi.com,
subject line "SUN LIFE CLASS ACTION", and provide your name, group
certificate number, history of employment with the Federal
Government and your history of receipt of LTD benefits. [GN]


SUNRISE SENIOR: Says Claims in California Class Action "Baseless"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lois A. Bowers, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports that
one of the country's largest senior living operators is pushing
back against a potential class action lawsuit in California,
calling its claims "baseless" and "categorically false." The
outcome could affect operators across the country.

Sunrise Senior Living made the comments to the New York Times for
an article about what the newspaper described as an "ongoing
campaign" of lawsuits against large assisted living operators doing
business in the Golden State. The complaints maintain that when
resident assessments reveal increasing care and service needs, fees
may increase, but staffing levels may not. Plaintiffs' attorney
Kathryn Stebner told the newspaper that the practice could be
considered financial elder abuse and that the assisted living
business model can be "fraudulent."

In 2016, according to the article, a group of law firms settled
with Emeritus / Brookdale Senior Living for $13 million and Atria
Senior Living for $6.4 million, and lawsuits against Aegis Living
and Oakmont Senior Living are pending court decisions about whether
they will be certified as class actions.

Sunrise reportedly argued in court that documents sought by
plaintiffs' attorneys were "protected trade secrets," but the judge
disagreed. The plaintiffs' attorneys are said to be seeking class
action status for the lawsuits and also want the judge to force
operators to change their practices.

"[I]f the plaintiffs win further settlements, lawyers in other
states may start taking notes," author Paula Span wrote.

Sunrise was No. 4 on Argentum's 2019 list of largest senior living
providers and No. 5 on the American Seniors Housing Association's
2019 ASHA 50 list of largest senior living operators. [GN]


TELENAV INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Telenav, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNAV) resulting from allegations that
Telenav may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

On February 11, 2020, Telenav disclosed that it would be unable to
timely file its quarterly report for the period ended December 31,
2019. In a Form 12b-25 filed with the SEC, Telenav stated that it
had "updated its reporting of revenue related to its agreements
with Grab Holdings, Inc." resulting in revenue corrections for the
quarter ended September 30, 2019 and other adjustments. Telenav
also disclosed that there was "a material weakness in its internal
control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2019 and
December 31, 2019."

On this news, Telenav's stock price fell $0.28 per share, or 4.52%,
to close at $5.92 per share on February 12, 2020.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Telenav investors. If you purchased shares of
Telenav please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1778.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


TIVITY HEALTH: Klein Reminds Investors of Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Tivity Health, Inc. (TVTY).
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tivity Health, Inc. (TVTY)
Class Period: March 8, 2019 to February 19, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020

The TVTY lawsuit alleges that Tivity Health, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) following the Nutrisystem Acquisition, Tivity's Nutrition
segment faced significant operational challenges; (ii) the
foregoing would foreseeably have a significant impact on Tivity's
revenues; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TVTY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tivity-health-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5545&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Tel: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
         Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that acquired Tupperware Brands Corporation
(NYSE: TUP) securities between January 30, 2019 and February 24,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Tupperware investors have
until April 27, 2020, to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss and wish to
participate, to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact attorney Brian
Brooks:

         Brian Brooks
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         Tel: (212) 682-5340
         Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224,
         E-mail: bbrooks@glancylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/

The class action complaint, captioned Ben Lapin v. Tupperware
Brands Corporation, et al., No. 6:20-cv-00357 (M.D. Fla), alleges,
among other things, that on February 24, 2020, it was revealed that
the Company is investigating accounting irregularities relating to
its Fuller Mexico beauty business, delaying filing its annual
report, and "forecasting a need for relief concerning its existing
leverage ratio covenant in its $650 million Credit Agreement dated
March 29, 2019."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.61 per share, or
over 45%, to close at $3.11 per share on February 25, 2020.

The class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
the 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 that: (1) Tupperware
lacked effective internal controls; (2) there were accounting
irregularities relating to the Company's Fuller Mexico business;
(3) as a result of the above, Tupperware would need to investigate
those accounting irregularities and be unable to timely file its
2019 annual report; (4) Tupperware would need relief from its $650
million Credit Agreement; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued
earnings per share guidance; and (6) as a result of the above,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Tupperware securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than April 27, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact attorney
Brian Brooks of GPM, 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530, New York, New York
10169 at (212) 682-5340, Toll-Free at (888) 773-9224, by email to
bbrooks@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN]



TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Klein Reminds of Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Tupperware Brands Corporation
(TUP).  There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tupperware Brands Corporation (TUP)
Class Period: January 30, 2019 to February 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2020

According to the complaint, Tupperware Brands Corporation allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls;
(2) as a result, Tupperware would need to investigate the
accounting and liabilities of one of its brands, Fuller Mexico; (3)
consequently, Tupperware would be unable to timely file its annual
report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year 2019; (4) Tupperware did
not properly account for its accounts payable and accrued
liabilities at Fuller Mexico; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued
earnings per share guidance; (6) Tupperware would need relief from
its $650 million Credit Agreement; and (7) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TUP:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=5545&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Tel: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
         Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/
[GN]

VENATOR MATERIALS: Jurisdiction & Venue Order in Macomb Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VENATOR MATERIALS PLC, SIMON TURNER, KURT D.
OGDEN, STEPHEN IBBOTSON, RUSS R. STOLLE, HUNTSMAN CORPORATION,
HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC, HUNTSMAN (HOLDINGS) NETHERLANDS B.V.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, AND J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, Appellants, v. MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Appellees,
Case No. 05-19-01177-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas
for the Fifth District, Dallas, reversed the trial court's order
denying the Appellants' pleas to the jurisdiction and their venue
challenges.

