/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200709.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 137

                            Headlines

5 STAR NUTRITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cranor TCPA Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Appeals N.D. Texas Order to 5th Circuit
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: 6th Cir. Upholds Remand of Nessel to State Court
BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Settlement Motion Too Early, Court Says
BIMBO BAKERIES: Oddo Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 3rd Circuit

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
CASPER SLEEP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 18 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Neldner Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Four Potential Class Members Opt Out of Deal
DELEK US: Becker Seeks to Certify Inspectors' Collective Action
DENNYS INC: Approval of Notice to Servers Class Sought
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Class Cert. Proceedings in Coffey Suit Stayed
DOLLS KILL: Faces Brooks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

DUDLEY LAND: Penska Seeks to Certify Day Rate Landmen Class
DUNKIN' BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Chen Suit
EDDIE BAUER: Heredia Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
ENPHASE ENERGY: Klein Announces Aug. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing

ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Filing of Class Action
EVAN T SIRLIN: Bank Appeals Order in Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
FARMERS INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Monarch Says
FEDERAL ENERGY: Stop the Pipeline Appeals Ruling to 2nd Circuit
FENDI NORTH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims

FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Faces Class Action Over Sugarcane Burning
FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action Lawsuit
GC SERVICES: Matke Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
GC SERVICES: Wolf Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
GOLD TIM CORP: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL

GRAND CANYON: ClaimsFiler Reminds of July 13 Deadline
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Appiah Seeks to Certify Class of Floor Tiles Buyers
HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Sues Alleging Race & Sex Discrimination
HOUSTON, TX: Beckwith Files Cert. Petition in Sexual Assault Suit

IBERIABANK CORP: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Says
IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Notes of Aug. 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz Probing Claims on Behalf of Investors
IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Aug. 27 Deadline
IDEANOMICS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of August 27 Deadline

JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
JEVS HUMAN: Pendelton Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 3rd Circuit
KANSAS CITY: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
KIRKLAND LAKE: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of August 28 Deadline
KLX ENERGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Margarine Spray Labels "Deceptive," Torres Says
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Calif. Ct. Dismisses Veal Securities Class Action
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gaston Suit Seeks Class Certification
LG ELECTRONICS: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Hudock Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Jimenez Alleges Bias and Wage-and-Hour Violation

LOS ANGELES, CA: Protesters Join Class Action Against LAPD
LUSH COSMETICS: Brooks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
MDL 2591: Co-Lead Counsel Appeals Memorandums/Orders to 10th Cir.
MDL 2873: Gentile Suit v. 3M Co. Over AFFF Products, Consolidated
MDL 2938: Gladstone v. Evenflo Co Over Booster Seats Consolidated

MDL 2938: Woodson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
MEI PHARMA: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
MELTECH INC: Grove Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Collective Suit
MICHIGAN STATE FCU: Final Settlement Approval Sought
MILLENNIUM HEALTH: R. Mauthe Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir.

MONEY SOURCE: Court Denies Amended Bid to Certify Collective
MORPHE LLC: Faces Brooks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Proceedings in Otzelberger Suit Stayed

NED LAMONT: Parties Seek to Certify Class
NEW JERSEY EDUCATION: Smith Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay ABMs' Overtime Wages, Lopez Says
NEW YORK, NY: COBA Appeals Opinion and Judgment to Second Circuit
NEW YORK: Board Files Three Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit

NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Hernandez in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Griffin in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Turner in Gulino Suit
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Appeals Ruling in Lambert Suit to 9th Circuit
OHIO: Nine Dance Studios File Class Action

ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Decision in Forby Suit to Fifth Circuit
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Ahlman Suit
ORLEANS PARISH: Matthews Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews Appeals Amended Ruling to 9th Cir.

PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Johannessohn Appeals Decision to 8th Circuit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Certification of Follow-up Letter Class Sought
RALPH SOZIO: Class Status Sought on Habeas Corpus Petition
REBECCA ADDUCCI: Malam Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass

RESTASIS SUIT: Approval of Notice to End-Payors Class Sought
RITE AID: Court Grants Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class
RM PARTNERS: Asner Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
RM PARTNERS: Treppa Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline

SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Suit Seeks to Certify PAGA Classes
SAGINAW, MI: Taylor Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
SKINNER SERVICES: Appeals Ruling in Pineda FLSA Suit to 1st Cir.

SONTAG & HYMAN: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Chaperon Consumer Suit
SPERIAN ENERGY: Class Action for Breach of Contract Fails
STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Moorer Suit
SUNSHINE LIFE: Stein Suit Over TCPA Breach Moved to S.D. Florida
TYSON FOODS: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors

U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Class Certified in Davis' Oath Ceremony Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Wilderness Therapy Suit Won't Proceed as Class
UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Class Cert. in Dominguez Suit Denied
UNITED STATES: Appeals Order in Common Ground Suit Over CSR Costs
UNITED STATES: Cunningham Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir.

UTILIQUEST LLC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Muniz Suit
VERTILUX LTD: Suros Seeks to Certify Customer Service Reps Class
VITA-MIX CORP: Appeals Ruling in Linneman Suit to Sixth Circuit
VITALE'S ITALIAN: 6th Cir. Flips in Part Dismissal of Torres Suit
WASTE PRO: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Helpers, Calloway Says

WHOLE CART: Faces Reyes Class Suit in California Superior Court
WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Sinclair Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
XL SPECIALTY: Tex. App. Affirms Final Judgment in Uni-Pixel Suit

                            *********

5 STAR NUTRITION: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cranor TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lucas Cranor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in his lawsuit entitled Lucas Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:19-CV-908 on 2019-09-13, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lucas Cranor,
on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees filed
the lawsuit on September 13, 2019, seeking statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

5-Star Nutrition operates a chain of stores which sell vitamins and
supplements.  To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited
SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer.  Mr. Cranor did not give
express consent to receive such texts, says the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Lucas Cranor v. 5 Star
Nutrition, L.L.C., Case No. 19-51173, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LUCAS CRANOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee 5 STAR NUTRITION, L.L.C., is represented by:

          David Philip Whittlesey, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING, L.L.P.
          111 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: 512-647-1900
          E-mail: david.whittlesey@shearman.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Appeals N.D. Texas Order to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kristian Zamber filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled KRISTIAN ZAMBER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00114-O, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Forth Worth Division).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
American Airlines, Inc., asks the Court on Feb. 7, 2017, to
schedule a hearing on its motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled
Kristian Zamber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00114-O (S.D.
Fla.).

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as KRISTIAN ZAMBER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES,
INC., Case No. 20-10677, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Kristian Zamber is represented by:

          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1986
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                  aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com
                  jkahn@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP PC
          12222 Merit Drive, Suite 1200
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 253-8300
          Facsimile: (727) 822-1499
          E-mail: rmandel@jeeveslmanellawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., is represented by:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0590
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: ocarizb@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Dee J. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Cuneo, Esq.
          Lars L. Berg, Esq.
          KELLY HART & HALLMAN
          201 Main Street, Suite 2500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2500
          Facsimile: (817) 878-9280
          E-mail: Dee.kelly.2@khh.com
                  Elizabeth.cuneo@kellyhart.com
                  Lars.berg@kellyhart.com

               - and -

          James E. Brandt, Esq.
          Elizabeth (Betsy) Marks, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com
                  betsy.marks@lw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Bern, Esq.
          Arielle B. Nagel, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: Michael.bern@lw.com
                  Arielle.nagel@lw.com


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: 6th Cir. Upholds Remand of Nessel to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA NESSEL, Attorney General of the State of
Michigan, ex rel., The People of the State of Michigan,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; AMERIGAS PROPANE,
L.P., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-1098 (6th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order remanding the action to state court.

The State of Michigan, through its Attorney General, initiated the
lawsuit in state court in June 2018.  Michigan alleges that
AmeriGas -- the largest provider of residential propane in Michigan
-- violated numerous provisions of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act ("MCPA"), by engaging in unfair trade practices, including
illegal pricing schemes. The complaint states that the Attorney
General is authorized to bring the suit on behalf of the Michigan
residents affected by AmeriGas's alleged unfair practices, in part,
by Section 10 of the MCPA, codified at Mich. Comp. Laws Section
445.910.

AmeriGas then removed the case to federal court, arguing that the
Attorney General's lawsuit is a "class action" under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The district court
disagreed.  It found that the Attorney General's lawsuit did not
qualify as a "class action" under CAFA because Section 10 lacks the
core requirements of typicality, commonality, adequacy, and
numerosity that are necessary to certify a class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.  Thus, the district court found that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action and remanded the
case to state court.

AmeriGas next petitioned the Sixth Circuit for permission to appeal
the district court's remand order.  Although an order remanding a
case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
generally not appealable, the Court has discretion to accept an
appeal from a remand order when that appeal presents a CAFA-related
issue.  The Court granted the petition to appeal in order to
determine if the Attorney General's lawsuit brought pursuant to
Section 10 of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act is a "class
action" for purposes of CAFA removability.

The Sixth Circuit sees no clear statement in CAFA that Congress has
provided for removal of these types of actions brought by state
attorneys general.  Indeed, it does not appear that an attorney
general could ever successfully shoehorn this type of suit into
Rule 23's requirements, given that she is not a member of the class
who has claims "typical" of the claims of the class.  If the
Appellate Court was to find that the Attorney General's Section 10
lawsuit is a "class action" for purposes of CAFA, the lawsuit would
be required to satisfy Rule 23's class action requirements, which
it cannot do.  Absent any clear indication from Congress, the Sixth
Circuit declines to effectively invalidate the Michigan
Legislature's determination that an Attorney General should be able
to sue for injuries to consumers pursuant to Section 10.

Because Section 10 of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act does not
require the present lawsuit to satisfy the core requirements of a
federal class action, it is not a similar statute to Rule 23 for
purposes of CAFA.  Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order remanding the case to state court.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 27, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/E3PRBY from Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: James T. Hultquist -- jhultquist@reedsmith.com -- Timothy
R. Carwinski -- tcarwinski@reedsmith.com -- M. Patrick Yingling,
Jillian L. Burstein -- jburstein@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, John R. Prew -- jprew@harveykruse.com -- HARVEY
KRUSE, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Appellants.

Katherine J. Bennett, Darrin F. Fowler, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.


BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Settlement Motion Too Early, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERESA WISNESKI AND MILDRED
JONES, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. BELMONT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-02523-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson
entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for
      settlement; and

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Court said the parties have sought the approval of a settlement
prior to any determination of the certification of the class --
either conditionally or finally. This method is problematic for
several reasons. An FLSA suit does not become a collective action
until employees opt in to the suit. In addition, a named plaintiff
cannot settle claims on behalf of putative class members who have
not yet opted in.

The settlement agreement includes a broad release.  It provides
that " 'Releasees' refers to and includes Belmont Management
Company, Inc. and Belmont Management Company, Inc.'s present and
former subsidiaries, divisions, parent companies, holding
companies, members, officers, directors, employees, managers,
agents, servants, representatives, attorneys, insurers, affiliates,
successors, heirs and assigns."

The Court noted that including insurers as a released party is
"overly-broad and unfair."  Thus, the parties should narrow the
proposed releasees prior to submitting a new settlement agreement.

The Court also said it is unclear from the parties' motion as to
the basis for the named Plaintiffs' service or incentive award.
The settlement agreement provides for an award to Plaintiff
Wisneski of $4,500 as a combined settlement for her off-the-clock
claim and a service payment.  The settlement agreement allows
$2,000 for Plaintiff Jones' off-the-clock claim and a service
payment.

The Court is also concerned with the parties' request for
attorney's fees.  The settlement agreement provides for $26,500 in
attorney's fees and costs and expenses "without need of further
petition unless required by the Court."  In addition, it states
that Defendant and Defendant's counsel will not oppose such a
request. Under the FLSA, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and
costs is mandatory. The Court, however, has the discretion to
determine the amount and reasonableness of the award.

There is no information as to the total amount of the settlement
because it is contingent on how many individuals opt-in to the
class and on the formula for which they will receive their payment.
The only information as to monetary amounts in this case is the
$26,500 for attorney's fees and the $6,500 to the two named
Plaintiffs as a service award and off-the-clock pay.  The parties
state that the $26,500 attorney's fee award is reasonable
considering that Plaintiffs' counsel has already spent nearly 100
hours on the case with many more hours to come.  Yet, the Court
does not have timesheets or records as to this amount of time.  And
it is unclear how much additional work will be required of
Plaintiffs' counsel because it is unknown how many, if any,
individuals will opt-in to the case.   Thus, it appears premature
to determine the reasonableness of the amount of the attorney's
fee.

The Court must make some sort of final certification ruling before
approving the collective action settlement. Thus, the Court is
unable to grant the parties' joint motion for approval of
settlement at this time.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Belmont Management Company was formed in 2004 and serves as the
Management Agent for Belmont owned properties.[CC]


BIMBO BAKERIES: Oddo Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christopher Oddo, Philip Brucato, and Michael Lennon
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Christopher Oddo, et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc., Case No.
2-17-cv-04775, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on September
18, 2019, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally
certifying a class of: "individuals who worked as Route Sales
Representatives (RSRs) and drove a Bimbo Small Vehicle (i.e., a
Bimbo truck with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or
less) during at least one workweek during the Relevant Period (from
September 11, 2014 through the present."

Christopher Oddo, Philip Brucato, and Michael Lennon assert that
Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A., Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay them and other similarly situated individuals
overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs are current and former RSRs, which Bimbo
alternatively refers to as "Route Sales Professionals."

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Oddo, et al. v.
Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc., Case No. 20-2338, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER ODDO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; PHILIP BRUCATO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; and MICHAEL LENNON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendant-Appellee BIMBO BAKERIES USA INC. is represented by:

          Bradley J. Crowell, Esq.
          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5845
          E-mail: bradley.crowell@morganlewis.com
                  michael.puma@morganlewis.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pope McGlamry on June 23 disclosed that on Monday, June 22, 2020,
the Plaintiffs' Leadership, spearheaded by Co-Lead Counsel Bobby
Gilbert (Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert), Mike
McGlamry (Pope McGlamry), Tracy Finken (Anapol Weiss), and Adam
Pulaski (Pulaski Kherkher), filed three complaints in In Re: Zantac
(Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2924: the
Master Personal Injury Complaint; Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint; and Third Party Payor Consolidated Complaint.
The Complaints can be viewed at: https://bit.ly/3fTm7DK

The Master Personal Injury Complaint ("Master PI Complaint") covers
those plaintiffs who have already developed cancer as a result of
taking Zantac/Ranitidine medication designed, manufactured, tested,
marketed, distributed, stored and sold by a number of defendants.
In addition to the four brand manufacturers, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BI"), GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"), Pfizer and
Sanofi, the Master PI Complaint names 33 generic manufacturers, 4
distributors, 25 retailers, and 3 repackagers as defendants.  The
causes of action alleged in the Master PI Complaint include various
Strict Products Liability, Negligence, and Breach of Warranty
claims, as well as Loss of Consortium, Survival and Wrongful Death
claims. According to Co-Lead Mike McGlamry: "This product had been
on the market for a long time and made its manufacturers and
retailers billions of dollars until the FDA (and regulatory
agencies around the world) directed that it be immediately
withdrawn after testing revealed exceedingly high levels of the
known carcinogen NDMA in Zantac/Ranitidine. We represent many
women, men and children who have been diagnosed with cancer after
using this drug as directed by the drug makers."

The 1,371-page Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint
("Consumer Class Complaint") is brought by 238 plaintiffs on behalf
of all persons in the United States and its territories who
purchased and/or used Zantac/Ranitidine.  The Consumer Class
Complaint names targets most of the same defendants named in the
Master PI Complaint, including BI, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi, generic
manufacturers, distributors,  retailers and repackagers.  The
Consumer Class Complaint includes claims for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and
many state laws including consumer protection and false advertising
statutes. As to the Consumer Class Complaint, Co-Lead Bobby Gilbert
said: "Today marks the beginning of our search for the truth on
behalf of millions of people across the United States who paid for
a defective and dangerous drug and are now faced with the prospect
of developing cancer after they took Zantac/Ranitidine as directed
by the companies that made and sold it.  This is yet another
example of big business putting profits over the health and welfare
of ordinary people."

The Consolidated Third Party Payor Class Complaint ("TPP Class
Complaint") is brought by Plaintiffs NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund,
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 630, and Indiana Laborers
Welfare Fund on behalf of themselves and other similar third party
payors throughout the United States that paid or reimbursed for
defective and dangerous Zantac/Ranitidine products.  The TPP Class
Complaint asserts claims against BI, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi, as
well as 22 generic manufacturers.  Those claims include violations
of RICO and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Defendants have until August 23, 2020 to answer or move to dismiss
the Master Complaints, either in whole or in part.  The parties
anticipate the Court will rule on any motions to dismiss by the end
of this year.  In the meantime, discovery in the sprawling case
began on June 15, 2020 and will continue for the next 18 months.

Contact:
Amala Sarvepalli
404-523-7706
amalasarvepalli@pmkm.com [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Figueroa Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACOB FIGUEROA AND MARY
JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-00692-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the class action
      settlement reached by the parties; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
      approval of class settlement and for certification of the
      settlement Class.

Capital One operates as a bank.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: 202.350.4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

CASPER SLEEP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on June 29 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's February 7,
2020 ("IPO"). Investors have until August 18, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Offering Documents failed to disclose
that: (i) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (ii) Casper was changing an important distribution
partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first
quarter of 2020 alone; (iii) Casper was holding a glut of old and
outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply
discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's
profitability; (iv) Casper was suffering accelerating losses,
further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and
profitability out of reach; (v) Casper's core operations were not
profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million
in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and
doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (vi) as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement
its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been
misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to
shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion,
jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and
significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an
imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive
operating cash flows; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing,
Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not
positioned the Company to achieve profitability.

In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.

On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team and completely winding down
its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of its
workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.

On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).

Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.

If you acquired Casper securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and
whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of
shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries
totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm
can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
(212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Chembio Diagnostic System, Inc.
("Chembio" or the "Company") investors that acquired Chembio
securities (NASDAQ: CEMI) between April 1, 2020 through June 16,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint filed in this action alleges that defendants misled
investors regarding the accuracy of the Company's Dual Path
Platform ("DPP Test") COVID-19 serological point-of-care test for
the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining
current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2020, Defendants took
advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price, and closed a public
offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at
$11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8
million.

On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the
emergency use authorization of the DPP Test due to performance
concerns with the accuracy of the test, and on this news the
Company's shares fell sharply in value. The FDA further stated
that:

The Chembio antibody test was one of the first antibody tests
authorized by the FDA during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
At the time of authorization, based on the information that Chembio
submitted to the FDA at that time, the agency concluded that the
test met the statute's "may be effective" standard for emergency
use authorization, and that the test's known and potential benefits
outweighed its known and potential risks.

As the FDA has learned more regarding the capability for
performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests during the pandemic, and
what performance is necessary for users to make well-informed
decisions—through both the continued review and authorization of
serology tests as well as through a research partnership with the
National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI)—
the FDA was able to develop general performance expectations for
these tests, which are listed in our serology templates.

Data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of
the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher
than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected
in the authorized labeling for the device. Under the current
circumstances of the public health emergency, it is not reasonable
to believe that the test may be effective in detecting antibodies
against SARS-CoV-2 or that the known and potential benefits of the
test outweigh the known and potential risks of the test, including
the high rate of false results.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Neldner Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER NELDNER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00899 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Four Potential Class Members Opt Out of Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Adler, writing for The Dartmouth, reports that four
potential class members in the sexual harassment class action
lawsuit against Dartmouth have opted out of the settlement class,
forgoing their allotment of the $14 million awarded in the case's
settlement last year.

According to discrimination and civil rights lawyer Bruce
Fredrickson '73, the two most likely reasons for potential class
members to opt out of the class are that they might feel the
settlement is "inadequate" monetarily and choose to pursue a larger
individual claim, or that while they fit the class definition, they
did not personally experience harassment and therefore might not
consider it appropriate to accept part of the settlement.

The lawsuit, originally filed by seven plaintiffs in November 2018,
alleged that Todd Heatherton, William Kelley and Paul Whalen--three
former professors in the psychological and brain sciences
department--engaged in sexual misconduct for several years and that
the College did not act on allegations against them. In August, the
College reached an out-of-court settlement awarding $14 million to
the class of roughly 90 potential class members, a uniquely large
class for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

This case's class is defined in the settlement as women who, as
graduate or undergraduate students, worked in the department or
with the professors over a period of several years and "will attest
that they experienced dignitary, emotional, educational and/or
professional harm during this period as a result of the misconduct
of one or more of the Three Former Professors."

Typically, when the plaintiffs win a class action lawsuit, the
defendant pays an agreed-upon settlement that is split equally
between the members of the class.

The settlement in this case notes that those who remain in the
class will not be able to bring independent claims against
Dartmouth or discuss the "factual circumstances that were or could
have been asserted in this lawsuit." Class members choosing to
pursue individual claims need to prove independently that they were
affected by the professors' misconduct.

The identities and any personally identifiable information of the
four potential class members who chose to opt out of the settlement
have been redacted from all public documents in order to protect
their identities and prevent any further connection between them
and the case.

Amanda Geduld '15, one of the potential class members who now works
as a high school teacher, said that she intended to opt out of the
settlement but missed the deadline to do so because her "world kind
of got wrapped up in other things," as the school where she works
transitioned to an online format amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Geduld worked in one of the professors' labs for part of her
freshman year but said that she "never experienced any form of
harassment" and only discovered that she had been included in the
class when she received a phone call from the plaintiffs' law
firm.

She said that she intended to leave the class because "it felt, for
lack of a better word, icky to be receiving money or reparations
for something I never experienced."

"I'm really impressed by the women who had the bravery to come
forward, and I think that they are the ones who are deserving of
these funds," she said. "But because I haven't experienced
harassment or abuse from those professors, it just didn't feel like
it was my money to take."

Though Geduld is still a potential class member, she has publicly
pledged to donate her share of the settlement to organizations that
support Black transgender women.

According to Stan Colla '66 TU '86, a member of the organization
Dartmouth Community Against Gender Harassment and Sexual Violence,
plaintiffs may be experiencing a range of emotions while involved
in the lawsuit.

"The plaintiffs who filed the suit have tried to confront this with
integrity and transparency in order to affect a change in
Dartmouth's culture," he said. "To the extent that that culture
changes for the better, I think they're going to feel some sort of
relief and joy or pride in their part making a change. And to the
extent that it doesn't, I think they're going to continue to feel
sadness and pain, knowing what they went through might be the same
experience for students in the future."

A fairness hearing for the case, during which a federal judge will
determine whether the class is reasonable and can approve it, is
scheduled for July 9.

Correction appended (June 24, 2020): A previous version of this
article incorrectly referred to the four individuals who opted out
of the settlement class as plaintiffs. The article has been updated
to reflect that they are potential class members. [GN]


DELEK US: Becker Seeks to Certify Inspectors' Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL J. BECKER,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. DELEK US ENERGY,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00285 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for:

      "all inspectors who worked for, or on behalf of, Delek US
      Energy, Inc. who were paid a day rate with no overtime in
      the past three years";

   2. requiring the Defendant to produce contact information for
      all Putative Class Members; and

   3. authorizing issuance of the proposed notice and consent
      form to all members of the putative class.

Delek operates as a downstream energy company. The company provides
petroleum refining, logistics, and convenience store retailing
services, as well as markets asphalt, renewable fuel, and related
petroleum products.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbacklaw.com

DENNYS INC: Approval of Notice to Servers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Lindsay Rafferty, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Denny's Inc., a
Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-24706-DLG (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of her federal claims
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;

   2. permitting her to send notice of the lawsuit to:

      "all servers employed at any of the Defendants' Denny's
      restaurants at any point from November 13, 2016 to
      present";  and

   3. tolling for 60 days the statute of limitations for any
      individual opting into this lawsuit.

In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the
FLSA due to Denny's failure to comply with the applicable tip
credit provisions prior to paying the Plaintiff and other Servers a
sub-minimum wage. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
improperly paid her and other Servers by claiming a tip credit --
and thereby paying employees less than the applicable minimum wage
-- when Defendant did not meet all the requirements to do so.

Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant
chain.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-175
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          Andrew J. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road, Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          E-mail: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. GrayRobert J. Gray
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Class Cert. Proceedings in Coffey Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANNA COFFEY v. DOBBERSTEIN
LAW FIRM, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00826-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to stay further
proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On June 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

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

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

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

United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable
management services to creditors.[CC]

DOLLS KILL: Faces Brooks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLLS KILL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01220-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., June 17,
2020), asserts claims against Dolls Kill for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
https://www.dollskill.com/, to be fully and equally accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Dolls Kill is a global online fashion brand. The Company was named
the "Fastest Growing Retailer" in 2014 by Inc. magazine, which also
included Dolls Kill as one of the "Top companies in San
Francisco."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


DUDLEY LAND: Penska Seeks to Certify Day Rate Landmen Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOE PENSKA, Individually and
For Others Similarly Situated v. T.S. DUDLEY LAND COMPANY, INC. and
AJP LAND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00435-NR (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective of:

      "all Landmen employed by, or working on behalf of, Dudley
      who were classified as independent contractors and paid a
      day rate with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years
      (Day Rate Landmen)";

   2. authorizing a judicial notice be sent to all Day Rate
      Landmen;

   3. approving the notice and consent forms;

   4. authorizing the mailing, emailing, and text messaging of
      notice, along with a reminder notice;

   5. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Day Rate Landmen
      by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent
      forms return undeliverable;

   6. directing Dudley to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each of the Day Rate Landmen within 10
      days of the Court's order; and

   7. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Day Rate
      Landmen to join the case.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: 412-766-1455
          Facsimile: 412-766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

DUNKIN' BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Chen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHUFEN CHEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, ELI EVANSON, SHERRY L. JOHNSON, DAVID A. BUCHOLTZ,
MICHELLE BEATTIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC. (A
DELAWARE CORPORATION), DBA DUNKIN' DONUTS, Defendant-Appellee,
Docket No. 18-3087-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Plaintiff-Appellant Chen, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and Plaintiffs-Appellants Evanson, Johnson,
Bucholtz, and Beattie, commenced the action alleging that
Defendant-Appellee Dunkin Donuts deceptively marketed two of its
trademarked products -- the Angus Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich
and the Angus Steak & Egg Wake-Up Wrap -- to consumers.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that through representations
made in labeling and television advertisements, Dunkin Donuts
deceived consumers into believing that the Products contained an
"intact" piece of meat when the Products actually contained a
ground beef patty with multiple additives.  The SAC asserted
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act and various state consumer
protection laws, including New York General Business Law ("GBL")
Sections 349 and 350, in connection with the alleged deception.

The district court dismissed the SAC for lack of personal
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  It held that Dunkin
Donuts was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in New York
and dismissed the claims of Evanson, Johnson, Bucholtz, and Beattie
("Out-of-state Plaintiffs") for lack of personal jurisdiction
because they purchased the allegedly deceptive Products at
franchises outside of New York.  Although it determined specific
personal jurisdiction existed as to Chen's claims, the district
court dismissed her claims on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The lower court held that the label
"Angus steak" was not an actionable warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Act and that Dunkin Donuts' advertisements did not
violate the GBL because they were neither deceptive nor misleading
to a reasonable consumer.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
dismissing the Out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims because Dunkin
Donuts consented to general jurisdiction in New York by registering
as a foreign corporation under Section 1301 of the New York
Business Corporation Law (t"BCL").  In the alternative, they
contend that general personal jurisdiction existed because Dunkin
Donuts' contacts with New York are sufficiently "continuous and
systematic."  The Plaintiffs also assert that the district court
erred in dismissing Chen's claims because the SAC alleged plausible
violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350.

The Second Circuit holds that under New York law, the act of
registering to do business under Section 1301 of the BCL does not
constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction in New York.
In so holding, the Second Circuit joins the highest New York courts
to have considered the issue since the Supreme Court decided
Daimler AG v. Bauman.  The Second Circuit further rejects the
Plaintiffs' arguments that Dunkin Donuts' contacts with New York
were sufficient to subject it to general personal jurisdiction in
the state, and it agrees with the district court that Chen failed
to allege a plausible violation of GBL Sections 349 and 350.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing the SAC is
affirmed, the Second Circuit rules.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's March 31, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/j5t0bS from Leagle.com.

C. DOUGLASS THOMAS -- dthomas@troypllc.com -- (John Troy --
johntroy@troypllc.com -- on the brief), Troy Law, PLLC, Flushing,
New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

WILLIAM C. PERDUE -- william.perdue@arnoldporter.com -- (Anthony
Franze -- anthony.franze@arnoldporter.com -- Avishai D. Don --
avishai.don@arnoldporter.com -- on the brief), Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.


EDDIE BAUER: Heredia Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephanie Heredia filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Stephanie Heredia v. Eddie Bauer
LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-06236-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 26,
2018, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied the
Defendant's motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the Court's
Class Certification Order.

On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court granted Heredia's motion for class
certification as to the first, second, fifth and seventh causes of
action in her Complaint.

The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, premium
pay for missed meal and rest periods, penalties under the
California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission
(IWC), and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants have engaged in, among
other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor
Code and the UCL by creating and maintaining policies, practices
and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights
and benefits. The policies, practices and customs of the Defendants
have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair
business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the
strictures of the California Labor Code and the UCL.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Heredia v. Eddie Bauer
LLC, Case No. 20-80022, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner STEPHANIE HEREDIA, as an individual and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, is represented by:

         Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
         Max William Gavron, Esq.
         Larry W. Lee, Esq.
         Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
         DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
         515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         E-mail: kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                 mgavron@diversitylaw.com
                 lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                 nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com
  
              - and -

         William Lucas Marder, Esq.
         POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
         501 San Benito Street
         Hollister, CA 95023
         Telephone: (831) 531-4214
         E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

Defendant-Respondent EDDIE BAUER LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

         Jon D. Meer, Esq.
         Michael Afar, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 mafar@seyfarth.com


ENPHASE ENERGY: Klein Announces Aug. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ENPH) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7753&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Enphase Energy, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points
expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until August 17, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the ENPH lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

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

Contact:

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

ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a nationally ranked investor rights law firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of stock, options, and derivatives of Enphase Energy,
Inc. (ENPH) between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Enphase investors under the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and
international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported
base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

In particular, on June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital issued
negative analysis reporting that 39% or $205M of Enphase's revenue
"fabricated" by "accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate
revenue and profits." Prescience also claimed former Enphase
employees in India believe the company is utilizing an offshore
finance and accounting team to help executives perpetrate potential
accounting violations.

On this news, Enphase dropped as much as 15% on heavy volume.

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

         David J. Schwartz, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow
         Tel: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com.
         http://www.labaton.com.

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
[GN]

ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a nationally ranked investor rights law firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of stock, options, and derivatives of Enphase Energy,
Inc. (ENPH) between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Enphase investors under the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and
international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported
base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

In particular, on June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital issued
negative analysis reporting that 39% or $205M of Enphase's revenue
"fabricated" by "accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate
revenue and profits." Prescience also claimed former Enphase
employees in India believe the company is utilizing an offshore
finance and accounting team to help executives perpetrate potential
accounting violations.

On this news, Enphase dropped as much as 15% on heavy volume.

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

         David J. Schwartz, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow,
         Tel: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com/[GN]

EVAN T SIRLIN: Bank Appeals Order in Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Todd C. Bank filed an appeal from the District Court's
decision and order entered on December 10, 2019, in the lawsuit
entitled Bank v. Sirlin, Case No. 18-cv-4536, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

The appellate case is captioned as Bank v. Sirlin, Case No.
19-4330, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, represents himself:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Monarch Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONARCH BALLROOM, LLC v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC; FARMERS
GROUP INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE;
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
2:20-cv-05493 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2020), is brought on behalf of a
nationwide class and California sub-class of policyholders, who
similarly purchased standard Farmers insurance contracts, which
provide coverage for business income loss and extra expenses
incurred by policyholders that have suffered losses due to
preventative measures implemented by governmental bodies in the
form of the COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others across the
United States purchased commercial property insurance from Farmers
to protect their businesses in the event that they had to
temporarily shut down. These businesses expected the Defendants'
insurance policies to protect them and cover business income losses
in in the event that government officials ordered them to stop
operations and refrain from using the property. However, despite
collecting billions of dollars in premiums from the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated businesses, Farmers is now refusing to pay
legitimate business interruption claims.

In light of the novel Coronavirus strain, which causes COVID-19,
state and local governments throughout the country have issued
"stay-at-home" and "shelter-in-place" orders requiring all
non-essential businesses to cease operations and close all physical
locations. As a result of these COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders,
the Plaintiff, which operates a dance studio and event space,
closed its business on March 16, 2020, and has remained closed for
normal operations since then.

The Plaintiff offers both private and group dance lessons in its
studio.

Farmers Insurance is an American insurer group of automobiles,
homes and small businesses and also provides other insurance and
financial services products. Farmers Insurance has more than 48,000
exclusive and independent agents and approximately 21,000
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Jaclyn M. Reinhart, Esq.
          Ronald Kravitz, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-235 2416
          Facsimile: 866-300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  jreinhart@sfmslaw.com
                  rkravitz@sfmslaw.com


FEDERAL ENERGY: Stop the Pipeline Appeals Ruling to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stop the Pipeline filed an appeal from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Stop the
Pipeline v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Case Nos.
CP18-5-000, CP18-5-001, CP18-5-002, and CP18-5-003.

On August 28, 2019, the Commission issued an order on voluntary
remand that concluded, in light of the recent decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Hoopa Valley
Tribe v. FERC, that the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (New York DEC) waived its authority under section 401
of the Clean Water Act to issue or deny a water quality
certification for the Constitution Pipeline Project.

Stop the Pipeline asserts that the Commission has no jurisdiction
to decide the issue of waiver. Specifically, Stop the Pipeline
claims that because New York DEC denied Constitution's section 401
certification request on April 22, 2016, and the Second Circuit has
affirmed the merits of New York DEC's decision, Constitution was
required to bring its waiver, or failure-to-act, claim directly to
the D.C. Circuit. The Commission fully addressed Stop the
Pipeline's arguments in the Remand Order.

The Commission concluded in the Remand Order that a stay would
substantially harm Constitution by delaying Constitution's
commencement of service and thus delaying a revenue stream that
would begin to offset sunk costs that have accrued over the more
than four years (now five years) since New York DEC waived its
section 401 authority on May 9, 2015. On rehearing, New York DEC
asserts that the Commission lacked record evidence for this
determination. Constitution stated in its petition for a
declaratory order filed on October 11, 2017, that it had already
spent over $380 million on the project. For context, the Commission
estimated in the certificate order for the project, based on
Constitution's 2013 application and supplemental filings, that all
proposed project facilities would cost approximately $683 million.

The appellate case is captioned as Stop the Pipeline v. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Case No. 20-158, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Stop the Pipeline is represented by:

          Anne Marie Garti, Esq.
          P.O. Box 15
          Bronx, NY 10471
          Telephone: (718) 601-9618

               - and -

          Todd D. Ommen, Esq.
          PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          78 North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 422-4343

Defendant-Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is
represented by:

          Robert Harris Solomon, Esq.
          FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
          888 1st Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20426
          Telephone: (202) 502-8257


FENDI NORTH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FENDI NORTH AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01217-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.,
June 17, 2020), asserts claims against Fendi North for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
https://www.fendi.com/us/, to be fully and equally accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Fendi North America Inc. designs and markets apparel products. The
Company offers bags, shoes, watches, sunglasses, and jewelry
products. Fendi North America serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Faces Class Action Over Sugarcane Burning
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that attorneys from
Hagens Berman and Berman Law Group are representing residents in a
proposed class-action lawsuit against several major growers in
southern Florida over alleged toxic smoke from sugarcane burning.

And they allege the growers took fewer precautions in poorer
neighborhoods.

The complaint names as defendants Florida Crystals Corp., Sugar
Cane Growers Cooperation of Florida, United States Sugar Corp.,
Okeelanta Corp., Osceola Farms Co., Sugarland Harvesting Co.,
Trucane Sugar Corp., Independent Harvesting Inc. and J&J Ag.
Products Inc.

It alleges the major Florida sugarcane growers burned about 3.2
million acres between 2009 and 2019. It also claims those
activities created a "hazard zone" as allegedly toxic smoke
blanketed Belle Glade, Canal Point, Clewiston, Indiantown, Moore
Haven, Pahokee and South Bay, covering houses and cars with soot
and cane residue.