In the suit alleging securities fraud, the trial court denied the
Appellants' pleas to the jurisdiction and their venue challenges.
The Appellants seek reversal of both rulings in the accelerated
interlocutory appeal.

Macomb County Employees' Retirement System ("Macomb") and Firemen's
Retirement System of St. Louis ("Fireman") filed the class action
on behalf of purchasers of securities in Venator Materials plc.
Two securities offerings are at issue, an initial public offering
on Aug. 3, 2017 ("IPO"), and a secondary offering on Nov. 30, 2017
("SPO").  In the IPO, Venator was "spun off" from Appellant
Huntsman Corp., and Huntsman Corp. received all of the proceeds
from the offerings.  Macomb and Firemen allege that appellants sold
over $1 billion worth of Venator ordinary shares at prices as high
as $22.50 per share.  They also allege that appellants Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("Merrill"), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), and
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPMS"), underwriters for the
offerings, received tens of millions of dollars in fees, and that
Venator's executives were compensated for their role in taking
Venator public.

In January 2017, there was a fire in the Pori, Finland plant.
Macomb and Firemen allege that in the subsequent IPO and SPO, the
Appellants failed to disclose the extent of the damage to the plant
and its effect on Venator's ability to produce titanium dioxide in
the future.  Because of the extensive damage from the fire, Venator
ultimately abandoned the Pori plant, losing 13 percent of its
titanium dioxide production capacity.  By late 2018, Venator's
share price had fallen to $3.65 per share.

Macomb and Firemen allege that they purchased shares in the IPO and
the SPO and were damaged thereby.  Neither Macomb nor Firemen is
incorporated in Texas or has its principal, or any, place of
business.

In their operative petition, Macomb and Firemen allege claims for
violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the federal
Securities Act of 1933.  Because Macomb and Firemen have filed a
class action alleging untrue statements or omissions of material
fact in connection with their purchase of Venator shares, they may
not assert claims based upon Texas statutory or common law.

Venator, Citigroup Global, Merrill, GS&Co., JPMS, Turner, Ibbotson,
Ogden, and Stolle filed special appearances.  Venator, Huntsman
Corp., Huntsman International, and HHN filed a motion to transfer
venue to Montgomery County.  Turner, Ibbotson, Ogden, and Stolle
filed joinders to the motion to transfer venue, subject to their
special appearances.  The trial court heard and denied all of the
special appearances and the motion to transfer venue.  The
accelerated appeal followed.

The 12 Appellants have filed five initial briefs.  Four of the five
briefs, filed by (1) Ogden and Stolle, (2) Ibbotson and Turner, (3)
Venator, and (4) the Underwriters, challenge the trial court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction.  The Huntsman entities contend
that there is no basis for maintaining venue in Dallas County, or
in the alternative, that Macomb and Firemen have not met their
burden to prove that venue is proper in Dallas County.

Among other things, the Appellate Court finds that (i) Venator does
not have continuous and systematic contacts with Texas that render
it "essentially at home" in Texas; (ii) Venator's alleged
violations of the Securities Act are insufficiently connected to
Texas to confer specific jurisdiction over Venator in Texas; (iii)
because there is no substantial connection between Texas and
Ibbotson's or Turner's actions giving rise to Macomb's and
Firemen's claims, there is no specific jurisdiction over Ibbotson
or Turner in Texas; (iv) ecause there is no substantial connection
between Texas and Ogden's or Stolle's actions giving rise to
Macomb's and Firemen's claims, there is no specific jurisdiction
over Ogden or Stolle in Texas; and (v) the Underwriters
specifically structured their agreement with the Huntsman entities
and Venator "so as neither to profit from the forum's laws nor be
subject to its jurisdiction.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's orders denying the
special appearances of Venator Materials PLC, Simon Turner, Kurt D.
Ogden, Stephen Ibbotson, Russ R. Stolle, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and rendered judgment
dismissing the Appellees' claims against those Appellants for lack
of personal jurisdiction.  The Appellate Court remanded the case
for the trial court to enter an order transferring the Appellees'
claims against Appellants Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman
International LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V. to
Montgomery County.

In accordance with the Appellate Court's Opinion of the date, the
trial court's orders of Sept. 3, 2019 (i) denying the special
appearances of appellants Kurt D. Ogden, Simon Turner, Stephen
Ibbotson, Venator Materials PLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; (ii) denying the special
appearance of appellant Russ R. Stolle; and (iii) denying the
motion of appellants Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman International
LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V. to transfer venue,
are reversed.

The claims of Appellees Macomb County Employees' Retirement System
and Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis against appellants
Kurt D. Ogden, Simon Turner, Stephen Ibbotson, Russ R. Stolle,
Venator Materials PLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC are dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

The cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order
transferring the Appellees' claims against Appellants Huntsman
Corporation, Huntsman International LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings)
Netherlands B.V. to Montgomery County.

Appellants Kurt D. Ogden, Simon Turner, Stephen Ibbotson, Russ R.
Stolle, Venator Materials PLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman
International LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V. recover
their costs of the appeal from Appellees Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System and Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wsu2Nx from Leagle.com.

Razvan Ungureanu, John R. Christian, Andres Correa, Craig Smyser,
David S. Coale, Michael K. Hurst, Yevgeniy Eugene Zilberman, for
Venator Materials, PLC, Appellant.

Richard A. Sayles -- dsayles@bradley.com -- Daniel H. Gold, William
D. Marsh, Jr., Matthew A. McGee, Anne McGowan Johnson, Richard
Thaddeus Behrens, for Huntsman Corporation, et al., Appellant.

David P. Friedman -- dfriedman@murthalaw.com -- Jeffrey M.
Tillotson, Caitlin Grusauskas, Audra J. Soloway, Geoffrey R.
Chepiga, for Citigroup Global Markets Inc., et al., Appellant.

David J. Goldsmith -- dgoldsmith@labaton.com -- Joe Kendall, Steven
F. Hubachek, for Macomb County Employees' Retirement System and
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, Appellee.


VOLKSWAGEN: To Appeal Australian Record Dieselgate Fines
--------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that Volkswagen will appeal Australian record
fines levelled by the Federal Court in the wake of its "dieselgate"
scandal.

The German manufacturer has faced legal action around the world
after using software to mask the real-world diesel emissions of
popular models, misleading customers and environmental regulators
in many markets.

It says a $125 million fine handed down by Justice Lindsay Foster
is unfair.

The previous record fine for a car manufacturer in Australia was
$10 million, paid by Ford to address what the ACCC described as
"unconscionable" conduct surrounding faulty dual-clutch
transmissions.

Volkswagen and the ACCC agreed on a $75 million settlement made on
what the car maker described as "a no-admissions basis" in October
2019.

Justice Foster said at the time he was "really outraged" by the
proposal, telling the ACCC it should not agree to do "whatever the
Germans want" and be "on the same side".

Returning to court in December, Justice Foster said the agreed $75
million figure was "manifestly inadequate" given the manufacturer's
"egregious" and "calculated" breaches, and that $125 million was a
more suitable deterrent for other manufacturers.

Volkswagen AG, the German parent company to its importer, released
a statement saying it "firmly believes that the penalty agreed in
principle with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) and submitted jointly to the Court as appropriate to resolve
the regulatory proceedings was a fair amount".

VW says a notice of appeal filed in February "relates specifically
to the additional $50 million imposed by the Federal Court of
Australia".

The Federal Court will consider Volkswagen's appeal in coming
months.

VW and Audi have already agreed to pay customers affected by the
issue between $87 million and $127 million in class action
settlements. [GN]


WESTERN MILLING: $650K Benitez Labor Suit Deal Gets Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AGUSTIN BENITEZ, CARLOS MORALES, and STEVEN VILLAREAL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN MILLING, LLC, KRUSE INVESTMENT COMPANY,
INC., and PERFECTION PET FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01484-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement.

The Defendants are in the business of pet food manufacturing and
operate, through PPF, a dog biscuit plant, dog kibble plant, and a
warehouse in Visalia, California.  The Plaintiffs and the putative
class members ("PCMs") are former and current non-exempt, hourly
employees who worked at any of the Defendants' PPF pet food plans
and/or warehouse in Visalia during the applicable limitations
period.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to provide a
timely first off-duty meal period before the end of the fifth hour
of work and failed to provide a second meal period and a third
off-duty rest period during the PCMs' 12-hour shifts.  As a result
of the meal and rest period policies and practices, the Plaintiffs
further allege that the meal and rest period violations resulted in
derivative violations, including failing to provide premium pay for
the untimely meal periods, failing to provide accurate, itemized
wage statements, and failing to pay all wages owed after
termination of employment.

On Nov. 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging class
wage and hour violations in the Court, styled Villarreal, et al. v.
Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01661-LJO-EPG.  With
that class complaint, Plaintiff Steven Villareal also asserted an
individual claim of interference in violation of the Family Medical
Leave Act ("FMLA").   On Jan. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint in Villareal adding a claim for penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  On Feb. 7,
2017, PPF filed a motion to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate the
claims on an individual basis—which the Court granted on May 2,
2017, and dismissed Villareal.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs and PPF participated in an early
mediation, which was unsuccessful.  On Dec. 6, 2018, WM filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  After the motion was briefed but
before the hearing, the parties agreed to stay all proceedings in
both the Villareal arbitration and the action and attempt another
mediation to reach a global resolution of both matters.  The
parties agreed to mediate the case with the assistance of mediator
Paul Grossman, Esq., a partner in the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP
who specializes in wage and hour mediations.

On May 16, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation before Mr.
Grossman, and agreed subject to approval by the Court, to a global
settlement of the Villareal arbitration and the action.  To bring
all of the claims asserted in both actions before the Court for the
purposes of approval of the proposed settlement, the parties
stipulated to the filing of a first amended complaint ("FAC"),
which is the operative pleading in the action.

The FAC asserts six causes of action under the California Labor
Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders,
and Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 ("UCL").  The
Plaintiffs allege class and collective violations on behalf of
hemselves and the PCMs for: (1) failure to provide meal periods;
(2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to provide
accurate wage statements; (4) waiting time penalties; and (5)
violation of the UCL for unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent
business acts or practices; and (6) penalties pursuant to the
California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  Plaintiff
Villarreal also asserts an individual claim for FMLA interference.