The people living here are among the poorest communities in
Florida, according to the amended complaint.

But the growers deny endangering residents. They say the burns are
part of safe agricultural practices that rid the land of debris to
make way for new crops.

Now, U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith in the Southern District of
Florida must decide whether to grant certification to three
classes.

The amended complaint lists three proposed classes: a "battery
class," for all residents in the areas "hardest hit by sugarcane
burning;" a "medical monitoring class," for residents over the age
of 40 who are allegedly at increased risk of cancer due to their
exposure; and a "property owner class," for parties who own and
suffered property damage within the hardest-hit areas.

The lawsuit alleges that the smoke from the millions of acres of
burning sugarcane exposes residents to a wide range of pollutants,
including particulate matter, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental carbon and organic
carbon.

Alleged disparity
Steve Berman, the managing partner of Hagens Berman in its Seattle
office, said the victims are primarily in two social-economic
classes. Berman opined that there needs to be just as much scrutiny
on the permits sugarcane growers are issued in southern Florida for
the wealthier areas than those that are issued in the poorer
areas.

But Gaston Cantens, vice president of the Florida Crystals Corp.,
said the amended complaint has no merit and is similar to the
original lawsuit that the court dismissed.

"Florida Crystals, which is celebrating its 60th anniversary as a
member of the Glades farming community, remains committed to safe
harvesting practices under the program administered by the Florida
Forest Service that authorizes prescribed burns statewide," Cantens
said.

The defendants claimed the sugarcane burning cleared the fields of
excess organic matter and made harvesting more efficient. A
majority of the sugarcane burning has taken place in Palm Beach
County.

'They acted with impunity'
But the amended complaint stated the communities most affected by
the burning ring the southern shore of Lake Okeechobee.

For instance, those who live in the affluent eastern Palm Beach and
eastern Martin counties have warnings from first responders when
smoke is blown to their area, according to the suit. However, it
alleged that public health officials give little warning when the
wind blows toward more impoverished areas, such as Hendry and
Glades counties.

The amended complaint stated that pre-harvest burning is no longer
necessary. It claimed the defendants viewed this method of farming
as cheaper and more efficient. But plaintiffs argued that sugarcane
growers worldwide have increasingly abandoned that method in favor
of green harvesting or mulching their plant waste.

Berman is asking the court to hold the major Florida sugarcane
growers accountable for alleged misconduct, especially in
impoverished areas.

"These sugarcane owners know the smoke is toxic. They know it is
going off their land to other people's land, and they acted with
impunity," Berman said, "The takeaway is you can't do that to
someone. Not in our country." [GN]


FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WFLA reports that one of Florida's largest orthopedic practices is
under fire after announcing a data breach of patient information.

Mega law firm Morgan & Morgan has filed a class-action lawsuit,
alleging Florida Orthopaedic Institute didn't do enough to protect
patients' personal data and didn't act fast enough when it
discovered the breach.

"There have been many, many breaches of other hospitals and
healthcare deliveries, which have sent a warning bell to protect
this information, and that wasn't done in this case," said Attorney
John Yanchunis, who filed the lawsuit.

Florida Orthopaedic Institute sent letters, dated June 18, to
current and former patients, potentially thousands, alerting them
of the breach and offering free credit monitoring.

Yanchunis says the monitoring is only for a year and doesn't do
nearly enough to help victims. The lawsuit seeks $99 million.

Florida Orthopaedic Institute said in a letter that "there is no
evidence that your information was misused."

Yanchunis points out that the point of stealing personal data is to
misuse it, and says the threat will linger for years to come,
especially for younger patients, many of whom are minors.

The lawsuit calls into issue how quickly the practice responded.

"They detected this in early April, consumers weren't notified
until the middle of June. Certainly, this information was in the
hands of cybercriminals and was being used maliciously," Yanchunis
said.

If you receive a letter from FOI about this breach, keep in mind
that you have until Sept. 20 to enroll in the credit monitoring
offered.  [GN]

GC SERVICES: Matke Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DEBORAH MATKE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00899 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GC SERVICES: Wolf Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIA WOLF, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00900 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOLD TIM CORP: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO ONOFRE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GOLD TIM CORP. (D/B/A FAMOUS GOLD TIM'S DELI
AND GRILL), SILVIA DOE, and EUN IM HUH, Case No. 1:20-cv-02731
(E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sandwich maker at the Defendants'
deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 126-01
15th Ave., in College Point, New York, under the name "Famous Gold
Tim's Deli and Grill."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


GRAND CANYON: ClaimsFiler Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)
Class Period: 1/5/2018 - 1/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-grand-canyon-education-inc-securities-litigation

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-enphase-energy-inc-securities-litigation

ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-proassurance-corporation-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                         About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Harvard University is the latest to be sued in a class-action
lawsuit demanding reimbursement for tuition and other costs amid
its COVID-19-related campus closure, according to attorneys at
Hagens Berman and Burns Charest.

If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at any
U.S. college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more
about the lawsuit and your rights.

The lawsuit against Harvard was filed June 22, 2020, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and accuses the
university of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.
Hagens Berman has also brought similar lawsuits against Boston
University, Brandeis University, Brown University, Duke University,
Emory University, George Washington University, Hofstra University,
University of Miami, Pepperdine University, Quinnipiac University,
University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University and
Washington University in St. Louis for failure to repay
tuition-payers for their losses.

The student bringing the lawsuit was enrolled as a full-time
graduate student at Harvard Law School during the spring 2020
semester, during which Harvard closed its campus and transitioned
all courses to online instruction.

Harvard has not held in-person classes since March 13, 2020. The
lawsuit states that the university instead offered students "a
limited online experience presented by Zoom, void of face-to-face
faculty and peer interaction, separated from program resources, and
barred from facilities vital to study."

"The online learning option Harvard offered following the
termination of its in-person services is subpar in practically
every aspect: lack of facilities, lack of materials, lack of
efficient classroom participation, and lack of access to faculty,"
the complaint reads. "Harvard continues to charge for tuition and
fees as if nothing has changed, reaping the financial benefit of
millions of dollars from students despite the inferior online
learning environment."

"Harvard is one of the most prestigious learning institutions in
the world," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman
and attorney for students in the class action. "A remote learning
experience via Zoom is in no way commensurate to the in-person
education students paid for. Students and parents deserve to be
reimbursed, and we intend to hold Harvard accountable."

While Harvard's endowment is the largest in the world at nearly $40
billion, the university has refused to provide any tuition
reimbursement for the spring 2020 term. The suit states that "the
Harvard Law School administration has even gone so far as to tell
concerned students to take out an additional loan and 'rent office
space' if they have trouble studying off-campus."

Tuition costs ranged from $23,865 for undergraduate students at
Harvard College to $36,720 for graduate students at Harvard
Business School in the spring 2020 term.

Other Affected Universities

Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are
currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at all U.S.
colleges and universities that have been forced to close due to the
outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or
college students who are paying for their own costs of college.

Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students
and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning
continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively,
these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students
despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy
campus buildings and dorms.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against colleges and
universities for tuition, room and board and other costs incurred
during the outbreak of COVID-19.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law.

Contacts:

Heidi Waggoner
heidiw@hbsslaw.com
206-268-9318 [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Appiah Seeks to Certify Class of Floor Tiles Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRENDA APPIAH and KWADWO
APPIAH v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.; HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00489-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying their case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Ms. Brenda Appiah as the representative of the
      Class; and

   3. appointing their attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant harmed consumers by
marketing, advertising and selling floor tiles as ideal for use in
bathrooms and kitchens when such product was inherently dangerous
and slippery when wet. They add that the Defendants' conduct caused
the themselves and Class members to purchase the product, which was
not as represented and, which they would not have purchased but for
the misleading statements made by the Defendant.

Home Depot is a home improvement retailer in the United States,
supplying tools, construction products, and services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs Brenda are represented by:

          Jeremiah N. Ollennu, Esq.
          ORTHOPAEDIC INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          10 Grand Street, 2nd Floor
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860)200-8839
          Facsimile: (860)218-2158
          E-mail: jeremiah.ollennu@ctlawprime.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cullen W. Guilmartin, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          95 Glastonbury Blvd., Ste. 206
          Glastonbury, CT 06033
          Telephone: (860) 560-0185
          E-mail: cguilmartin@grsm.com

HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Brown Sues Alleging Race & Sex Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZELIA BROWN AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. HOUSTON
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, CESAR MALDONADO, JANET MAY AND ADRIANA
TAMEZ, Case No. 2020-36826 (Tex. Dist., June 19, 2020), arises out
of alleged deliberate race and sex discrimination, as well as
racially motivated polls, customs and practices perpetrated by the
Defendants against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that have
disparately impacted Black HCC employees and to a greater degree
Black female HCC employees.

The claims in this suit also include damages from retaliatory
actions taken against the Plaintiff in violation of the Civil
Rights Act and Texas Whistleblower Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is the victim of a
well-developed, systematic, entrenched and wildly successful
campaign of race and sex discrimination against top level Black
employees at HCC. The Plaintiff contends that this dreadful
"campaign" has resulted in the dismissal, demotion and/or
termination of Blacks at alarming and disproportionate rates.

Since the appointment of Defendant Maldonado as Chancellor of HCC
in May 2014, the Plaintiff alleges, top level Black employees like
herself have consistently targeted, removed and demoted from their
positions through a dizzying, but consistent, scheme that requires
Black employees to improperly participate in their own demise in
order to try to keep their jobs--a scheme that inevitably results
in the Black employee being fired or removed in the end.

HCC is a public education institution situated in Harris County,
Texas. Ms. Tamez is presently a member of the HCC Board of
Trustees. Mr. Maldonado is an employee and Chancellor of HCC. Ms.
Janet May is an employee and head of the Human Resources
Division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Hall, Esq.
          William L. Van Fleet, II, Esq.
          THE HALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          530 Lovett Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 942-9600
          Facsimile: (713) 942-9566
          E-mail: bhall@bhalllawfirm.com
                  bvfleet@comcast.net

               - and -

          Adrian V. Villacorta, Esq.
          THE VILLACORTA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          530 Lovett Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (832) 991-8864
          Facsimile: (832) 201-7469
          E-mail: avillacorta@avvlaw.com


HOUSTON, TX: Beckwith Files Cert. Petition in Sexual Assault Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dejenay Beckwith, et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled DEJENAY BECKWITH AND BEVERLY FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners v. CITY OF
HOUSTON, TEXAS; PETER STOUT, CEO OF THE HOUSTON FORENSIC SCIENCE
CENTER; ANNISE PARKER; LEE P. BROWN; CLARENCE BRADFORD; SAM NUCHIA,
AND CHARLES MCCLELLAND, Respondents, Case No. 19-907.

Petitioners Dejenay Beckwith, et al., filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case titled Dejenay Beckwith;
Beverly Flores, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. City of Houston; Mayor
Sylvester Turner; Police Chief Art Acevedo; Houston Forensic
Science Center; Peter Stout; Annise Parker; Lee P. Brown; Kathy
Whitmire; Chief Charles Mcclelland; Chief Clarence Bradford; Chief
Sam Nuchia, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-20611.

The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by
affirming a statute of limitations defense on a motion to dismiss;
2. Whether this Court should clarify erratic application among the
circuits of its precedent regarding government conspiracies to deny
civil rights; 3. Whether the national rape kit backlog scandal,
allowing serial rapists to proliferate, is a unique phenomenon that
justifies this Court's reconsideration of existing statute of
limits jurisprudence; and 4. Whether this Court should address the
merits of this case, which raises important and novel Fourth and
Fifth Amendment questions.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Dejenay
Beckwith and Beverly Flores were each sexually assaulted in 2011,
and the Houston Police Department collected a SAK from each for
testing. Beckwith's assailant had a long history of sexually
assaulting women, and was listed in a DNA database system. Beckwith
claims that if Houston had promptly tested SAKs from his previous
victims, he'd have been stopped before he had a chance to assault
her.

Beckwith and Flores are not asserting a right to have a third-party
prosecuted for a crime; instead, they assert their rights under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to be free from gender discrimination by state actors,
their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and their
rights to be free from government actors improperly taking their
property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All of
these are recognized "constitutional rights."

On August 29, 2018, Beckwith and Flores filed their notice of
appeal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
on October 16, 2019. The appellate court's analysis of the statute
of limitations defense was both premature and overly rigid because
the claims were not conclusively time barred on their face. The
appellate court's affirmation of dismissal was particularly
unreasonable here, where the district court granted
Respondent-Defendants' motion to stay discovery, then uncritically
and improperly construed the movants' disputed factual claims as
true.

Beckwith and Flores allege their genetic material was taken for the
public use of identifying and prosecuting rapists, thereby,
triggering the Fifth Amendment takings clause.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Dejenay Beckwith, et al., are represented
by:

          Randall Lee Kallinen, Esq.
          KALLINEN LAW PLLC
          511 Broadway Street
          Houston, TX 77012
          E-mail: Attorneykallinen@aol.com


IBERIABANK CORP: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRINZO & ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IBERIABANK CORP.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00904-AJS (W.D. Pa., June 17, 2020),
seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that
requires it to pay out of the compensation it received for
processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for services Prinzo
and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients
of Small Business Administration emergency loans.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's PPP which initially
authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the
initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion
additional dollars to the program (PPP II).

The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).

Prinzo & Associates is a Certified Public Accounting firm organized
in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in
McMurray, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff contends that IberiaBank has reported approval of
approximately 15,000 PPP applications totaling approximately $2.13
billion in borrowed funds. The average PPP loan approved by the
Defendants was approximately $142,000. Assuming a conservative
average fee of four percent, IberiaBank has, accordingly, been
allocated over $85 million in origination fees, from which it was
required to pay the agents, who assisted the borrowers in
submitting applications

IberiaBank is one of the largest banks in the American South, with
190 branch offices in 10 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 737-9981
          E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com
                  tqn@mccunewright.com


IDEANOMICS INC: Klein Notes of Aug. 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 27, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7752&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Ideanomics, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global Division in Qingdao, China
(the "MEG Center") was not "a one million square foot EV expo
center" as the Company had stated in press releases; (ii) the
Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the
purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric
vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strongly as
Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders have until August 27, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the IDEX lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

Contact:

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



IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz Probing Claims on Behalf of Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX).  Such investors are advised to
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued
a series of tweets in which it characterized Ideanomics as "an
egregious & obvious fraud."  Hindenburg claimed to have found
evidence that Ideanomics had doctored photos for use in Company
press releases in order to suggest that the Company owns or
operates a vehicle sales center in Qingdao, China, when it in fact
does not.  Hindenburg further asserted that it had tasked an
investigator to visit Ideanomics' purported MEG Center in Qingdao,
but the investigator was unable to find any trace of Ideanomics'
presence or the Company's purported MEG Center.  That same day,
analyst J Capital Research ("J Capital") issued a report on
Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes."  J Capital wrote, in
part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero.  The company changes its
name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard to keep up.
One thing remains a constant, despite all the press releases,
buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out."  J Capital also
stated in a tweet that "[w]e called all the ‘buyers' named in
[Ideanomics'] press releases this month.  Not a single one had made
a purchase.  One of them thanked us for alerting them to 'fake
news.'"

On this news, Ideanomics' stock price fell $0.65 per share, or
21.04%, to close at $2.44 per share on June 25, 2020.

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.

Contact:

          Robert S. Willoughby
          Pomerantz LLP
          Tel: 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
          http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
[GN]

IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Aug. 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ideanomics, Inc. between March 20,
2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important August 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ideanomics
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ideanomics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global (MEG) Division (the "MEG
Center") in Qingdao was not "a one million square foot EV expo
center"; (2) the Company had been using doctored or altered
photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (3) the
Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing
nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true
details were disclosed by market research firms. 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 August 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-1888.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. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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

IDEANOMICS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of August 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 29 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased shares of Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) between March
20, 2020 and June 25, 2020 ("Class Period"), inclusive.

All Ideanomics, Inc. investors who purchased share and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Ideanomics, Inc., you
may, no later than August 27, 2020, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Ideanomics, Inc.   

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of
tweets announcing Hindenburg's  conclusion that Ideanomics, Inc."is
an egregious & obvious fraud." Hindenburg asserted that it found
evidence that Ideanomics "doctored photos in its PR to suggest it
owns/operates" a facility, and that this "strikes us as a clear
effort by the company to manipulate the photographs in order to
drive its stock price up."

Also on June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report
on Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes." J Capital wrote, in
part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero. The company changes its
name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard to keep up.
One thing remains a constant, despite all the press releases,
buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out." J Capital
continued, in a tweet, that "[w]e called all the 'buyers' named in
[Ideanomics'] press releases in June. Not a single one had made a
purchase. One of them thanked us for alerting them to 'fake
news.'"

On this announcement, Ideanomics shares fell approximately 21% in
one day, down to $2.44 per share from their June 24, 2020 close of
$3.09 per share. Shares continued to plummet on June 26, 2020,
closing at just $1.46 per share, a drop of approximately 53%.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at  www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Collin Shanks filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Collin Shanks v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-09437-PA-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 9, 2019, the
District Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
defined as:

    "all persons who, since November 6, 2014, purchased in the
     United States (or alternatively in California, if the Court
     does not certify a nationwide class), for personal or
     household use, and not for resale or distribution, a 16 oz.
     or 32 oz. Jarrow Organic Extra Virgin or Jarrow Regular
     Coconut Oil whose label did not bear a disclosure statement
     of the type required by 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h)."