On Nov. 7, 2019, the parties executed the settlement agreement
currently before the Court.  The next day, the Plaintiffs filed the
present unopposed motion for conditional certification and for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the parties' proposed settlement
agreement, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all current
and former non-exempt hourly employees of PPF who worked at least
one shift of more than five hours at any of PPF's Visalia,
California pet food plants and/or warehouse" at any time during the
class period as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants would pay a
maximum settlement amount of $650,000 allocated as follows:

   (a) $315,400 already paid to 194 PCMs as a result of the
       Defendants' individual settlement program to settle the
       claims of those PCMs;

   (b) attorney's fees of up to one-third, or $216,666.67, to be
       paid to the class counsel, plus reasonable costs incurred
       (currently estimated to be roughly $17,000);

   (c) estimated settlement administration costs currently quoted
       at $6,900 to be paid to the settlement administrator
       Simpluris, Inc.;

   (d) penalties of $22,500 to be paid to the Labor and Workforce
       Development Agency ("LWDA") pursuant to California Labor
       Code Section 2699(i);

   (e) incentive awards of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Benitez
       and Morales and $20,000 to Plaintiff Villarreal; and

   (f) the remaining net settlement amount, estimated to be
       $31,934.33, to be distributed to the class members after
       taking into account payments already made via the
       individual settlement program.  The net settlement
       amount will be distributed to class members based on
       the number of weeks worked for each class member
       divided by the total weeks worked by all class members
       during the class period.

The proposed settlement provides that the settlement amount is
non-reversionary.  If any checks remain uncashed after 90 days,
those amounts will be donated to the cy pres beneficiary Valley
Children's Hospital.

Magistrate Judge Oberto granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The conditional
class certification under Rule 23 is approved, and the settlement
class is defined as all current and former non-exempt hourly
employees of Perfection Pet Foods, LLC (PPF) who worked at least
one shift of more than five hours at any of PPF's Visalia,
California pet food plants and/or warehouse at any time from Nov.
2, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval.

The Court appointed (i) the Plaintiffs' counsel Hoyer & Hicks, and
United Employees Law Group, P.C. as class counsel; (ii) the named
plaintiffs, Agustin Benitez, Carlos Morales, and Steven Villareal,
as class representatives; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as claims
administrator.

The proposed notice conforms with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and is approved.  

The Plaintiffs' request for class representative enhancement
payments are granted preliminarily -- subject to a petition and
review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing -- in the amounts
up to $20,000 for Steven Villareal; $10,000 for Agustin Benitez,
and $10,000 for Carlos Morales.  The Class members and their
counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at
the final approval and fairness hearing.

The Class counsel's requests for fees not to exceed 33.333% of the
gross settlement amount and expenses up to $17,000 are granted
preliminarily, subject to the counsel's petition for fees and
review at the final approval and fairness hearing.  The class
members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if
they so desire, at the final approval and fairness hearing.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for May 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. with the motion for final approval of
class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of
the final approval hearing.

The Plaintiffs' proposed settlement implementation schedule is
adopted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/hDwSj8 from Leagle.com.

Agustin Benitez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Steven Villarreal, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Carlos Morales, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard
Anderson Hoyer -- rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks, Ryan Lee
Hicks -- rhicks@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks & Walter L. Haines --
whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC.

Western Milling, LLC & Kruse Investment Company, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Christopher Michael Rusca, Sagaser Watkins &
Wieland, PC, Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC &
Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland,
PC.

Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark D.
Kruthers -- mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- Dowling Aaron
Incorporated.

Kings County DCSS, Creditor, represented by Kendra Deann Weber,
Kings County Department of Child Support Services.


WHATCOM COUNTY, WA: 60-Ft. Right of Way Judgment in Yorkston Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARNEY M. YORKSTON, JR. and CAROLLYN D. YORKSTON, in
their individual and marital estate, and as representatives of a
class, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal
entity, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 78530-3-I (Wash.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed
the trial court's conclusion that the right-of-way ("ROW") of the
road at issue is 60 feet wide and its declaratory judgment to that
effect.

Barney Yorkston and his wife, Carollyn Yorkston, commenced the
class action seeking a declaratory judgment, quiet title, and
injunctive relief against Whatcom County, asserting that a county
road abutting their property had a ROW 30 feet wide, and not 60
feet wide as had been the County's stated position for nearly a
century.

The earliest recorded effort to designate a road in the Birch Bay
area of the County took place on Feb. 14, 1876, well before
statehood, when a group of landowners petitioned the County to
authorize creation of a private road.  On the same day, a viewer's
report was filed and the private road was declared and recorded by
the county.  The road ran directly north from the halfway point
between Sections 31 and 32, Township 40 North, Range 1 East for a
quarter mile before turning due west and running for one mile to
reach Birch Bay.  The road, which would later be designated as Road
46, occupied a ROW that was 30 feet wide.  However, it was not
surveyed or platted at this time.

The following year, on Nov. 8, 1877, area landowners presented a
petition for the creation of a public road to run from the west
line of Section 25, Township 40 North, Range 1 West, westerly along
the shoreline of Birch Bay to the line between Sections 23 and 24.
There, the road turned due north to reach Drayton Harbor and ran
along the shoreline to the far end of the Semiahmoo Spit.  The road
also occupied a 30-foot-wide ROW for its entire length.  A viewer's
report was provided for this road on Feb. 6, 1878, and the route
was ordered established as Road 22 on Aug. 6, 1878, by the County's
Board of Commissioners.