The appellate case is captioned as Collin Shanks v. Jarrow
Formulas, Inc., Case No. 20-55078, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant COLLIN SHANKS, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd., Room 206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (734) 730-3548
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent JARROW FORMULAS, INC., is represented by:

          Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
          Darlene Alt, Esq.
          Mary Buckley, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1265
          E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
                  dalt@steptoe.com
                  mbuckley@steptoe.com


JEVS HUMAN: Pendelton Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Pamela Pendelton and Vernon Costin filed an appeal from
a Court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Pamela Pendelton,
et al. v. JEVS Human Services Inc., et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-06619,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Pamela Pendelton, et al. v. JEVS
Human Services Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2309, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PAMELA PENDELTON and VERNON COSTIN, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stephanie J. Mensing, Esq.
          MENSING LAW
          1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 586-3751
          E-mail: info@mensinglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JEVS HUMAN SERVICES INC and JEWISH EMPLOYMENT
& VOCATIONAL SERVICE INC., DBA JEVS Human Services Inc., are
represented by:

          Caroline M. Austin, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS
          30 South 17th Street, United Plaza
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1887
          E-mail: caustin@duanemorris.com


KANSAS CITY: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM PRINCE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. KANSAS CITY TREE
CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge
Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order:

   1. sustaining, in part, the plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification and notice to putative class members and
      brief in support filed April 24, 2020;

   2. conditionally certifying plaintiff's collective action
      under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
      the following class of persons:

      "all employees of KC Tree Care, LLC who were paid a day-
      rate with no overtime in the past three years";

   3. overruling without prejudice plaintiff's motion to approve
      the notice and consent forms, to be reasserted after the
      parties have conferred;

   4. directing the parties to submit a joint proposed notice
      and consent form to the Court for approval;

   5. directing the plaintiff to file a motion to seek approval
      of the proposed forms; and

   6. directing the defendant to provide plaintiff the contact
      information of all members of the putative class.

The Defendant provides various tree removal services and emergency
disaster support.

The Court said, "The Defendant argues that the Court should limit
any putative class to individuals who were compensated based on
production (i.e., $1.00 per yard). The Court will not do so,
however, because the plaintiff asserts that he was compensated
based on a daily rate. At this stage, the Court accepts the
plaintiff's allegation as true and does not determine whether he
was actually compensated based on a daily rate."[CC]

KIRKLAND LAKE: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of August 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland" or the
Company") (NYSE: KL) from January 8, 2018 to November 25, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws.

Headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Kirkland is a gold mining and
exploration company with operations in Canada and Australia.
Historically, Kirkland pursued a strategy based on high-grade
underground mining with low all-in sustaining costs.  During the
months leading up to November 25, 2019, Kirkland negotiated the
acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation ("Detour"), an
underperforming gold miner who's business depended on low-grade
mining and high costs.

The Complaint alleges that Kirkland made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) the
Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and
all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading in light of the
impending acquisition of Detour; (iii) the Company's financial
statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity
with International Financial Reporting Standards; and (iv) based on
the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material
facts.

On November 25, 2019, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire Detour.  On news of this acquisition, Kirkland's shares
fell from $47.62 per share to $39.44, a decline of $8.18, more than
17%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than August 28, 2020.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice.

If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Kirkland's
common stock from January 8, 2018 to November 25, 2019, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability
to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at
clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Brahms v. Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-4953
(S.D.N.Y.). [GN]


KLX ENERGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of KLX Energy Services
Holdings, Inc. ("KLX" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: KLXE) common
stock in connection with the proposed merger of KLX, Quintana
Energy Services, Inc. ("Quintana"), and Krypto Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub") announced on May 3, 2020 (the "Complaint"). The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against KLX, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
Quintana, and Merger Sub, is captioned Sabatini v. KLX Energy
Services Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00778 (D. Del.).

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

On May 3, 2020, KLX entered into an agreement and plan of merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Quintana and Merger Sub. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Quintana will
receive 0.4844 shares of KLX for each share of Quintana common
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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


KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Margarine Spray Labels "Deceptive," Torres Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPHINE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KOHLBERG, KRAVIS, ROBERTS & CO L.P.;
CONOPCO, INC.; and UPFIELD US INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05025 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' unjust enrichment, fraud by concealment, breach of
express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and violations of
New York General Business Law and Consumer Protection Acts of
various states in the U.S.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in
false, unfair and deceptive practices in advertising, marketing,
and selling of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Spray (ICBINB
Spray), a margarine spread product. The Defendants deceive
consumers by labeling and marketing the ICBINB Spray as an
alternative to butter with zero fat, trans fat, saturated fat,
calories and cholesterol. In truth, the product is an ordinary
margarine spread with 1,160 calories and 124 grams of fat per
12-ounce bottle. The Defendants know that ICBINB Spray labels
suggest that the product does not comprise a significant amount of
fat and calories (if any) on a percentage basis. And yet they fail
to inform consumers that ICBINB Spray is really an ordinary
margarine spread with certain and appreciable amounts of fat and
calories. Consumers, who are increasingly health conscious and
interested in calorie-free and fat-free food alternatives for
themselves and their families, were and continue to be deceived by
Defendants' practices.

Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co L.P. is an American global
investment firm headquartered in New York, New York.

Conopco, Inc., d/b/a/ Unilever, is a company that markets, sells,
and distributes personal care and food products, with its principal
office or place of business at 390 Park Avenue, New York, New York
10022.

Upfield U.S., Inc., formerly Unilever BCS US Inc., is a food
products company organized in the United States, and headquartered
in Hackensack, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
         COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY
         40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10013
         Telephone: (212) 201-6820
         Facsimile: (917) 398-7753
         E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

                  - and –

         Justin Berger, Esq.
         Sarvenaz Fahimi, Esq.
         COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com
                 sfahimi@cpmlegal.com

                  - and –

         Ureka Idstrom, Esq.
         THE EUREKA LAW FIRM
         5606 Belinder Road
         Fairway, KS 66205
         Telephone: (816) 714-4130
         E-mail: uidstrom@eurekalawfirm.com

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Calif. Ct. Dismisses Veal Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on June 12, 2020, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a
purported securities class action against a peer-to-peer lending
company (the "Company") and certain of its officers under Sections
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Veal
v. LendingClub Corporation, et. al., No. 5:18-cv-02599 (N.D. Cal.
June 12, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made
misstatements and omissions regarding an investigation by the
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") into the Company's allegedly
deceptive conduct related to certain consumer practices.  The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims (mostly without prejudice), because
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege falsity or scienter.

In May 2016, the Company disclosed that some of its senior
executives and managers had engaged in deceptive conduct by
knowingly misleading investors as to the characteristics of certain
loans, and that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") were conducting
investigations into the disclosed misconduct.  That same month, the
FTC began a separate investigation into certain of the Company's
consumer practices, including its disclosures related to
origination fees and certainty of loan approval.  The Company
publicly disclosed the FTC investigation for the first time in
November 2016.  In April 2018, the FTC announced that it had filed
a complaint against the Company for engaging in "deceptive acts" by
charging up-front "hidden fees" and representing to borrowers that
they would receive loans before making final approval decisions.

The Court previously granted a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first
amended complaint, which alleged that defendants misled investors
by failing to disclose the deceptive consumer-facing practices
investigated by the FTC.  In the second amended complaint that was
the subject of this decision, plaintiffs asserted a new theory
based on allegations that defendants failed to timely disclose the
FTC investigation and that, when they did, they misled investors by
"lumping together all regulatory investigations" and "omitting that
the FTC [i]nvestigation involved wholly distinct conduct" covered
by the DOJ and SEC investigations.  The Court again dismissed the
claims (most without prejudice), because it found that plaintiffs'
allegations of falsity and scienter were inadequate.

The Court first held that the Company "was not required to 'make an
immediate disclosure of the [FTC] investigation.'"  The Court held
that there was no independent duty to make such a disclosure and
that plaintiffs failed to allege that the omission of the FTC
investigation "create[d] an impression of a state of affairs that
differ[ed] in a material way from the one that actually exist[ed]"
-- i.e., that the Company was not under FTC scrutiny.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the disclosure that
the Company was under investigation by the DOJ, SEC and FTC
misleadingly created the impression that the FTC investigation
related to the same subject matter as the DOJ and SEC
investigations when it did not.  The Court explained that the
factual allegations and the actual disclosures did not support
plaintiffs' claims that defendants knew what the FTC was looking
into, including whether the FTC was looking into the same issues
under scrutiny by the DOJ and the SEC.  Because plaintiffs failed
to allege facts showing when defendants learned about what the FTC
was investigating, the Court found that the complaint failed to
allege adequately that the Company's statement that it was under
investigation by the SEC, DOJ and FTC was false (or misrepresented
what the Company knew about the FTC investigation) when it was
made.  For similar reasons, the Court held that plaintiffs failed
to allege scienter, concluding it could not infer from allegations
that defendants were aware of underlying issues with the Company's
lending practices that defendants also knew those same practices
were under FTC investigation.

Finally, the Court found that plaintiffs' allegations on the whole
failed to "evince fraudulent intent or deliberate recklessness as
to make the inference of scienter cogent."  In particular, the
Court noted that there were no allegations that any individual
defendants sold Company stock during the relevant period.  To the
contrary, certain of the individual defendants purchased Company
stock, which according to the Court was "'significant[] for the
holistic assessment' and 'weigh[ed] against an inference of
scienter.'"

Because the second amended complaint asserted an entirely different
theory from the first amended complaint, the Court's dismissal was
without prejudice (except as to certain claims against one
individual defendant that was held to have been inadequately
alleged). [GN]



LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gaston Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Deloris Gaston and Leonard
Gaston, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., a Georgia
Corporation; and PoliceReports.US, LLC, a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-00009-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3).

LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company that provides
data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights and
fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.

PoliceReports.US, LLC distributes crash and incident reports
online. The company offers a report transaction management tool for
photos and accident reports.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          PO Box 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Telephone: 828 258-2991
          Facsimile: 828 257-2767
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eugene C. Covington, Jr., Esq.
          EUGENE C. COVINGTON, JR., P.A.
          PO Box 2343
          Greenville, SC 29602
          Telephone: 864 240-5502
          E-mail: gcovington@coypatlaw.com

               - and -

          Chris Cogdill, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER L. COGDILL, P.A.
          p1318 Haywood Road
          Greenville, S.C. 29615
          Telephone: 864-233-7170
          E-mail: chris@cogdill-law.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Hudock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Breann Hudock, et al.
v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01220-JRT,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all consumers, who purchased LG televisions
labeled as having refresh rates of "120Hz" or "240Hz" when, in
actuality, its televisions' refresh rates are 60Hz and 120Hz,
respectively.

The appellate case is captioned as Breann Hudock, et al. v. LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2317, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before August 10, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on August 19, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellants Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores,
      L.P., BestBuy.com, LLC and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., is
      due on August 19, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Breann Hudock, Eugene Mannacio, and Brian
Fleishman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  bresch@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          David Michael Cialkowski, Esq.
          Alyssa Leary, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  Alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Luke Hudock, Esq.
          HUDOCK LAW GROUP
          P.O. Box 83
          Muskego, WI 53150
          Telephone: (414) 526-4906

               - and -

          Alex Phillips, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775

Defendants-Appellants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Best Buy Co.,
Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and BestBuy.com, LLC, are represented
by:

          Erin L. Hoffman, Esq.
          Jeffrey Justman, Esq.
          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          E-mail: erin.hoffman@faegredrinker.com
                  jeff.justman@faegredrinker.com
                  aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Thomas Payne Schmidt, Esq.
          Phoebe A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS
          390 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 918-5547
          E-mail: thomas.schmidt@hoganlovells.com
                  Phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Catherine Emily Stetson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS
          Columbia Square
          555 13th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Peter H. Walsh, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS
          80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 1225
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2113
          E-mail: peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Jimenez Alleges Bias and Wage-and-Hour Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
employees v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES; BETTY PRICE; CECILLE ELLORIN; MARY ORTICKE; AND,
DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 20STCV23356 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., June 19, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
engaged in severe acts of malfeasance toward their employee, Ana
Jimenez, and all other similarly situated employees, including acts
of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to accommodate
disability, and wage and hour violations.

The Defendants violated the California Labor Code by improperly
classifying as salary exempt employees and/or by refusing to pay
overtime for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours
per week, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff started her employment at the Manchester/Vermont
branch of the County of Los Angeles in May 2018, and has been
employed there continuously thereafter.

Los Angeles County, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of the
U.S. state of California, is the most populous county in the United
States, with more than ten million inhabitants as of 2018. The Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health provides public health
services to Los Angeles County residents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Zelig, Esq.
          BAY CITIES LAW GROUP, INC.
          1046 Princeton Drive No. 201
          Venice, CA 90292
          Telephone: 310 393-6702
          Facsimile: 310 393-6703


LOS ANGELES, CA: Protesters Join Class Action Against LAPD
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Davis, writing for Insider, reports that a lawsuit filed
against the City of Los Angeles, its chief of police, and the
department he leads alleges that peaceful protesters were shot in
the head or torso with rubber bullets and other projectiles,
causing lasting injury in defiance of the law. Thousands were also
detained for hours in conditions conducive to the spread of
COVID-19, according to the suit.

Noting that the vast majority of those arrested during recent
protests were nonviolent, per the testimony of Los Angeles Police
Chief Michel Moore, the lawsuit -- filed on behalf of Black Lives
Matter Los Angeles and others alleging harm at the hands of law
enforcement -- accuses police of "unreasonable and excessive force"
that deprived protesters of their right to free speech.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by a number of local civil rights
attorneys earlier this month and amended with new details,
describes a number of cases where nonviolent protesters were shot
in the face with "non-lethal" projectiles of the sort that, since
1990, have left hundreds of people with permanent disabilities.

Tina Crnko, who attended a Black Lives Matter protest on May 30,
was shot in the head with a rubber bullet soon after Chief Moore
addressed the crowd while in riot gear. "She still suffers nerve
damage in the area of the impact," the lawsuit states.

Abigail Rodas attended another rally that day to protest the
killing of George Floyd. It was while leaving that protest that she
was "struck in the face by a projectile and momentarily lost
consciousness," the lawsuit states. The object fractured her jaw,
requiring surgery and a 48-hour hospital stay; she now has screws
in her gums, with rubber bands immobilizing her jaw while she
heals, according to the complaint.

Steven Roe was walking backward away from a line of police when one
officer "shot him in the stomach with a kinetic impact projectile,"
the lawsuit states. The resulting injury remains visible over two
weeks later.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe there are many others like them:
over 3,000 people were arrested and, the lawsuit notes, detained
for hours in close quarters amid a pandemic. They are asking the
court for compensatory damages for those harmed or improperly
detained, and for the deletion of all arrest records for those who
were engaged in nonviolent protest.

An LAPD spokesperson did not immediately return a request for
comment. But Capt. Gisselle Espinoza earlier told the Los Angeles
Times that the department was "fully committed to investigating
every allegation of misconduct or excessive force related to the
recent protests." [GN]


LUSH COSMETICS: Brooks Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUSH COSMETICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01221-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2020), asserts claims
against Lush Cosmetics for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site, https://www.lushusa.com/, to be
fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Lush is a cosmetics retailer headquartered in Poole, Dorset, United
Kingdom, founded by Mark Constantine and Liz Weir.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MDL 2591: Co-Lead Counsel Appeals Memorandums/Orders to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MDL Co-Lead Counsel, et al., filed a conditional or contingent
cross-appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit from the December 31, 2018 Memorandum and Order in
2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO and MDL No. 2591, the July 16, 2019
Memorandum and Order in 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO, March 20, 2019
Memorandum and Order in 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO, the November 19,
2019 Memorandum and Order in 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO and from all
rulings and orders merged therein, and all other underlying or
related orders, rulings, and findings, entered in the lawsuit
styled IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION.

The filing relates to all cases except: Louis Dreyfus Company
Grains Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No.
16-2788-JWL-JPO; Trans Coastal Supply Company, Inc. v. Syngenta AG,
et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02637-JWL-JPO; The Delong Co., Inc. v.
Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02614-JWL-JPO; and Agribase
International Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02279-JWL-JPO.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge John W.
Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the Court's dismissal order and judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

In the case, the Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Defendants
and their counsel in the MDL's underlying litigation against
Syngenta. In general, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to maximize attorney fees, in which
they pursued individual lawsuits on behalf of their clients while
misrepresenting or failing to disclose the possibility and benefits
of participating in class actions.

By Memorandum and Order of March 1, 2019, the Court dismissed the
action, ruling that the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the
constitutional requirement of standing. The Plaintiffs then move
essentially for reconsideration of that ruling.

Judge Lungstrum finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged facts to
support a claim that the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty
to them by placing their own interests ahead of the Plaintiffs'
interests.  Therefore, he concludes that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated standing at this stage with respect to their claims
arising under state law. He rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that
the same injury provides standing for their federal RICO claims.
Thus, the Judge does not vacate its judgment in favor of the
Defendants with respect to the Plaintiffs' federal RICO claims on
this basis.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's fee award was based in part
on submissions and applications by these Defendants, but the Court
assures the Plaintiffs that it would have awarded one third as
attorney fees even without those submissions.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs' recovery is not affected--and they are not injured in
fact--by any fee awards received by the Defendants from the Court's
pools.

The Plaintiffs also make reference to the Defendants' applications
for awards of expenses, although they have not made any specific
argument based on an injury from expense awards as opposed to fee
awards. The Judge holds that it is true that if the Defendants were
denied awards of expenses, more would remain for claimants to
recover. Again, however, the Plaintiffs have not alleged any such
harm. Nor have they plausibly explained how they will receive less
for their claims, traceable to expense awards to these Defendants,
specifically because of the alleged misconduct by these Defendants.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' new theory of injury does not provide a
basis for the Court to reverse its prior dismissal. Accordingly,
because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing for their claims
based on Minnesota law, those claims remain in the case.[BN]

The Plaintiffs' Co-Lead and Litigation Class Counsel are
represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 200-4737
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com

               - and -

          William B. Chaney, Esq.
          GRAY REED & McGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: wchainey@grayreed.com


MDL 2873: Gentile Suit v. 3M Co. Over AFFF Products, Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as THOMAS J. GENTILE, TOMMY MCGARRY, and CHARLES
O'KEEFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02344 (Filed May 27,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina (Charleston) on June 19, 2020.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02318-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Honorable Richard M. Gergel. The lead case is Case No.
2:20-cv-01034-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for medical monitoring and
property damage as a result of their exposure to water contaminated
with toxic chemicals resulting from the Defendants' harmful and
defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") and other
materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs), including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and the Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiffs
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiffs's training
and firefighting activities.

The Gentile case is being consolidated with MDL 2873, In re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

The Defendants include AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
CORPORATION, ANGUS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP, LTD., ARKEMA FRANCE,
S.A., ARKEMA INC., ARCHROMA U.S., INC., BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions, DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD., DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions, DYNAX
CORPORATION, DYNEON, LLC, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions, FIRE SERVICES PLUS, INC., KIDDE, P.L.C., KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC., individually and as successor in interest to Kidde Fire
Fighting, Inc., NARCHEM CORPORATION, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, SOLVAY
SPECIALTY POLYMERS, USA, LLC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually
and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions, THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions, THE ELE CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
          Michelle Greene, Esq.
          Patrick Lanciotti, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
                  acroner@napolilaw.com
                  mgreene@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com


MDL 2938: Gladstone v. Evenflo Co Over Booster Seats Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGETTE GLADSTONE, ANDREW
GLADSTONE, KAREN SANCHEZ, and TERESA MUGA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00118 (Filed March 25, 2020), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June
19, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11171-DJC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs contend that contrary to Evenflo's marketing and
safety representations, it has recently been revealed that the
Defendant has known for a significant period of time that the
Booster Seat is not safe for children lighter than 40 pounds, and
that the Defendant's own testing confirmed that a child seated in
the Booster Seat could be in grave danger in the event of a
side-impact collision.

The Gladstone case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, and that
centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.

In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.

The Defendant develops, designs, manufactures, labels, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells baby products, such as car seats,
strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  khulick@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Marie Appel, Esq.
          Glenn Danas, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com
                  asheanin@robinskaplan.com
                  mappel@robinskaplan.com
                  gdanas@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David John Barthel, Esq.
          Timothy R. Bricker, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 Plaza, Suite 1300
          280 N. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: barthel@carpenterlipps.com
                  bricker@carpenterlipps.com


MDL 2938: Woodson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JANELLE WOODSON, DANA
BERKLEY, JESSICA BLOSWICK, and BECKY BROWN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01069 (Filed Feb. 26, 2020), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June
19, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11174-DJC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs contend that contrary to Evenflo's marketing and
safety representations, it has recently been revealed that the
Defendant has known for a significant period of time that the
Booster Seat is not safe for children lighter than 40 pounds, and
that the Defendant's own testing confirmed that a child seated in
the Booster Seat could be in grave danger in the event of a
side-impact collision.

The Woodson case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, and that
centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.

In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.

The Defendant develops, designs, manufactures, labels, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells baby products, such as car seats,
strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: sjudge@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David John Barthel, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 Plaza, Suite 1300
          280 N. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
          E-mail: barthel@carpenterlipps.com


MEI PHARMA: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of MEI
Pharma, Inc. ("MEI Pharma" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MEIP).   Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On July 2, 2020, MEI Pharma announced that it was discontinuing its
Phase 3 study of Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor
being investigated in combination with azacitidine for the
treatment of adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who
are unfit for standard intensive chemotherapy.  Specifically, the
Company advised that an interim futility analysis of the ongoing
Phase 3 study, undertaken by the study's Independent Data
Monitoring Committee, "has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the
primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the control
group," and that "[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis,
the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients
and end the study," which "was based on a lack of efficacy and not
on safety concerns."

Following MEI Pharma's announcement, the Company's stock price fell
$0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2,
2020.

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.

Contact:

          Robert S. Willoughby
          Pomerantz LLP
          Tel: 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
          http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
[GN]

MELTECH INC: Grove Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Collective Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREA GROVE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. MELTECH, INC.,
H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and SHANE HARRINGTON, Case No.
8:20-cv-00193-JFB-MDN (D. Neb), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective
      action on behalf of:

      "exotic dancers who have worked at Club Omaha during the
      last three years and were classified as independent
      contractors";

   2. granting notice be issued to all putative class members by
      first class mail, e-mail, and text message and by visibly
      posting the Notice on the premises of Club Omaha; and

   3. directing the Defendants to produce a list of the names,
      last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone
      numbers for all putative class members.

Ms. Grove asserts that she and other exotic dancers working for
Club Omaha were all subject to the same rules and policies imposed
by the Defendants, and were misclassified as independent
contractors when were are, in fact, employees of Club Omaha as a
matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the protections of
the FLSA. She contends that, as a result of this misclassification,
the Defendants has failed to pay them the minimum wage, failed to
pay them overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 a
week, and have required them to pay unlawful kickbacks to the club
in violation of the FLSA.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

MICHIGAN STATE FCU: Final Settlement Approval Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIFFANY K.
COLEMAN-WEATHERSBEE, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:19-cv-11674-JEL-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement
      reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and

   2. approving Class Counsel's request for award of attorney's
      fees, litigation costs, and incentive awards.

Michigan State University Federal Credit Union, headquartered in
East Lansing, Michigan, is the largest university-based credit
union in the world and is federally chartered and regulated under
the National Credit Union Administration.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO
          801 W. Ann Arbor Trail, Ste 240
          Plymouth, MI 48170
          Telephone: 248-760-2996
          E-mail: PJGoodman1@aol.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: 310-395-2988
          Facsimile: 310-395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: 909-557-1250
          Facsimile: 909-557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

MILLENNIUM HEALTH: R. Mauthe Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe MD PC filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v. Millennium
Health LLC, Case No. 5-18-cv-01903, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Edward G. Smith entered an order denying a motion for class
certification without prejudice.

After the complaint has been served upon the Defendant and an
attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the Defendant, the
Court will hold a telephone conference to establish a schedule with
respect to class action discovery and certification, the Court
says.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v.
Millennium Health LLC, Case No. 20-2265, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT W. MAUTHE MD PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Todd A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee MILLENNIUM HEALTH LLC is represented by:

          Dylan F. Henry, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
          1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7647
          E-mail: dhenry@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Brendan G. Lamanna, Esq.
          Philip A. Magen, Esq.
          ZARWIN BAUM DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER & TODDY
          1818 Market Street, 13th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-2800
          E-mail: pamagen@zarwin.com

               - and -

          David M. Poell, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          70 West Madison Street
          Three First National Plaza, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6349
          E-mail: dpoell@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Werner, III, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 747-193
          E-mail: pwerner@sheppardmullin.com


MONEY SOURCE: Court Denies Amended Bid to Certify Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as Roberta Martinez v. The Money Source,
Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00060-SVW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen v. Wilson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's amended
motion to certify a collective action consisting of:

  "all current and former wholesale underwriters who worked for
  Defendant at any time in the past three years."

According to the Court, the Plaintiff's allegations, even supported
by two declarants, are simply too vague and conclusory to imply an
unlawful policy. Accepted as true, all the Plaintiff establishes is
that Defendant had expectations that she found unreasonable. There
is no plausible implication that the Defendant required the
Plaintiff (or any other Underwriter) to work uncompensated overtime
to meet those expectations. Plaintiff has therefore failed to
plausibly allege that Defendant maintained an unlawful Overtime
Policy."

TMS is a national mortgage lender.[CC]

MORPHE LLC: Faces Brooks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MORPHE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01219-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.,
June 17, 2020), asserts claims against Morphe for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
https://www.morphe.com/, to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Morphe manufactures beauty care products. The Company offers
lipstick, brushes, makeup removers, pressed pigments, gel liners,
concealers, powders, lashes, beauty sponges, tweezers, and
scissors. Morphe serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) between
February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mylan investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Mylan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1889.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

The claims against Mylan arise from the Company's alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding rampant abuses of
federal quality control regulations, including at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President, Mylan
chemists manipulated quality control test data in order to create
the facade that Mylan's drugs had achieved passing quality control
results. In November 2016, a whistleblower reported Mylan's conduct
to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. As a result of its
violations, Mylan was ultimately forced to reveal that it would be
dramatically "restructuring" its Morgantown facility, including by
terminating hundreds of employees, and reported a surprise
quarterly loss on May 7, 2019. 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 August 25,
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-1889.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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.

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


MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Mylan N.V. (NASDAQ: MYL) between
February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mylan investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Mylan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1889.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

The claims against Mylan arise from the Company's alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding rampant abuses of
federal quality control regulations, including at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President, Mylan
chemists manipulated quality control test data in order to create
the facade that Mylan's drugs had achieved passing quality control
results. In November 2016, a whistleblower reported Mylan's conduct
to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. As a result of its
violations, Mylan was ultimately forced to reveal that it would be
dramatically "restructuring" its Morgantown facility, including by
terminating hundreds of employees, and reported a surprise
quarterly loss on May 7, 2019. 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 August 25,
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-1889.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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.

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


NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Proceedings in Otzelberger Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OTZELBERGER v. NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00831-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to
stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On June 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

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

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

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

United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable
management services to creditors.[CC]

NED LAMONT: Parties Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TRE MCPHERSON, ET AL., v. NED
LAMONT, ET AL., Case No. 3:20-cv-00534-JBA (D. Conn.), the Parties
ask the Court for an order certifying a class of:

     "all persons who were incarcerated in a Department of
Corrections facility from March 1, 2020, or are incarcerated, or in
the future will be so incarcerated, until the termination date of
this Agreement, December 31, 2020."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Will W. Sachse, Esq.
          Jenna C. Newmark, Esq.
          Gabrielle N. Piper, Esq.
          Jonathan Tam, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Telephone: (215) 994-2496
          E-mail: will.sachse@dechert.com
                  jenna.newmark@dechert.com
                  gabrielle.piper@dechert.com
                  jonathan.tam@dechert.com

               - and -

          Dan Barrett, Esq.
          Elana Bildner, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF CONNECTICUT
          765 Asylum Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 471-8471
          E-mail: e-filings@acluct.org

               - and -

          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364

The Defendants are represented by:

          Terrence M. O'Neill, Esq.
          Steven R. Strom, Esq.
          James W. Donohue, Esq.
          James M. Belforti, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
          110 Sherman Street
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 808-5450
          E-mail: terrence.oneill@ct.gov
                  steven.strom@ct.gov
                  james.donohue@ct.gov
                  james.belforti@ct.gov

NEW JERSEY EDUCATION: Smith Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ann Smith, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit titled Ann Smith, et al. v. New Jersey Education
Association, et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-10381, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
moved to certify two plaintiff classes and one defendant class in
relation to their motion for preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiff Classes consists of:

   * "all public employees in the state of New Jersey (1) who
      have resigned or will resign their union membership after
      Janus; and (2) whose employers are required by section 6 of
      the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act to continue
      deducting union dues from their paychecks even after they
      have resigned from the union." Ms. Poulson, Mr. Sandberg,
      and Mr. Santiago would serve as the representatives of this
      class; and


   * "all public employees in New Jersey who remain subject to
      the payroll deduction of union dues that they have not
      freely and knowingly consented to since the Supreme Court's
      ruling in Janus." Ms. Poulson, Mr. Sandberg, and
      Mr. Santiago would also serve as the representatives of
      this class.

The Defendant Class consists of:

     "all public school boards and school districts in the state
      of New Jersey." The Clearview Regional High School District
      Board of Education and the Harrison Township Board of
      Education would serve as the representatives of this class.

The appellate case is captioned as Ann Smith, et al. v. New Jersey
Education Association, et al., Case No. 19-3995, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN SMITH, KARL HEDENBERG, MELISSA POULSON,
MICHAEL SANDBERG, LEONARDO SANTIAGO, and RACHEL CURCIO, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Walter S. Zimolong, III, Esq.
          ZIMOLONG LLC
          P.O. Box 552
          Villanova, PA 19085
          Telephone: (215) 665-0842
          E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CLEARVIEW
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, HARRISON TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
KINGSWAY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, as representatives of the class of
all chapters and affiliates of the New Jersey Education
Association, and NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION are represented
by:

          Raymond Baldino, Esq.
          Robert A. Fagella, Esq.
          ZAZZALI FAGELLA NOWAK KLEINBAUM & FRIEDMAN
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1402
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: 609-951-9520
          E-mail: rbaldino@zazzali-law.com
                  rfagella@zazzali-law.com

Defendants-Appellees KINGSWAY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, as
representatives of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the
New Jersey Education Association, and KINGSWAY REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, as representatives of the class of all
school boards in New Jersey, are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Caccese, Esq.
          COMEGNO LAW GROUP
          521 Pleasant Valley Avenue
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: 856-505-6622
          E-mail: jcaccese@comegnolaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CLEARVIEW REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION is represented by:

          Frank P. Cavallo, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: 856-596-8900
          E-mail: fcavallo@parkermccay.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Li, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          3840 Quakerbridge Road, Suite 200
          Hamilton, NJ 08619
          Telephone: 856-985-4091
          E-mail: ali@parkermccay.com

Defendant-Appellee HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION is
represented by:

          Brett E.J. Gorman, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: 856-985-4051
          E-mail: bgorman@parkermccay.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Li, Esq.
          PARKER MCCAY P.A.
          3840 Quakerbridge Road, Suite 200
          Hamilton, NJ 08619
          Telephone: 856-985-4091
          E-mail: ali@parkermccay.com

Defendant-Appellee GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY is represented by:

          Donna S. Arons, Esq.
          Jana R. DiCosmo, Esq.
          Lauren A. Jensen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
          25 Market Street
          Richard J. Hughes Complex
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: 609-376-3199
          E-mail: donna.arons@dol.lps.state.nj.us

Defendants-Appellees JOEL M. WEISBLATT, PAUL BOUDREAU, PAULA B.
VOOS, JOHN BONANNI and DAVID JONES, in their official capacities as
chariman and members of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations
Commission, are represented by:

          Don Horowitz, Esq.
          PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: 609-292-9830
          E-mail: DHorowitz@law.duke.edu


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay ABMs' Overtime Wages, Lopez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LOPEZ and JOSEPH GIUFFRE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC., NEW
YORK COMMUNITY BANK, and NEW YORK COMMERCIAL BANK, Case No.
2:20-cv-02741-GRB-ST (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
paid Assistant Branch Managers. Ms. Lopez worked at the Defendants'
branch locations in Queens, New York, from March 2012 to November
2018. Mr. Guiffre worked at the Defendants' branch locations in
Woodbury, New York, from August 2015 to May 2017.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc., is a bank headquartered in
Westbury, New York, with 225 branches in New York, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, and Arizona. NYCB is on the list of largest banks in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Logan Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: COBA Appeals Opinion and Judgment to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, Inc., et
al., filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and judgment
both entered on November 20, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Correction
Officers' Benevolent Association, Inc., et al. v. City of New York,
Case No. 17-cv-2899, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, Inc. ("COBA"), the
exclusive bargaining representative for all employees of the New
York City Department of Correction ("DOC") holding the title of
"Correction Officer" ("CO"), and COs Tiffani Dublin, Anthony
Romano, Matthew Hines, and Francis Castro bring the action, in the
case of the named COs, both individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, file a lawsuit against the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 by subjecting them to a state-created danger in
derogation of their substantive due process rights guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment.

The appellate case is captioned as Correction Officers' Benevolent
Association, Inc., et al. v. City of New York, Case No. 19-4242, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Correction Officers' Benevolent Association,
Inc.; Anthony Romano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; John and Jane Does 1-2000; and Bryan Ashendorf
are represented by:

          Cynthia Devasia, Esq.
          KOEHLER & ISAACS LLP
          61 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 917-551-1352
          E-mail: cdevasia@koehler-isaacs.com

Defendants-Appellees City of New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, New
York City Department of Correction and Commissioner Cynthia Brann
are represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-356-2500


NEW YORK: Board Files Three Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 19-4279;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 19-4280; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 19-4293.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Irma Martinez, Martha Cruz and Lina
Beriguette-Barreto are represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Claude S. Platton, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-356-2400
          E-mail: cplatton@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Hernandez in Gulino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated April 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-2028, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Raphael Hernandez is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          Kevin Osowski, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 353-5043


NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Griffin in Gulino Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
entered on April 30, 2020, in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-1964, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Shirley Griffin is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Turner in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York files an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
entered on April 30, 2020, in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-1938, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Onaje Turner is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Appeals Ruling in Lambert Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Nutraceutical Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Troy Lambert, et al. v. Nutraceutical
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-05942-AB-E, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sep. 17,
2019, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum dismissing the Petition in the case captioned TROY
LAMBERT, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. NUTRACEUTICAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 15-56423 (9th Cir.).

Troy Lambert petitions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)
for leave to appeal the district court's order decertifying the
proposed class in this case.

The only question the Court must answer is whether Lambert's Rule
23(f) petition is timely where, following the district court's
scheduling order, Lambert filed a motion for reconsideration 20
days after the district court's decertification order and then
filed a Rule 23(f) petition 14 days after the denial of the motion
for reconsideration.

Mr. Lambert brought a consumer class action for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  He brought his class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which provides that a
class may be certified if questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members.

The appellate case is captioned as Troy Lambert, et al. v.
Nutraceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 20-80020, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent TROY LAMBERT, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006

               - and -

          Gregory Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 255-7098
          E-mail: gweston@winston.com

Defendant-Petitioner NUTRACEUTICAL CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
is represented by:

          Steven Feldman, Esq.
          Joseph Reiter, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          E-mail: sfeldman@hueston.com
                  jreiter@hueston.com

               - and -

          John Charles Hueston, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com


OHIO: Nine Dance Studios File Class Action
------------------------------------------
Talia Naquin, writing for WJW, reports that nine Ohio dance
studios, including four in Northeast Ohio, have filed a class
action suit against the State of Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine, former
Ohio Department of Health director Dr. Amy Acton, Attorney General
David Yost, Interim ODH Director Lance Himes, and local health
commissioners.

The class action says the facilities are owed monetary compensation
because of what it claims are unconstitutional orders against mass
gatherings, deeming which services are essential, the Stay at Home
order, and the state's guidelines for dance facilities to operate
due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Dance facilities closed in March and received reopening guidelines
in May.

The suit claims Dr. Acton refused a records request for COVID-19
model predictions.

It claims:

"A mere 670 deaths for non-highly susceptible Ohioans, among
11,747,694 Ohioans, represents a mere .000057 (0.0057%), no
justification to destroy Ohio's economy;

Acton and DeWine through their fraudulent and misleading modeling
predicated a potential of 160,000 COVID 19 cases per day, but the
maximum number reached about 1,600 per day, a gross understatement
of 100 times…"

LIBERTY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OHIO
The state has seen 2,735 deaths as of the June 23 numbers from
ODH.

The suit continues:

"Acton and DeWine has used a "sledge hammer" to kill the Ohio
economy through the their unconstitutional actions, destroying the
Ohio economy, and destroying the constitutional rights of all
Ohioans, individuals and businesses, outside of Nursing Homes and
Jails, when Acton and DeWine should have used a "scalpel and a
knife" to delicately slice and dice the COVID 19."