Both the Road 46 and Road 22 petitions had been signed by B.H.
Bruns.  Bruns acquired land from the United States government in
1871 and owned over 1,000 acres in the area at the time, including
the southeast and southwest quarters of Section 24, through which
Road 22 ran.  In May 1883, landowners living beyond Road 46's
eastern end petitioned for the creation of an east-west road to
connect Road 46 to an existing road to Ferndale.  

On Jan. 15, 1884, the County published a notice in the Whatcom
Reveille, directed to affected landowners, declaring the County's
intent to designate the entire route as a county road, and
explaining that any objections to such designation, or claims for
damages, must be filed with the County auditor no later than the
first day of the Commission's February term.  There is no record or
indication of any objection to the road's designation.  The order
did not specify a width for this road, but the statute in effect at
the time, chapter 229, section 2979 of the Code of 1881.

At this time, Bruns owned all of the property along the road within
Sections 23 and 24, while the area within Section 25 was Nessel's
property.  There is no further history of the road in the record
prior to 1916.

In November 1920, Whatcom County's prosecuting attorney sent a
letter to B.H. Bruns's daughter, Wilhelmina Julien, stating the
County's position that the ROW was 60 feet wide.  Another of B.H.
Bruns's daughters, Emma Bruns Morgan, lived along Birch Bay Drive
just west of Harborview Road and platted her property in 1925 and
again in 1939, with both plats indicating that the ROW was 60 feet
wide.

Meanwhile, in 1920, A.F. and Augusta Stone purchased land in the
southwest quarter of Section 24 that included Yorkston's current
property.  The Stones began selling subdivided lots that connected
to, and ended at, the road's ROW, but did not specify the ROW's
width.  In 1922, the Stones platted their property in the northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, calling this
subdivision "Cottonwood Beach Park" and representing the road, now
called Birch Bay Drive, as having a ROW of 60 feet.

In 1930, the Commission resolved to construct Lateral Highway No. 2
along Birch Bay over the existing Road 46.  The survey for the new
highway showed a ROW of 60 feet for its entire length, including
the full distance of the part of Road 46 whose width is now in
dispute.  The specifications for the road provided for clearing and
grubbing to be done for a width of 20 feet on either side of the
road's center line and for culverts, with a length of up to 45 feet
from one side of the road to the other, to be installed at various
points along the highway.

In 1944, the County granted its first utility franchise in the area
to the Blaine-Pleasant Valley Water Association to lay, construct,
maintain and repair water pipe lines and water mains and all
necessary laterals on, across and over Road No. 46 from its
intersection with the old Blaine-Ferndale paved road to Birch Bay
for a period of 25 years.  Ten years later, the County granted a
50-year franchise to the Birch Bay Water Co. to construct, operate
and maintain a water pipe line on Road No. 22-46, commencing at
section line between Sections 31 and 32, Township 40 North, Range 1
East, W.M., thence West to Birch Bay; thence in a generally
Northwesterly direction along the shores of Birch Bay, to the end
of said Road No. 22-46.

In 1961, the County granted Puget Sound Power & Light (and its
successors in interest) a 50-year franchise to construct, maintain
and operate transmission and distribution lines for transmitting
and distributing electric energy for power, light, heat and all
other purposes and uses, together with poles, wires and other
appurtenances, including on such poles telephone lines as one of
such appurtenances, upon, over, along and across all of the
streets, avenues, alleys, lanes and public places in the recorded
plats of the area, all of which showed a 60-foot ROW for Birch Bay
Drive.

In 1983, a County ordinance granted Cablevision a 25-year
non-exclusive franchise to operate and maintain coaxial cable along
Birch Bay Drive for its entire length.  A 2005 ordinance gave Puget
Sound Energy a 25-year franchise to set, erect, lay, construct,
extend, support, attach, connect, maintain, repair, replace,
enlarge, operate and use facilities in, upon, over, under, along,
across and through the Franchise Area to provide for the
transmission, distribution and sale of electrical energy for power,
heat, and light, and any other purposes for which electrical energy
may be used.

All of these franchise agreements were predicated on Birch Bay
Drive's ROW being 60 feet in width, and today these utility lines
occupy various portions of the full ROW.  In addition, since 1994,
both the utilities and several private landowners along the
roadway—including Yorkston—have sought and received
encroachment permits to use portions of the 60-foot ROW.  Plats and
short plats prepared on behalf of the County and various landowners
also consistently represent the ROW as being 60 feet in width.

In February 2015, the Yorkstons filed the declaratory judgment
action pursuant to Washington's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act
("UDJA"), chapter 7.24 RCW, seeking a determination regarding the
width of Birch Bay Drive's ROW.  In September, the matter was
certified as a class action, with Yorkston representing the class.
Yorkston asserted that the road's ROW was 30 feet wide, while the
County maintained that it was 60 feet wide and, as a counterclaim,
asserted a prescriptive easement over a 60-foot-wide ROW.

A two-day bench trial was held in September 2017, with supplemental
argument in December that same year.  The trial court delivered its
oral decision on Jan. 3, 2018. Findings of fact and conclusions of
law, along with the final order of judgment, were entered on May
29, 2018.  The trial court concluded that the ROW was 60 feet wide.


Yorkston appeals, asserting that a procedural irregularity in the
1884 county commission process culminating in its order designating
the road meant that the 30-foot ROW of a preexisting road was
retained.

As the record shows, the Appellate Court finds no objection, nor
any form of appeal, was made within 20 days of the Commission's
1884 decision.  Thus, the validity of the 1884 Commission decision
is beyond challenge.  Yorkston is free to seek a declaration as to
the effect of that valid decision.  It is in this context that the
Appellate Court turns to the merits of the dispute.

The Appellate Court finds that the trial court correctly concluded
that the Commission had the authority conferred by chapter 236 to
order the survey and establishment of a new road overriding
existing roads, neither of which had ever been surveyed.  The trial
court also concluded that, given the wording of chapter 229,
section 2979, any road established after that statute's enactment
would be 60 feet in width unless otherwise specified.  Having
elucidated the extent of the Commission's power and the effect of
its actions, in light of the trial record and the then-material
statutes, the Appellate Court turns now to the Commission's order
itself to determine whether the evidence before the trial court
supports the conclusion that the County's act created a road with a
ROW 60 feet wide.

The Appellate Court finds that there was sufficient evidence, both
in testimony adduced and in exhibits presented, to persuade a
rational, fair-minded person of the truth of the premises stated by
the trial court, including all of the findings to which Yorkston
objects.  The trial court's findings of fact are clearly supported
by substantial evidence.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's
conclusion that the ROW of the road at issue is 60 feet wide and
its declaratory judgment to that effect.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/JoNj7I from Leagle.com.

Mark J. Lee -- mark@bellinghamlegal.com -- Brownlie Wolf & Lee LLP,
230 E Champion St, Bellingham, WA, 98225-4548, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

George Roche, Attorney at Law, 311 Grand Ave Ste 201, Bellingham,
WA, 98225-4038, Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office, Attorney at
Law, 311 Grand Avenue Suite 201, Bellingham, WA, 98225, Counsel for
Respondent(s).


[*] CBD Companies Respond to New Consumer Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
J. Lee Gray, Esq. -- lgray@hollandhart.com -- of Holland & Hart
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that there has been a
surge of new class-action lawsuits against CBD companies filed on
the heels of the FDA's slew of warning letters issued in November.
These lawsuits assert numerous consumer-fraud and warranty-type
claims and allege that CBD products were mislabeled and "illegal"
based on statements made by FDA in warning letters. Two CBD
companies have begun fighting back in motions to dismiss these
class actions filed in early February. In these motions, the CBD
companies argue that the 2018 Farm Bill placed no restrictions on
CBD products that comply with that law (i.e., contain 0.3% or less
THC) and that their products are not "illegal" -- even though there
is regulatory uncertainty for these products until FDA issues
appropriate regulations.

The CBD companies also argue that FDA's warning letters and public
statements are not "official actions" of the FDA and do not carry
the legal weight (or precedent) of laws passed by Congress or
regulatory rules. Thus, these companies argue, the warning letters
and press releases do not, in and of themselves, make the CBD
products they sold illegal as long as the products use CBD that was
produced in accordance with the Farm Bill and USDA Interim Rules on
Hemp. In addition, the CBD companies argue that their products are
not sold or marketed as drug products as defined by FDA. In doing
so, the companies argue that their over-the-counter CBD products
are not the same as an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex, which is an
"marijuana-based oral solution that contains a purified formulation
of CBD" instead of full-spectrum hemp extract. This distinction
between full or broad-spectrum hemp extract and the CBD isolate
used in Epidiolex may become more important as FDA grapples with
evaluating CBD as either a new dietary ingredient (NDI) or
generally recognized as safe (GRAS), which is required for use in
nutritional supplements and/or food and beverage products.

Based on typical briefing schedules, the courts could rule on these
motions as early as mid-March. After a Florida court stayed a
similar case pending FDA regulatory action, these decisions will be
closely watched to get a better idea of the likely fate of several
similar cases pending against other CBD companies. [GN]


[*] Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Revised PRC Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Yang, Esq., and Victor Yang, Esq. -- victor.yang@clydeco.com
-- of Clyde & Co, in an article for Mondaq, report that lawsuits
against listed companies and stock market intermediaries have
surged in recent years in China against the backdrop of intensified
investigations into misconduct in the financial market (especially
misstatements on securities) launched by the China Securities
Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Individual investors who have become
increasingly assertive of their rights have no doubt contributed to
this surge. However, from our experience and based on cases we have
observed, Chinese Courts would usually entertain such lawsuits only
on a singular "one-case-one-file" basis. Such an approach,
regularly pilloried by the press, not only serves to make already
aggrieved individual investors feel further victimised but also
saddles the Courts with additional (but arguably not entirely
necessary) workload.

In view of the circumstances set out above, the draft revision to
the PRC Securities Law was passed by China's top legislature on
Saturday, 28 December 2019, and the legislation would kick into
place from 1 March 2020. In addition to outlining detailed laws and
guidance on securities issuance and trading, the takeover of listed
companies, information disclosure and so on, it would appear that
the revised Securities Law has introduced certain "aggressive"
clauses under Chapter 6 -- investor protection with a view to
exploring "Quasi-Class Action litigation with Chinese
characteristics" arising from misstatement on securities.