LIBERTY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OHIO
The median age of deaths in Ohio is 81, according to ODH.

The lawsuit claims Acton and Dewine "willfully" and "maliciously"
"conspired" to defraud the public with misleading modeling,
stripping Ohioans of their constitutional rights.

Local dance studios in the suit are Your Next Move, Miss Darcy's
Academy of Dance, Rhythm and Grace LLC, and Danci Abel Ballroom
studio.

They're seeking a trial by jury.

The suit was filed on June 22.

The suit also claims Acton and DeWine should be removed from
office. [GN]


ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Decision in Forby Suit to Fifth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants One Technologies, L.P., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Vickie Forby v. One
Technologies, L.P. et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-856, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on April 24,
2015, Ms. Forby filed a class action in Illinois state court that
was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on July 14, 2015.  Ms. Forby brought claims
against One Tech for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") and unjust enrichment
under Illinois law.

In the notice of removal, One Tech did not reference arbitration
but rather argued that Ms. Forby's claims were baseless, and that
no class should be certified.  On July 21, 2015, it filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative,
moved to transfer the case for forum non conveniens, arguing that
Ms. Forby's claims were subject to arbitration in Texas and that an
Illinois district court could not compel arbitration outside of the
confines of its district.  On Sept. 4, 2015, One Tech filed an
opposed motion to stay discovery until the Illinois district court
ruled on the motion to dismiss.

On March 25, 2016, the Illinois district court issued a Memorandum
and Order transferring the case to the Northern District of Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Vickie Forby v. One
Technologies, L.P. et al., Case No. 20-10088, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee VICKIE FORBY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated in Illinois, is represented by:

          Craig D. Cherry, Esq.
          HALEY & OLSON, P.C.
          100 N. Ritchie Road
          Waco, TX 76712
          Telephone: (2540 776-3336
          E-mail: ccherry@haleyolson.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, L.L.P.
          1133 Penn Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

Defendants-Appellants ONE TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., ONE TECHNOLOGIES
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. and ONE TECHNOLOGIES CAPITAL, L.L.P. are
represented by:

          Brian Edward Robison, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3370
          E-mail: brobison@gibsondunn.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Ahlman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Don Barnes, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don Barnes, et al.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for
Central California, Santa Ana.

Don Barnes is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Orange
County, California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

   1. Granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Plaintiffs'
      application for temporary restraining order or preliminary
      injunction; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class
      certification of:

      The Pre-Trial Class:

      "all current and future pre-trial detainees incarcerated
       at the Orange County Jail";

      Post-Conviction Class:

      "all current and future post-conviction prisoners
       incarcerated at the Orange County Jail from the present
       until the COVID-19 pandemic has abated"

      Medically-Vulnerable Subclass:

      "all persons who, by reason of age or medical condition,
       the CDC has identified as particularly vulnerable to
       injury or death if they were to contract COVID-19"; and

      Disability Subclass:

      "all persons within the Medically Vulnerable Subclasses
       who are vulnerable because of a disability as defined in
       federal law."

The Plaintiffs, who are all confined in the Orange County Jail,
bring this action because the conditions of their incarceration
have put them all at imminent risk of serious illness and death
from COVID-19.

The appellate case is captioned as Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don
Barnes, et al., Case No. 20-55668, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MELISSA AHLMAN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Zoe Brennan-Krohn, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0769

               - and -

          Peter Jay Eliasberg, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

               - and -

          Stacey Grigsby, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5238
          E-mail: sgrigsby@cov.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Mitchell Aaron Kamin, Esq.
          Aaron Lewis, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
          Telephone: (424) 332-4759
          E-mail: mkamin@cov.com

               - and -

          Cassandra Stubbs, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          201 West Main Street
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 682-5659

               - and -

          Carl Takei, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500

               - and -

          John Clay Washington, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: jwashington@sshhlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants DON BARNES, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Orange County, California, and COUNTY OF ORANGE, are
represented by:

          Donald Kevin Dunn, Esq.
          Laura D. Knapp, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Leeds, Esq.
          Kayla Nicole Watson, Esq.
          ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
          333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard
          P.O. Box 1370
          Santa Ana, CA 92701
          Telephone: (714) 834-3300


ORLEANS PARISH: Matthews Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LARRY A. MATTHEWS JR. and
ERNEST CLOUD, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
KAREN K. HERMAN, Chief Judge of Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13553-EEF-MBN (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all individuals with pending state misdemeanor or felony
      cases who will, after acceptance of their charges by the
      District Attorney, appear before Defendant Judges for
      proceedings concerning pretrial release";

   2. appointing their counsel as class counsel;

   3. scheduling a hearing on this matter; and

   4. granting such other relief as the Court may deem
      appropriate.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          James W. Craig, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL HOWARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PHILLIPS & COHEN
ASSOCIATES, LTD. and PORTFOLIO ASSET GROUP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00899
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews Appeals Amended Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Keith Andrews, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Keith Andrews, et al. v.
Plains All American Pipeline, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Philip S. Gutierrez has entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend the order certifying fisher subclass; and
certifying the fisher subclass under the Plaintiffs' proposed
amended definition: "all persons and businesses (Fishers) who owned
or worked on a vessel that was in operation as of May 19, 2015 and
that: (1) landed any commercial seafood in California Department of
Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") fishing blocks 654, 655, or 656; or (2)
landed any commercial seafood, except groundfish or highly
migratory species (as defined by the CDFW and the Pacific Fishery
Management Council), in CDFW fishing blocks 651-656, 664-670,
678-686, 701-707, 718-726, 739-746, 760-765, or 806-809; from May
19, 2010 to May 19, 2015, inclusive; and All persons and businesses
(Processors) in operation as of May 19, 2015 who purchased such
commercial seafood directly from the Fishers and re-sold it at the
retail or wholesale level. Excluded from the proposed Subclass are:
(1) Defendants, any entity or division in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers,
directors, employees, assigns and successors; (2) the judge to whom
this case is assigned, the judge's staff, and any member of the
judge's immediate family, and (3) businesses that contract directly
with Plains for use of the Pipeline."

The appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains
All American Pipeline, et al., Case No. 19-56519, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEITH ANDREWS, an individual, et al., are
represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Ling Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: 415-568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  ndesai@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com
                  rlieff@lchb.com
                  rnelson@lchb.com

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
          E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com
                  lconlan@cappellonoel.com
                  lnoel@cappellonoel.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
                  dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

Defendants-Appellees PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership, and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas limited
partnership, are represented by:

          Melinda Eades LeMoine, Esq.
          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          Fred Anthony Rowley, Jr., Esq.
          Henry Weissmann, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-683-9171
          E-mail: Melinda.LeMoine@mto.com
                  daniel.levin@mto.com
                  Fred.Rowley@mto.com
                  Henry.Weissmann@mto.com


PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS) between
August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019, inclusive of the important
August 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PlayAGS investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the PlayAGS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1885.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in
Oklahoma; (2) as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be
negatively impacted; (3) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
Interactive business segment, including delays in securing
regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a goodwill
impairment; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1885.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Rosen Law Firm
          Toll free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  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]

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Johannessohn Appeals Decision to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Riley Johannessohn, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Riley Johannessohn, et al.
v. Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-01445-NEB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers, who purchased
Sportsman ATVs between October 4, 2010 and October 4, 2016.
Alternatively, if the Court finds that Minnesota law does not apply
to all purchases of Sportsman ATVs in the United States, the
Plaintiffs seek to represent seven subclasses of Sportsman
purchasers, one for each of their states of residence.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the consumer-protection laws of
their states as well as a claim for breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability. The Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims are
largely premised on their allegation that Polaris failed to
disclose the defect.

The appellate case is captioned as Riley Johannessohn, et al. v.
Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 20-2347, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before August 10, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on August 20, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellants Daniel C. Badilla, William Bates, Riley
      Johannessohn, James Kelley, James Pinion and Kevin R.
      Wonders is due on August 20, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Riley Johannessohn, et al., are represented
by:

         Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
         Karen Riebel, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 khriebel@locklaw.com

              - and -

         Steven Calamusa, Esq.
         Robert E. Gordon, Esq.
         GORDON & PARTNERS PA
         4114 Northlake Boulevard
         Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
         Telephone: (561) 799-5070
         E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                 rgordon@fortheinjured.com

              - and -

         Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
         Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
         Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
         Douglas James McNamara, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         West Tower, Suite 500
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20005-3934
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                 tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                 dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
       
Defendant-Respondent Polaris Industries Inc. is represented by:

         Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
         Paul David Collier, Esq.
         Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
         Raymond Chris Heck, Esq.
         KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
         300 N. LaSalle
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 862-2000
         E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                 paul.collier@kirkland.com
                 richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
                 r.chris.heck@kirkland.com

              - and -

         Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
         2200 Wells Fargo Center
         90 S. Seventh Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Telephone: (612) 766-7000
         E-mail: wendy.wildung@faegredrinker.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Certification of Follow-up Letter Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JUMOKA JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01240-PP (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Statewide Follow-up Letter Class defined as:

      "(a) all natural persons in the state of Wisconsin, (b) to
      whom PRA mailed a collection letter in the form of Exhibit
      A to the Complaint in this Action, (c) and to whom PRA
      subsequently, within fewer than 30 days, mailed a
      collection letter, (d) where the letters sought to collect
      the same alleged debt, (e) which was incurred for
      personal, family, or household services, (f) and where the
      second letter was mailed between August 26, 2018 and
      August 26, 2019, inclusive, (g) and neither letter was
      returned by the postal service";

   2. appointing the herself as its representative; and

   3. appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its counsel.

PRA is a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans based
in Norfolk, Virginia.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RALPH SOZIO: Class Status Sought on Habeas Corpus Petition
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as John Doe II, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALPH SOZIO, United
States Marshal, Southern District of New York; BRYAN T. MULLEE,
Acting United States Marshal, Eastern District of New York; THE GEO
GROUP, INC.; WILLIAM ZERILLO, Facility Administrator, Queens
Detention Facility, Case No. 20-Civ-2183-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the
Petitioner asks the Court for an order allowing his Section 2241
habeas corpus petition to proceed on a representative or class
basis.

The United States Marshals Service is a federal law enforcement
agency within the U.S. Department of Justice.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager, Esq.
          Alana M. Longmoore, Esq.
          Hannah Lonky Fackler, Esq.
          Kerry A. Tirrell, Esq.
          Matthew Belgiovine, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000

REBECCA ADDUCCI: Malam Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JANET MALAM v. REBECCA
ADDUCCI, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-10829-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Rule 23 class of:

      "all noncitizens held by U.S. Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement at Calhoun";

   2. certifying Rule 23 subclass of:

      "medically vulnerable individuals who have one or more
      factors placing them at heightened risk for serious
      illness or death if exposed to COVID-19"; and

   3. designating her counsel as class counsel.

This action arises from the Defendants' failure to protect
noncitizens civilly detained by U.S. ICE at the Calhoun County
Correctional Center from contracting COVID-19 and the resulting
risk of death or serious physical injury while detained.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
          Ayesha Elaine Lewis, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Monica C. Andrade, Esq.
          David C. Fathi, Esq.
          Eunice H. Cho, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          Fund of Michigan
          1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 260
          Grand Rapids, MI 49506
          Telephone: (616) 301-0930
          E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  dfathi@aclu.org
                  echo@aclu.org

               - and -

          Anand V. Balakrishnan, Esq.
          Michael K.T. Tan, Esq.
          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          My Khanh Ngo, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS'
          RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: abalakrishnan@aclu.org
                  mtan@aclu.org
                  ojadwat@aclu.org
                  mngo@aclu.org

               - and -

          Jeannie S. Rhee, Esq.
          Mark F. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Rachel M. Fiorill, Esq.
          Peter E. Jaffe, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Silberstein-Loeb, Esq.
          Oleg M. Shik, Esq.
          Katherine W. Gadsden, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
             & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006-1047
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
          E-mail: jrhee@paulweiss.com
                  mmendelsohn@paulweiss.com
                  rfiorill@paulweiss.com
                  pjaffe@paulweiss.com
                  jsilberstein-loeb@paulweiss.com
                  oshik@paulweiss.com
                  kgadsden@paulweiss.com

RESTASIS SUIT: Approval of Notice to End-Payors Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 18-MD-2819-NG-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the
End-Payor Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. approving the proposed form and manner of providing notice
      of the certification of the End-Payor Class; and

   2. appointing A.B. Data as the notice administrator.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          David T. Rudolph, Esq.
          Adam Gitlin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  drudolph@lchb.com
                  agitlin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Tom L. Watts, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  scottg@girardsharp.com
                  tomw@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
          Sona R. Shah, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                  rschachter@zsz.com
                  sshah@zsz.com

RITE AID: Court Grants Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTAL NUCCI, et al. v. RITE
AID CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01434-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendants' motion to strike; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify Rule 23(b)(3)
      class of:

      "all non-exempt employees, excluding pharmacists, pharmacy
      interns, and asset protection agents, working in any Rite
      Aid store in California at any time from March 13, 2015
      through the trial date."

Judge Koh concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement. Thus, because the Court finds
that Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied, the Court
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required the Plaintiffs
and putative class members to purchase their own uniforms in
violation of California law.

The Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees who worked in California
Rite Aid stores at some point during the alleged Class Period from
March 13, 2015 through any trial date.

The Defendants operate retail drug stores throughout the United
States, including approx. 544 stores in California.[CC]

RM PARTNERS: Asner Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Scott Asner and Joshua Landy filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE HENGLE; SHERRY
BLACKBURN; WILLIE ROSE; ELWOOD BUMBRAY; TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE;
SUE COLLINS; and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SCOTT ASNER; JOSHUA LANDY; RICHARD
MOSELEY, JR.; RM PARTNERS, LLC; GOLDEN VALLEY LENDING, INC.; SILVER
CLOUD FINANCIAL INC.; MOUNTAIN SUMMIT FINANCIAL, INC.; MAJESTIC
LAKE FINANCIAL, INC.; and UPPER LAKE PROCESSING SERVICE, INC., Case
No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is an
action involving an illegal lending enterprise that flouts state
usury laws through the tribal lending business model.

According to the complaint, under the Defendants' lending business
model, the payday lenders originate their loan products through a
company "owned" by a Native American tribe and organized under its
laws. The tribal company serves as a conduit for the loans,
facilitating a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the loans
are subject to tribal law, not the protections created by state
usury and licensing laws. In exchange for the use of its name on
the loan, the tribal company receives a small portion of the
revenue and does not meaningfully participate in the day-to-day
operations of the business.

The appellate case is captioned as George Hengle, et al. v. Scott
Asner, et al., Case No. 20-1063, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE ROSE,
ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and
LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org

Defendants-Appellants SCOTT ASNER and JOSHUA LANDY are represented
by:

         Jan Amber Larson, Esq.
         Thomas John Perrelli, Esq.
         JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
         1099 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 639-6000
         E-mail: janlarson@jenner.com
                 tperrelli@jenner.com


RM PARTNERS: Treppa Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sherry Treppa, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE HENGLE; SHERRY BLACKBURN;
WILLIE ROSE; ELWOOD BUMBRAY; TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; SUE
COLLINS; and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCOTT ASNER; JOSHUA LANDY; RICHARD
MOSELEY, JR.; RM PARTNERS, LLC; GOLDEN VALLEY LENDING, INC.; SILVER
CLOUD FINANCIAL INC.; MOUNTAIN SUMMIT FINANCIAL, INC.; MAJESTIC
LAKE FINANCIAL, INC.; and UPPER LAKE PROCESSING SERVICE, INC., Case
No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is an
action involving an illegal lending enterprise that flouts state
usury laws through the tribal lending business model.

According to the complaint, under the Defendants' lending business
model, the payday lenders originate their loan products through a
company "owned" by a Native American tribe and organized under its
laws. The tribal company serves as a conduit for the loans,
facilitating a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the loans
are subject to tribal law, not the protections created by state
usury and licensing laws. In exchange for the use of its name on
the loan, the tribal company receives a small portion of the
revenue and does not meaningfully participate in the day-to-day
operations of the business.

The appellate case is captioned as George Hengle, et al. v. Sherry
Treppa, et al., Case No. 20-1062, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE ROSE,
ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and
LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org

Defendants-Appellants SHERRY TREPPA, Chairperson of the Habematolel
Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Counsil; in her official capacity,
TRACEY TREPPA, Vice-Chairperson of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper
Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, KATHLEEN TREPPA,
Treasurer of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council;
in her official capacity, IRIS PICTON, Secretary of the Habematolel
Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, SAM
ICAY, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
Executive Council; in her official capacity, AIMEE JACKSON-PENN,
Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive
Council; in her official capacity, and AMBER JACKSON,
Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive
Council; in her official capacity, are represented by:

          Rakesh Nageswar Kilaru, Esq.
          James Miller Rosenthal, Esq.
          Matthew R. Skanchy, Esq.
          Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Esq.
          Beth Ann Wilkinson, Esq.
          WILKINSON WALSH, LLP
          2001 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 847-4046
          E-mail: rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  jrosenthal@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  mskanchy@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  kstojilkovic@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com


RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

R Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1
CLNY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1
CCL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)

R Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 23, 2015 -
February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ryder
System, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ryder's financial results were
inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating the
residual values of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no
reasonable basis to believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles
for the amounts that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual
values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future
values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY)

CLNY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 9, 2019 -
May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Colony
Capital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial
real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real
Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact
Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's
remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt
secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus
at a significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Carnival Corporation & Plc (CCL)

CCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 26,
2019 - May 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7626&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Carnival
Corporation & Plc made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's medics
were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the
Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call
regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19
infections on board its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of
COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and
safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable
disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships
were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports
throughout the world; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally
recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut,
and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise
and experience representing investors in securities litigation and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN]


SACHS ELECTRIC: Durham Suit Seeks to Certify PAGA Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as William Durham, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sachs Electric Company, a Missouri corporation; McCarthy
Building Companies, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No.
5:18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify these classes:

-- Class 1. Sachs Unpaid Wages Class (Buggy Time Claim):

    "all non-exempt employees of Sachs Electric Company who
    worked on the construction of the California Flats Solar
    Project at any time within the period from July 25, 2014
    through the date of class certification who were not paid
    for all time spent after arriving at the parking lots and
    waiting for and traveling to their daily work sites and the
    time spent waiting for and traveling from their daily work
    sites to the parking lots";

-- Class 2. Sachs Unpaid Wages Class (Meal Period Time Claim):

    "all non-exempt employees of Sachs Electric Company who
    worked on the construction of the California Flats Solar
    Project at any time within the period from July 25, 2014
    through the date of class certification who were not paid
    for all the time of their meal periods";

-- Class 3. Termination Pay Class:

    "all members of Class 1 and 2 whose employment with Sachs
    Electric Company terminated within the period beginning July
    25, 2015 to the date of class certification"; and

-- Class 4. Wage Statement Class:

    "all member of Class 1 and 2 who received wage statements
    from Sachs Electric Company during the period beginning July
    25, 2017 to the date of class certification."