Meanwhile, the Supreme People's Court also promulgated the Minutes
of the 9th National Court's Civil and Commercial Trial Work
Conference (the "Minutes") in November 2019, setting out detailed
rules on cutting-edge legal issues in civil and commercial cases
(including how to explore "Quasi-Class Action" in securities
litigation).

The Minutes and the revised PRC Securities Law, when read in
conjunction, bear the following key points:

"Joint action" is applicable to litigation arising from
misstatements on securities.

Under the new regime, if "the subject matter of the action is of
the same category and a party consists of multiple persons", the
party may elect a representative to proceed with the lawsuits.
Further, if "there are other potential investors having the same
claims, the People's Court may issue an announcement stating the
facts of the claim and notifying investors to register with the
People's Court within a certain period. The judgments or rulings
rendered by the same People's Court shall be valid and binding on
the investors who have so registered".

The aforesaid litigation regime, usually dubbed as "joint
litigation", has been on the list of statutes since the year 1991,
although it is not often seen in action. Interestingly, the
requirements for filing a joint litigation are actually easier to
satisfy. In lawsuits arising out of misstatements on securities,
the subject matter of the action usually falls into the same
category (i.e. investment losses caused by misstatements) and the
claimant is very likely to be more than one single person (i.e.
various individual investors).

In view of the same, the Supreme People's Court has in the Minutes
imposed more detailed requirements on how to make the joint
litigation regime more readily applicable to lawsuits arising from
misstatements on securities. Apart from the routines for case
filing and election of representative etc, the Minutes specifically
request that, prior to issuing the announcement for registration of
joint litigation, the People's Court should review the facts of the
disputes and decide as preliminary issues, (i) whether or not the
defendants have committed misstatements, (ii) whether or not the
misstatements had then led to the investigation, and (iii) the
dates on which the misstatements were made, disclosed and
corrected. In other words, by the time such an announcement is
issued, the People's Court should already have had a rough picture
of the key issues, which will hopefully expedite the proceedings.

Investor protection institution will play a more significant role
in China
There are differences between legal protection of investors in
China and in the United States, for example, the number of
claimants involved, the amount of damages sought and so on. It can
be seen that China appears to have adopted an "opt-in" legal
regime, i.e. only when a People's Court has issued an announcement
and when a potential claimant has registered with the People's
Court could the judgments or rulings rendered by the same People's
Court be valid for and binding on the registered claimant.

However, the revised PRC Securities Law provides that an investor
protection institution mandated by 50 or more investors can
participate in legal actions as a representative, and can register
the investors confirmed by the CSDC8 with the People's Court unless
any investor explicitly refuses to be registered9. It is believed
that China is testing the water to see if the "opt-out" regime
under the U.S. Federal Law can work out locally.

Conclusion
As the Chinese securities market is now becoming one of the largest
in the world, and upon the piloting of a registration-based (as
opposed to the current approval-based) IPO system, it is reasonable
to conclude that China will have more upcoming cases of joint
securities litigation. Having said that, it must be said that the
effectiveness of this new regime will largely depend on whether,
and to what extent, the law will be robustly applied by the
People's Court. [GN]


[*] Consumer Protection Class Actions on the Rise, Report Shows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip R. Stein, Esq. -- pstein@bilzin.com -- and Bilzin Sumberg,
Esq., of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, report that lawyers or business people
who feel they have been hearing about a lot more consumer
protection class actions lately have good reason for that feeling.
A recent report by Lex Machina, part of LexisNexis, highlights an
extraordinary increase in federal consumer protection class actions
over the last decade. The number of such class actions almost
tripled, even though consumer protection suits generally (i.e.,
suits other than class actions) increased by less than 20% over the
period studied, 2009 through 2018. The number of class action
filings focused on consumer protection issues rose from 1,223 in
2009 to 3,382 in 2018. Though 2019 filings have not been compiled
and verified as of this time, observers widely expect a number
similar to, or larger than, 2018.

In its "Consumer Protection Litigation Report," Lex Machina noted
that cases involving data privacy issues and unwanted text messages
were most responsible for the increase. Plaintiffs' attorneys
evidently perceive the potential for substantial company liability
in data breach cases. At the same time, consumers and regulators
alike are communicating higher expectations for companies' data
security systems and privacy measures. Regulators, in particular,
are increasing the pressure on companies to bolster and protect
their privacy and security practices and standards. This has
created an opportunity for private plaintiffs and their counsel. In
certain circumstances, they can contend that, among other things, a
company's alleged failure to conform to "accepted best practices"
(as manifested, perhaps, in statutes like the much-discussed
California Consumer Privacy Act) contributed to the injuries
suffered by the putative class.

Consumer protection class actions in the period studied were, of
course, hardly limited to data breach cases. Class actions alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), for
example, rose 740%, and ones asserting Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) claims increased by more than 150%. TCPA lawsuits in recent
years have most often focused on text messages sent to cellphones.
FCRA suits over the last few years have reflected consumers' higher
expectations that their data will be kept private, not sold, or
widely shared.

Financial services companies may be among the companies most
vulnerable to putative class actions focused on supposed data
privacy violations. They generally have access to customers'
sensitive financial information, not to mention other personally
identifiable information (such as social security numbers, address
information, and sometimes health-related information) of employees
and customers. Many companies in the financial services industry
also sell, transfer or assign financial instruments (residential
mortgage loans, as one example), and in so doing, must convey to
the receiving company underlying data sets (such as loan files)
rife with confidential personal information. As such, providers of
financial services are both an inviting target for hackers, and
unfortunately have many opportunities to inadvertently place
private customer data in the wrong hands, or to violate customers'
expectations of privacy in some other way.

The good news for companies in that industry is that the increase
in consumer protection (and consumer finance) related class actions
does not result from any lack of arguments available to defense
counsel in such cases. Indeed, defense counsel have had notable
successes of late, both with respect to challenging class
certification and contesting liability. As a recent decision from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit makes
clear, plaintiffs alleging consumer finance-related misconduct
typically cannot simply avoid establishing the basics of their
claims, even when they are afforded rights of action under
applicable statutes.

In Davis v. Mandarich Law Group, the Ninth Circuit provided a
useful reminder: district courts must consider and address whether
a plaintiff suffered an actual or imminent, concrete,
particularized injury as a result of the defendant's alleged
misconduct. Plaintiff Marla Davis filed a putative class action
alleging that defendant Mandarich Law Group violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending Davis a communication
that was inconsistent with a cited California statutory provision.
In addition, Davis claimed that Mandarich's conduct was "false,
deceptive, or misleading," and constituted debt collection by
"unfair or unconscionable means" under applicable federal
statutes.

Davis had initially prevailed, both in arbitration and in district
court, which confirmed the arbitrator's decision. In appellate
proceedings, Mandarich raised the issue of standing. The Ninth
Circuit determined that there was a "serious question" as to
whether Davis had adequately alleged an injury in fact. It likewise
questioned whether she could do so even if permitted to amend her
complaint. On those grounds, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to
the district court to determine whether Davis had the requisite
standing. The upshot of this case is that the potential
availability to consumers of federal statutory remedies, including
those provided under the FDCPA, does not relieve those consumers of
the necessity of establishing in court that they have suffered a
concrete injury. The need to establish a concrete injury may, in
turn, serve to diminish the chance that a plaintiff can maintain a
class action, because an injury that is different in nature (or in
other key respects) from injuries allegedly suffered by other
putative class members is often one that should not or cannot be
dealt with as part of a class action.

Financial services companies thus should take appropriate measures
to ensure that their privacy-related practices are in step with
consumer and regulator expectations, and recognize that part of the
urgency of doing so results from the staggering increase in
consumer protection-related putative class actions. If sued or
threatened with a suit of this type, though, companies must not
lose sight of the fact that they have numerous legal and factual
defenses at their disposal in most instances. [GN]


[*] Wisconsin Health Care Providers Face Wave of Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas D. Castronovo, Esq. -- ncastron@vonbriesen.com -- and
Susan E. Lovern, Esq. -- slovern@vonbriesen.com -- of von Briesen &
Roper, s.c., in an article for The National Law Review, report that
there is a wave of litigation confronting Wisconsin health care
providers: class action lawsuits alleging wrongful charges for
medical record requests. Since May 2017, more than 40 class actions
have been filed around the state. Patients have filed these cases
after their personal injury attorneys requested and paid certain
certification charges and retrieval fees for their health care
records. The lawsuits allege that the health care providers and
their vendors were not permitted to charge the statutorily-based
fees to anyone whom the patient authorized in writing to obtain
their health care records. The lawsuits demand the return of the
allegedly wrongful charges, plus exemplary damages of between $1
and $25,000 per violation.

By filing these cases as class actions, plaintiffs' attorneys seek
to include all instances where the health care provider or its
release of information (ROI) vendor charged the certification
charges and retrieval fees in the six years prior to filing the
lawsuit. To date, targets of these lawsuits have included
hospitals, physician groups, radiologists, chiropractors, physical
therapists, ambulance companies, a pharmacy, and a long-term care
facility, among others. Patients have brought suit in the following
counties: Milwaukee, Waukesha, Dane, La Crosse, Marathon, Dunn,
Barron, Portage, Wood, Washburn, Vernon, Eau Claire, Chippewa,
Marathon, Ashland, Polk, Outagamie and Winnebago.

Driving the lawsuits is a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, Moya v.
Aurora Health Care, Inc., which held that an attorney authorized by
his or her client in writing via a HIPAA authorization form to
obtain the client's health care records is a "person authorized by
the patient" and is therefore exempt from certification charges and
retrieval fees under Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b)4-5.1 Notably, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, issued in May 2017, reversed a
December 2015 published decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
that determined the patient's attorney was not a "person authorized
by the patient" and thus was subject to the fees.2

Prior to the Moya decision, many health care providers or their ROI
vendors charged patients' attorneys and other third-party
requestors the $8 certification charge and/or the $20 retrieval
fee. While the Supreme Court held that a patient's own personal
injury attorney cannot be charged these amounts, some parties have
argued that the Supreme Court left open the question of whether
other third parties who present a patient's signed HIPAA release
form, such as insurance companies and defense law firms, can be
charged these amounts. Most recently, the Court of Appeals noted in
Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Services, Inc. that there is nothing
in the Moya decision stating that a "person authorized by the
patient" is limited to a patient's attorney, as opposed to any
person authorized in writing by the patient.

To mitigate risk, many Wisconsin health care providers and their
ROI vendors have stopped charging requestors presenting a patient's
signed HIPAA release form the certification charges or retrieval
fees contemplated under Wis. Stat. Sec. 146.83. von Briesen &
Roper's attorneys are currently defending several health care
providers involved in these class action lawsuits. [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 ***