This wage-and-hour class Private Attorney General Act action arises
out of the Plaintiff's and the class members' employment by Sachs
Electric at the California Flats Solar Project. Mr. Durham was
directly employed by Sachs as an electrical worker crew member,
electrical worker crew foreman and an electrical worker general
foreman at the Project. The putative class members in this action
are non-exempt employees of Sachs who also worked at the Project
and were subjected to the labor law violations.

Sachs Electric is a national electrical contracting,
communications, instrumentation, and engineering company serving
the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          5211 East Washington Blvd. No. 2262
          Commerce, CA 90040
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

SAGINAW, MI: Taylor Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALISON PATRICIA TAYLOR v.
CITY OF SAGINAW and TABITHA HOSKINS, Case No. 1:17-cv-11067-TLL-PTM
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;

   2. dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's amended complaint;

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification of:

      "people who had paid 4,820 tickets and suffered losses
      equal to the amount of the tickets."

The Court concluded that the community caretaking exception
applied, finding that, "Active enforcement of parking regulations
benefits the public by ensuring convenient access to public
parking. If the police have the authority to impound a vehicle
while enforcing parking regulations, surely they have the authority
to chalk a vehicle’s tire while enforcing parking regulations."

The Plaintiff alleged that the City's practice of placing a chalk
mark on the tires of parked cars while enforcing parking
regulations violated the Fourth Amendment because the Defendants
failed to secure a search warrant before their use of the
chalk.[CC]

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY: Student A Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT A, STUDENT B, and STUDENT C, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, Case No.
5:20-cv-04045-SVK (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020), is brought on behalf
of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
Semester at SCU, and who, because of the Defendant's response to
COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they
paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without
having their tuition and fees refunded to them.

Beginning March 10, 2020, SCU suspended in-person classes and moved
"to a 20 virtual format" (i.e., online classes). On March 16, 2020,
SCU announced that classes and exams would continue to be held
online until the end of the spring quarter (or in the case of law
students, the spring semester). Shortly afterwards, SCU closed all
residence halls, closed campus facilities, and cancelled all
on-campus events.

As a result of the closure of SCU's facilities, SCU has not
delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Plaintiffs and putative class members paid for,
according to the complaint. The online learning options being
offered to SCU students are subpar in practically every aspect,
from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to a refund
of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that SCU has not provided. They seek a
pro rata refund for the Spring 2020 semester, and for all future
semesters impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if SCU did not
have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it certainly has the
choice to return funds for services it is not providing. Because
SCU has refused to do the right thing, the Plaintiffs here have
stepped-up and filed a class action on behalf of themselves and
their fellow students, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents of San Diego and Santa Clara,
California, and are full-time law students at SCU.

SCU is a private Jesuit university that offers over more than 50
majors, minors, and special programs for law, medicine, and
teaching. Its graduate programs span business, engineering,
education, counseling psychology, law, theology, and pastoral
ministries. SCU operates on an academic quarter system, except for
the law school, which operates on a semester system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131-2800
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-Mail: swestcot@bursor.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Shuey, writing for Reading Eagle, reports that a Shillington
woman has filed a $100 million federal class-action lawsuit against
one of the world's largest oilfield services companies, alleging a
longstanding pattern of sexual harassment and gender
discrimination.

Sara Saidman alleges Schlumberger Technology Corp. knowingly
permits women who work on oil rigs to be sexually harassed,
assaulted and discriminated against by their male colleagues,
according to the lawsuit filed on June 23 in U.S. Southern District
Court in Houston.

Saidman alleges Schlumberger makes it nearly impossible for women
who have been sexually harassed to find recourse.

She alleges the company's own written harassment policy requires
women who have been harassed to first "politely" confront the
harasser themselves before seeking assistance from management.

The lawsuit chronicles how Schlumberger ignores sexual harassment
complaints entirely, dismisses them as a joke or retaliates against
the victim.

The company has not filed a response to the lawsuit. Lisa Ann
Hofmann, a communications manager for the company, said in an
emailed statement on June 23 that Schlumberger has not yet been
served with the court documents.

Attorney Michael Palmer of Sanford Heisler Sharp, the firm
representing Saidman in the lawsuit, said she filed the court
action to put Schlumberger on notice that sexual harassment and
gender discrimination will no longer be buried from public view.

Palmer pointed out that men dominate the workforce on oil rigs. He
said women make up only 5% of the Schlumberger employees on the
hundreds of oil rigs to which the company provides services.

The lawsuit
The lawsuit details how women on oil rigs are sexually harassed,
objectified, threatened and labeled as undeserving of equal pay by
their male colleagues. It also states that Schlumberger requires
women to share living quarters and even a bedroom with multiple men
who work with them — often the same men who harass and denigrate
them on a daily basis.

Saidman was 21 when she began working for Schlumberger as a field
engineer in May 2016.

In the lawsuit, Saidman alleges she reached her breaking point when
one of her male colleagues with whom she was forced to share living
quarters encouraged other men to break into her bedroom while she
was sleeping and ignore her if she resisted their sexual advances.

The lawsuit also alleges that she reported these comments to a
human resources representative who told her she didn't know how to
take a joke.

Saidman said she was repeatedly advised against reporting her
experiences and told to learn to deal with it because seeking
redress from the company would be bad for her career. The lawsuit
alleges these warnings came to fruition when she was fired in May
2017 after she continued to complain about sexual harassment and
gender discrimination.

"When Ms. Saidman reported egregious examples of sexual harassment
and gender discrimination to Schlumberger, she was targeted by the
company," said Sanford Heisler Sharp attorney Carolin Guentert.
"This lawsuit is the only means Ms. Saidman has to remedy the
company's past wrongs and ensure that women who work on oil rigs
are safe from harassment and discrimination." [GN]


SKINNER SERVICES: Appeals Ruling in Pineda FLSA Suit to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Skinner Services, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Pineda, et al. v. Skinner
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12217-FDS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned JOSE PINEDA, JOSE
MONTENEGRO, MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SKINNER DEMOLITION, THOMAS SKINNER,
DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ, and SANDRO SANTOS, Defendants. Civil
Action No. 16-12217-FDS. (D. Mass.).

This case concerns claims by manual laborers against their
employer, Skinner Services, Inc. d/b/a Skinner Demolition
(Skinner), and supervisors Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber
Diniz, and Sandro Santos, for violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Pineda, et al. v. Skinner
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1097, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSE PINEDA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; JOSE MONTENEGRO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; MARCO LOPEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and JOSE HERNANDEZ,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Nathan P. Goldstein, Esq.
          Jasper Jacob Groner, Esq.
          Nicole Hera Horberg Decter, Esq.
          Paige Walker McKissock, Esq.
          Carey Shockey, Esq.
          SEGAL ROITMAN LLP
          33 Harrison Ave., 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 603-1434
          E-mail: ngoldstein@segalroitman.com
                  jgroner@segalroitman.com
                  ndecter@segalroitman.com
                  pmckissock@segalroitman.com
                  cshockey@segalroitman.com

Defendants-Appellants SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Skinner
Demolition, and THOMAS SKINNER; and Defendants DAVID SKINNER, ELBER
DINIZ and SANDRO SANTOS are represented by:

          Gregory J. Aceto, Esq.
          Michael Brandon Cole, Esq.
          Ian Philip Gillespie, Esq.
          ACETO BONNER & PRAGER PC
          1 Liberty Sq., Suite 410
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 728-0888
          E-mail: aceto@abplawyers.com
                  mcole@abplawyers.com


SONTAG & HYMAN: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Chaperon Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Julia Chaperon filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum order issued on December 16, 2019, in the lawsuit
entitled Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, PC, Case No. 19-cv-8663, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, PC,
Case No. 19-4244, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Julia Chaperon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          1 Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 646-459-7971
          E-mail: jjones@mcoblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Sontag & Hyman, PC, is represented by:

          Matthew Kelly Flanagan, Esq.
          CATALANO GALLARDO & PETROPOULOUS, LLP
          100 Jericho Quadrangle
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: 516-931-1800
          E-mail: mflanagan@cgpllp.com


SPERIAN ENERGY: Class Action for Breach of Contract Fails
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a potential
class action alleging that Sperian Energy Corp. breached its
electricity supply contracts failed, as the Third Circuit affirmed
that Sperian's contracts didn't obligate the electric generation
supplier to set its retail rates based on local wholesale prices.

EGSs, which act as middlemen buying electricity from generators and
selling it to consumers, proliferated when Pennsylvania deregulated
its electricity markets in the 1990s. Policymakers hoped that EGSs
would use innovative purchasing strategies to compete with local
utility monopolies on retail prices. [GN]


STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Moorer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Stemgenex Medical Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's order granting class action certification
in the lawsuit titled Selena Moorer, et al. v. Stemgenex Medical
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02816-AJB-AHG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class; and (ii) denied both the Defendants' motions to
strike the reports of Dr. David Stewart, Dr. Michael Kamins and Dr.
Eliot Hartstone, with some caveats.

On Aug. 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
complaint against the Defendants in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, alleging violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California's Health and Safety Code section 24170 ("Human
Experimentation"), 18 U.S.C. section 1961, et seq., ("RICO"),
Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Unjust Enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Selena Moorer, et al. v.
Stemgenex Medical Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56500, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellee SELENA MOORER, JENNIFER BREWER, REBECCA KING
and ALEXANDRA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stephanie Reynolds, Esq.
          Timothy Garr Williams, Esq.
          POPE, BERGER, WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-595-1366
          E-mail: reynolds@popeberger.com
                  williams@popeberger.com

               - and -

          Johanna S. Schiavoni, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHANNA S. SCHIAVONI
          3170 Fourth Avenue, Suite 250
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619-269-4046
          E-mail: johanna@schiavoni-law.com

Defendants-Appellants STEMGENEX MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California
Corporation; STEMGENEX, INC., a California Corporation; STEM CELL
RESEARCH CENTRE, INC., a California Corporation; and RITA
ALEXANDER, an individual, are represented by:

          Christina Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: 909-908-3059
          E-mail: clucio@farnaeslaw.com


SUNSHINE LIFE: Stein Suit Over TCPA Breach Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AXEL STEIN, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSHINE LIFE &
HEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 2020-008461-CA-01 (Filed April 16,
2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on June 19, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-22539-KMM to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claim against Sunshine for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant offers health and life insurance plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479 2299
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
          705 Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert H. Fernandez, Esq.
          RHF LAW FUM, LLC
          2600 S. Douglas Road, Suite 305
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 786-315-4479
          E-mail: rfernandez@rhflawfirm.com


TYSON FOODS: Pomerantz Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN).

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

On June 23, 2020, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker
announced the opening of an investigation into meat packing
companies, including Tyson, related to their handling of pork
exports and worker safety issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The
announcement followed reports that meatpacking companies were
exporting a record amount of pork to China while warning of
impending meat shortages and rising prices in the United States.

On this news, Tyson's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 2.81%,
to close at $59.44 on June 24, 2020.

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

Contact:

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

U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Class Certified in Davis' Oath Ceremony Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Maria CAMPBELL DAVIS and
Abdel Wahab ALAUSSOS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES;
Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, Senior Official Performing Duties of the
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his
official capacity; Chad WOLF, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, in his official capacity; Kathleen BAUSMAN,
Field Office Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Philadelphia Field Office, in her official capacity; and William P.
BARR, Attorney General, in his official capacity, Case No.
2:20-cv-02770-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals within the jurisdiction of the USCIS
      Philadelphia Field Office whose scheduled oath ceremony
      was cancelled or whose oath ceremony was not scheduled due
      to outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and have not been
      rescheduled for an oath ceremony to take place on or
      before September 28, 2020"; and

   2. designating the Plaintiffs Maria Campbell Davis and Abdel
      Wahab Alaussos as representatives of the USCIS class; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the
United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the
country's naturalization and immigration system.[CC]

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Wilderness Therapy Suit Won't Proceed as Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMY G. and GARY G.,
individually and as representative of the class of similarly
situated individuals v. UNITED HEALTHCARE and UNITED BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, Case No. 2:17-cv-00413-DN-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
David Nuffer denied, without prejudice, a motion to certify class
consisting of:

   "any member of a health benefit plan governed by Employee
   Retirement Income Security Act in the time frame from May 17,
   2013, to the present whose health benefit plan was
   administered by the Defendants, who paid for a wilderness
   therapy program, and for whom the Defendants refused to
   authorize or pay the wilderness therapy program claim based
   on an exclusion that the wilderness therapy was experimental,
   investigational, or unproven.

According to Judge Nuffer, the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the
necessary requirements for obtaining class certification.

This case involves claims for benefits and equitable relief under
ERISA arising from the Defendants' denial of insurance coverage for
"wilderness therapy." The Plaintiffs seek class certification
arguing that the Defendants improperly exclude coverage for
wilderness therapy based on a uniform policy that wilderness
therapy is experimental, investigational, or unproven.

UnitedHealth is an American for-profit managed health care company
based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. United Behavioral Health was
founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes providing
management services on a contract and fee basis.[CC]

UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Class Cert. in Dominguez Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Andrew Dominguez v. United
Parcel Service, Co., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01162-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal., Filed April 26, 2018), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered
an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
      and

   2. vacating a June 15, 2020 hearing.

The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against UPS in
California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. In May
2018, UPS removed the action to the District Court and on February
1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The FAC
asserts claims for violation of the California Labor Code by
failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay meal break penalty,
and failing to allow rest breaks.

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery
and supply chain management company.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Appeals Order in Common Ground Suit Over CSR Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States of America filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Common Ground Healthcare v. U.S., Case
No. 1:17-cv-00877-MMS, in the United States Court of Federal
Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Katie Keith,
writing for Health Affairs, reported that on October 22, 2019,
Judge Margaret M. Sweeney issued a final decision in a class action
lawsuit brought by insurers over unpaid cost-sharing reduction
(CSR) payments. She held that the estimated 100 insurers in the
class are owed nearly $1.6 billion in unpaid CSRs for 2017 and
2018.

Plaintiff Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative contends, for itself
and on behalf of those similarly situated, that the federal
government ceased making the cost-sharing reduction payments to
which it and other insurers are entitled under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Affordable Care Act"), Pub. L.
No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), and its implementing
regulations.

The appellate case is captioned as Common Ground Healthcare v.
U.S., Case No. 20-1286, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 West Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Christopher James Carney, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: 202-305-7597
          E-mail: Christopher.Carney@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Cunningham Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Craig Cunningham filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Craig Cunningham v. Deborah Lester,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03486-DKC, in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

In April 2013, General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
("GDIT") became party to a contract with the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Under that contract, GDIT was to
make calls to consumers to inform them about their ability to buy
health insurance through the exchanges created by the Affordable
Care Act ("ACA"). During the period of January 1, 2015, through May
16, 2016, when GDIT was making the calls that form the basis of
this action, Ms. Lester served as CMS's "Contracting Officer" with
respect to the GDIT contract, Ms. Johnson worked as the deputy
director of CMS's Call Center Operations group, and Ms. Joliffe
worked in that same Call Center Operations group.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 5,
2020, Judge Denorah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Individual Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, v. DEBORAH S. LESTER, et al.,
Civil Action No. DKC 18-3486 (D. Md.).

The lawsuit seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

The appellate case is captioned as Craig Cunningham v. Deborah
Lester, Case No. 20-1086, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John M. Bredehoft, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES
          150 Main Street, Suite 2100
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
          E-mail: jmbredehoft@kaufcan.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees DEBORAH S. LESTER, in her individual capacity;
NAOMI JOHNSON, in her individual capacity; and JESSICA JOLLIFFE, in
her individual capacity, are represented by:

          Jane Elizabeth Andersen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          36 South Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201-0000
          Telephone: (410) 209-4800


UTILIQUEST LLC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Muniz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant UtiliQuest, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit titled Jesus Garcia Muniz v. UtiliQuest,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-08759-PA-SK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Garcia Muniz v.
UtiliQuest, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80179, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JESUS GARCIA MUNIZ, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved employees, is
represented by:

          Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg, Esq.
          GALLENBERG PC
          800 S. Victory Blvd., Suite 203
          Burbank, CA 91502
          Telephone: 818-237-5267
          E-mail: rosa@gallenberglaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner UTILIQUEST, LLC, is represented by:

          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-586-7700
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com


VERTILUX LTD: Suros Seeks to Certify Customer Service Reps Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MERCEDES SUROS Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERTILUX LIMITED,
VERTILUX MANAGEMENT, INC., JOSE GARCIA, and BERNARDO MENDEZ, Case
No. 1:20-cv-20781-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former salaried customer service
      representatives workers who work(ed) at the Defendants'
      location in Florida, during the last 3 years or more years
      that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
      but for purposes of this claim, approximate period during
      which the alleged FLSA violations occurred: November 2016
      through November 22, 2019; working more than 40 hours per
      week, without lawful and proper and complete overtime
      compensation";

   b. directing the Defendants to produce, in an electronic
      readable format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days
      of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the
      full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
      e-mail addresses of the putative class members;

   c. authorizing the her counsel to send initial notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      the Defendants counsel by first-class mail;

   d. directing the Defendants to post at its work locations a
      copy of the initial notice;

   e. authorizing her counsel to send a follow-up notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendants' counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the
      close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt
      in to the instant action; and

   f. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by the Defendants' counsel a total of 60 days
      from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
      Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

Vertilux manufactures home furnishings and housewares. The Company
offers products such as vertical and roller blinds, roman and
pleated shades.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
          AN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          7900 Oak Lane No. 400 AN Law
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: 305-942-8070
          Facsimile: 305-328-3884
          E-mail: AN@ANLawFirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jose I. Leon, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 3900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-428-5322
          E-mail: MIA_Eservice@gordonrees.com
                  jleon@grsm.com




VITA-MIX CORP: Appeals Ruling in Linneman Suit to Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Vita-Mix Corporation, Vita-Mix Management Corporation
and Vita-Mix Manufacturing Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Vicki Linneman, et al. v. Vita-Mix
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00748, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Susan J. Dlott granted (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Post-Judgment Interest, and (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Judgment Pending Appeal.

On May 3, 2018, the District Court entered an Order approving the
class action settlement in the Linneman case against Vita-Mix
Corporation.  On June 25, 2019, the District Court granted in part
the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Awards, and awarded the Class Counsel's request for
$41,194.77 in expenses as well as $3,000 in service awards for each
of the two named Plaintiffs.  On Sept. 11, 2019, the District Court
granted in part the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and
awarded fees in the amount of $3,923,017.96.  The same day, the
Clerk entered a judgment in the amount of $3,923,017.96.

The consumer class action was filed on Nov. 19, 2015.  The
Plaintiffs alleged that Vitamix2 blenders were defective because a
seal in the container deposited tiny black polytetrafluoroethylene
("PTFE") flecks into the blended food and drink.  They filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint on Feb. 26, 2016, seeking
certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of Vitamix
blenders and asserting the following claims: (1) breach of express
warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3)
negligent design, engineering, and manufacture; (4) fraud and
fraudulent concealment; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of
contract; and (7) violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Vicki Linneman, et al. v.
Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-4249, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees VICKI A. LINNEMAN, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, and OBADIAH N. RITCHEY, On behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: 614-604-8759
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Christopher P. Finney, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM
          4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: 513-943-6650
          E-mail: chris@finneylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          1 W. Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: 513-665-0219

Defendants-Appellants VITA-MIX CORPORATION, VITA-MIX MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION and VITA-MIX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION are represented
by:

          Caroline H. Gentry, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          1 S. Main Street, Suite 1600
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: 937-449-6810
          E-mail: cgentry@porterwright.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. Graham, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          Huntington Center, Suite 2600
          41 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215-0000
          Telephone: 614-227-2016
          E-mail: rgraham@porterwright.com

               - and -

          Carolyn A. Taggart, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-381-4700
          E-mail: ctaggart@porterwright.com

               - and -

          Tracey L. Turnbull, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 500
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216-443-9000
          E-mail: tturnbull@porterwright.com


VITALE'S ITALIAN: 6th Cir. Flips in Part Dismissal of Torres Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILIO TORRES, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
SALVATORE VITALE, BELINDA PIERSON, AGOSTINO VITALE, ANGELA
LOGIUDICE-POLIZZI, GIUSEPPE POLIZZI, individuals, jointly and
severally, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1515 (6th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district
court's grant of Vitale's motion to dismiss, and remanded to
determine if Torres has adequately pleaded a Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claim with damages that are
distinct from his wage and hour claims.

Torres was a long-time employee at several locations of Vitale's
Italian Restaurant Inc. located throughout Western Michigan.
Although Torres and other Vitale's employees often worked more than
40 hours per week, they allege that they were not paid overtime
rates for those hours.  Instead, Vitale's required the workers to
keep track of their time on two separate timecards, one reflecting
the first forty hours of work, and the other, reflecting overtime
hours.  The employees were paid via check for the first card and
via cash for the second.  The pay was at a straight time rate on
the second card, although it reflected hours worked in excess of
forty hours in a week.  Therefore, Torres alleges, employees were
deprived of overtime pay, and Vitale's did not pay taxes on the
cash payments.

Torres then instituted a barrage of lawsuits against Vitale's
stemming from the underpayment of wages.  The case is the second of
those lawsuits.  The first was filed in May 2018 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan against
Vitale's, Salvatore Vitale, and Belinda Pierson alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  That suit asks to
certify a collective action to recover unpaid wages.  The complaint
in the FLSA lawsuit seeks to employ the FLSA's opt-in collective
action mechanism for all of Vitale's employees who were harmed by
this scheme.

Although the present suit involves the same factual scenario as in
the FLSA lawsuit, Torres now pursues damages and class
certification under RICO.  In his complaint, Torres sets forth
numerous theories under which he asserts a claim under the civil
RICO statute, including: (1) a tax evasion scheme through which
Vitale's defrauded local, state, and federal authorities in order
to avoid paying tax withholdings; (2) a wage-theft scheme in which
the two-timecard system was used to intentionally defraud the
employees of proper wages; and (3) a
worker's-compensation-insurance scheme, through which Vitale's
defrauded its insurance carriers by submitting fraudulent wage
amounts to the carriers that were relied upon in calculating
insurance premiums.  These schemes, Torres contends, amount to RICO
violations through mail and wire fraud of the federal government,
the state government, the city governments, the employees, and the
insurance carriers.

The district court dismissed all of Torres' claims relating to his
employment prior to 2018 as barred by RICO's four-year statute of
limitations, leaving only the conduct relating to his time at
Vitale's Grand Rapids location from 2017 to 2018.  The district
court then dismissed those claims as precluded by the FLSA.

Adopting the reasoning from a case out of the Eastern District of
New York, the district court held that the Congress specifically
intended to combat the alleged practices by enacting the broad
remedial scheme contained within the FLSA.  The district court held
that Torres could not maintain a RICO action against Vitale's under
these facts because all of the alleged predicate acts are
violations of the FLSA itself.

Torres filed a timely appeal, raising only one issue: Whether the
district court erred in concluding that the FLSA precludes RICO
suits when the underlying conduct also violates the FLSA.

First, the Sixth Circuit looks to see if the text of the FLSA
clearly shows that it is the type of precisely drawn detailed
remedial statute that would preclude more general remedies.
Second, he addresses whether, and to what extent, the FLSA
precludes RICO claims when the underlying RICO-predicate offense
also violates the FLSA.

The Sixth Circuit finds that, based on its text that the FLSA is
the sole vehicle through which a plaintiff can remedy its own
substantive guarantees.  In that same vein, however, because the
text instructs the Appellate Court that the FLSA is the sole remedy
only for federal minimum wage and overtime violations, the FLSA
does not preclude suits for other damages, even when the underlying
conduct in those suits also violated the FLSA.

Having concluded that the FLSA is the type of "precisely drawn,
detailed statute," that can preclude more general remedies, the
Sixth Circuit therefore must decide whether, and if so, to what
extent, the FLSA precludes a RICO suit.  The Sixth Circuit finds
that the text of the FLSA provides a remedial framework for
employees to vindicate the rights provided by the statute.  The
persuasive authority tells the Court two things.  First, the
remedial scheme of the FLSA can preclude other general remedies.
Second, RICO claims can be precluded by detailed remedial schemes.
It follows, therefore, that the FLSA's detailed remedial scheme
precludes certain claims brought under the RICO statute.

Next, the Sixth Circuit holds that the FLSA precludes RICO claims
to the extent that the damages sought are for unpaid minimum or
overtime wages.  However, when a RICO claim that is based on a
dispute between an employer and an employee alleges damages that
are distinct from unpaid wages, even if the RICO-predicate act
arises from conduct that also violates the FLSA, then the RICO
remedies do not fall within the ambit of the FLSA's remedial scheme
and are therefore not precluded.

Having held that the FLSA precludes civil RICO suits only when the
damages sought are for unpaid wages, the Sixth Circuit next turns
to whether any of Torres's claims survive.  First, Torres' RICO
claim as it relates to the underpayment of overtime wages was
properly dismissed.  Second, although Vitale's insurance company
may have something to say about the scheme, Torres has not
identified any way in which he was "injured in his business or
property" by the alleged fraud performed on the insurance company.
Third, the Sixth Circuit declines to decide in the first instance
whether Torres has pleaded cognizable damages separate from lost
wages so as to state a viable RICO claim.  The district court
should address the issue on remand in proceedings consistent with
his Opinion.

Based on the foregoing, the Sixth Circuit agrees with the district
court that Torres cannot proceed on his claims based on lost wages
from the alleged "wage theft scheme."  In addition, Torres may not
pursue damages from the alleged "insurance fraud scheme," given
that harms from the latter scheme accrued to the insurance company
and not Torres.  However, because the FLSA does not preclude RICO
claims when a defendant commits a RICO-predicate offense giving
rise to damages distinct from the lost wages available under the
FLSA, the Sixth Circuit reversed as to Torres's claim that Vitale's
is liable under RICO for failure to withhold taxes, and remanded to
determine if Torres adequately pleaded a RICO claim that resulted
in damages other than lost wages.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 31, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ZPdRYW from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Robert Anthony Alvarez -- ralvarez@avantilaw.com -- AVANTI
LAW GROUP, PLLC, Wyoming, Michigan, for Appellant.

Ian A. Northon -- ian@rhoadesmckee.com -- RHOADES MCKEE PC, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Agustin Henriquez --
ahenriquez@avantilaw.com -- AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC, Wyoming,
Michigan, for Appellant.

Ian A. Northon, Catherine A. Brainerd, RHOADES MCKEE PC, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees.


WASTE PRO: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Helpers, Calloway Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABNER CALLOWAY, JIMMY BAILEY, ANDREW BLACK, FREDRICK BRINSON, LARRY
BROWN, KEYVUS BRYANT, LINCON CAMPBELL, LEWIS CARTER, NATHAN L
CHANDLER, MARCOS COATES, JAMES CRAYTON, DARRELL DAVIS, GEORGE
DAVIS, HAROLD FIELDS, PRINCE FRALEY, ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, CHANSELOR
GORDON, ANTONIO HALE, BRESHAND HARRIS, RANDAL HAYES, DAMIEN IRVEN,
MARLON JACKSON, WILKIE JEWETT JR., TYLER KIRKLAND, ANTROINE LANE,
MONTARI LEONARD, WESNY LOUIME, ANDREW LOUISSANT, FARDENS PIERRE
LOUISSAINT, MICHAEL LYONS, LUIS ANTONIO MARTINEZ, EDDIE MAY,
DARNELL MCCURDY, SEAN MCKINNEY, JOHNATHAN MILLS, ENOCH MITCHELL,
TERRY MITCHELL, YASMANY MONTALVO, NATHANIEL MOORE III, ALBERT
MORELAND, LUIS IRIZARRY NAZARIO, HOLIJIU ONONIWU, DONALD REED,
DAVID RICE, BRYAN RICHARDSON, EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, MARCOS RODRIGUEZ,
ANTONIO SANDERS, PAUL SEPULVEDA, GEORGE SMITH, MARCUS SMOTHERS,
AUDREAUS SOL, DELARRIAN STALLWORTH, LEAENARD TOSEN III, JASON
VALENTINE, VIRGIL WARREN, FRANK WEATHER JR., JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
MELVIN WILLIAMS, DUANE WILSON, RAY WOLFORK, and KACEY YATES v.
WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-01097 (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiffs the legally required amount of overtime compensation
in an amount required by law for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiffs each worked for Waste Pro as Helpers, who were paid
a daily rate. The Plaintiffs also each worked at a location that
had a policy or practice to either pay a "half-day rate or pay
non-discretionary bonuses. The Plaintiffs contend that they were
paid overtime wages at a rate of half of their regular rate, rather
than at a rate of time-and-a-half their regular rate.

Waste Pro provides waste removal services. The Company offers
residential, roll-off dumpster, recycling, compaction equipment,
transfer and landfill, and other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Erick Quezada, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St., NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: 412-281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com


WHOLE CART: Faces Reyes Class Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Whole Cart, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as MARIA VICTORIA REYES, AN INDIVIDUAL
AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY- SITUATED, THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND OTHER CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES v. THE
WHOLE CART, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION; OFF
THE GRID SERVICES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 TO 20 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584861 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., June 17, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will be held on Nov 4, 2020.

Whole Cart offers catering option for companies by providing
large-scale mobile food service and event catering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
          212 9th St., Ste. 314
          Oakland, CA 94607-4479
          Telephone: (510) 269-4200
          Facsimile: (408) 657-4684
          E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com


WIRELESS ADVOCATES: Sinclair Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAUL SINCLAIR, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WIRELESS ADVOCATES,
LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60886-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   a. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective of:

      "Kiosk Managers employed by the Defendant on or after May
       1, 2017";

   b. requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or
      computer-readable format the full name, address(es),
      telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for all Kiosk
      Managers in the putative FLSA Collective; and

   c. authorizing Notice together with a Consent to Join to the
      collective members and authorizing posting at the
      Defendant’s kiosk locations.[CC]

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as Kiosk Manager and alleges
that the Defendant engaged in a common, widespread, and
corporately-derived practice of violating the FLSA by failing to
pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other Kiosk Managers, says in
the Plaintiff's complaint.

The Defendant is a third-party provider and retailer of wireless
products and services, which operates 517 kiosks at Costco
locations and 125 kiosks at military locations nationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, Fl 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 675-8497
          E-mail: chlewis@littler.com
                  ccano@littler.com

XL SPECIALTY: Tex. App. Affirms Final Judgment in Uni-Pixel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNI-PIXEL, INC., REED KILLION, AND JEFFREY TOMZ,
Appellants, v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, Case No.
14-18-00828-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas for the
Fourteenth District in Houston affirmed the trial court order
granting XL's summary judgment motion.

The Appellants sued Appellee XL Specialty, alleging XL wrongfully
denied coverage under a directors and officers liability insurance
policy that XL issued to the Appellants.  Uni-Pixel was a
technology company that developed and sold display and touchscreen
technologies for use in phones, tablets, and other electronic
devices.  Killion served as Uni-Pixel's CEO and president; Tomz
served as the company's CFO and secretary.  Uni-Pixel developed a
product called UniBoss, a copper-mesh film that sits under the
glass in touch screen devices.  It represented that UniBoss was
cheaper, easier to manufacture, and more responsive than competing
touch-sensor technologies.

In Uni-Pixel's press releases and other filings, the Appellants
touted the company's success with UniBoss and claimed that products
containing the technology would be on store shelves in September
2013.  But despite these reports of progress, UniBoss'
commercialization was delayed and certain financial publications
cast doubt on the veracity of the Appellants' statements.

Uni-Pixel's shareholders sued the Appellants in a class action
lawsuit and a shareholder derivative suit; both actions alleged
Appellants made false and misleading statements with respect to the
commercialization of UniBoss.  The Appellants also were
investigated by the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), which culminated in an enforcement action filed
in March 2016.

Uni-Pixel's shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against the
Appellants in June 2013, alleging the latter committed securities
fraud by (1) misleading investors about UniBoss's commercial
prospects for 2013; (2) using secrecy with respect to its license
agreements; and (3) using unusual accounting to provide a veneer of
progress.

In June 2015, the SEC sent "Wells Notices" to counsel for Killion
and Tomz, stating that the SEC had made a preliminary determination
to recommend that the Commission file an enforcement action.  A
Wells Notice notifies the recipient that the SEC's Enforcement
Division is close to recommending to the full Commission an action
against the recipient and provides the recipient the opportunity to
set forth his version of the law or facts.  The SEC Enforcement
Action was filed in March 2016 and alleged that the Appellants (1)
made materially misleading statements and omissions about
Uni-Pixel's touch-screen manufacturing technologies and business
prospects; (2) failed to disclose material terms of agreements
Uni-Pixel entered into with major technology companies; and (3)
repeatedly violated accounting standards.

XL issued to Uni-Pixel a directors and officers liability insurance
policy for claims first made against the insureds for the period
from April 1, 2015 through April 1, 2016.  In July 2015, the
Appellants sought coverage under the XL Policy for the
investigation initiated by the Wells Notices sent to Killion and
Tomz.  XL denied the requested coverage.

XL asserts that the Appellants did not request coverage under the
XL Policy for the SEC Enforcement Action.  They argue that, by
timely seeking coverage for the Wells notice, the insureds thereby
also gave notice for the SEC enforcement action.

The Appellants sued XL in October 2016, alleging claims arising
from XL's denial of insurance coverage with respect to the Wells
Notices and the SEC Enforcement Action.  The parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment and the Appellants dropped two of
their claims, pursuing only their breach of contract action.  In
its traditional summary judgment motion, XL asserted that the Wells
Notices and the SEC Enforcement Action did not fall within the
scope of coverage under the XL Policy.

After a hearing, the trial court granted XL's traditional summary
judgment motion and denied the Appellants' motion.  In its order
granting XL's motion, the trial court stated that it adopts all of
the reasoning presented by XL.  The trial court signed a final
judgment on Aug. 30, 2018.  The Appellants timely appealed.

Asserting the trial court erred when it granted XL's traditional
motion for summary judgment, the Appellants argue the XL Policy
provides coverage for losses associated with the Wells Notices and
the SEC Enforcement Action.  They raise two issues and contend that
(1) they established coverage under the terms of the XL Policy, and
(2) XL cannot prove the losses fall within the Policy's
exclusions.

In response, XL contends that the Wells Notices and the SEC
Enforcement Action involve the same facts or series of related
facts as the Class Action, the Derivative Suit, and the SEC Formal
Investigation.  Therefore, XL argues, Appellants cannot establish
coverage under the XL Policy because losses associated with the
Wells Notice and SEC Enforcement Action were not "Claims" first
made during the applicable policy period.

The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellants did not satisfy
their burden to establish coverage under the XL Policy.  The Wells
Notices and the SEC Enforcement Action are Claims that arose from
the same "Interrelated Wrongful Acts" as the Class Action, the
Derivative Suit, and the SEC Formal Investigation.  All of these
Claims stem from the same wrongful acts arising out of the same
series of related facts, namely, Appellants' statements and
representations regarding UniBoss.  Therefore, losses associated
with these Claims are subject to the "Interrelated Claims"
condition and do not fall within the scope of the XL Policy's
coverage.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court holds that the XL Policy is subject
to only one reasonable interpretation.  Given the "Interrelated
Claims" provision and the Policy's broad definition of
"Interrelated Wrongful Acts," it is clear that the Wells Notices
and the SEC Enforcement Action constitute a single Claim that arose
before the commencement of the XL Policy Period.  Therefore, the
Appellants did not meet their burden to show the losses associated
with the Wells Notices and the SEC Enforcement Action fall within
the XL Policy's coverage.  Because the Appellants did not make this
showing, the Appellate Court does not address their second issue
regarding the XL Policy's exclusions.  The Appellate Court
overrules their two issues on appeal.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's Aug. 30, 2018 final judgment.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's March 31, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Tse5a7 from Leagle.com.



                            *********

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 ***