/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200714.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 140

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: McDaniel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
82ND STREET GROCERY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Perez Says
AFNI INC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Bansal Sues Over Issuance of Preferred Stock
AIR METHODS: To Pay $78MM to Flight Crew Employees in Settlement

ALABAMA: Smith Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Alabama
ALASKA: Denial of Bid to Enforce Cleary Deal in Antenor Reversed
ALDI: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $2 Million
ALKAFAWEEN FOOD: Monther Seeks Proper Wages for Cashiers
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Morrow Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants

ALLERGAN INC: Faces Ploeger Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ANGLICARE: Class Action Mulled Over Newmarch House COVID Deaths
ANGLICARE: Shine Lawyers Explores Class Action Over Health Crisis
ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ceballos Claims
APPLIED DATA: Derosier Suit Moved From Cir. Court to S.D. Florida

ARIZONA: Diaz Sues Board of Regents, Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
ASPEN HOME IMPROVEMENTS: Eder Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
BAYER AG: To Pay $10 Billion to Settle Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
BAYER: July 23 Preliminary Approval Hearing on Roundup Settlement
BROADSTAFF LLC: Alexander Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Frank Cruz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
C&L MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, O'Malley Claims
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Take Years to Get Resolved
CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 18 Deadline

CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline
CEPHALON INC: $66M Settlement in Vista Suit Gets Final Approval
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sears Challenges Proposed Sale to Faith Dawn
CIEE INC: Zhao Suit Removed From Superior Court District of Maine
CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Civil Rights Groups Suing Sheriff's Office

CLEARVIEW AI: Thornley Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 17 Deadline
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Treatment of Cows at Fair Oaks
COCONUT JOE'S: Mackie Sues Over Wrongful Dismissal, Unpaid Wages
COLONY CAPITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit

COLUMBIA GAS: Agrees to Pay $56M in New Gas Explosion Settlement
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Sells No Prescription Contact Lenses, Britt Says
COOL CLOUDS: Faces Lara Suit Over Sale of Puff Bar E-Cigarettes
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Dist. Denies Venue Change in Rough Suit
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 20 Deadline

DARKTRACE INC: $82.5K Settlement in Der-Hacopian Suit Has Prelim OK
DICK'S SPORTING: Underpays Employees, Carroll Claims
DISCOVER BANK: Ward Plaintiffs Compelled to Arbitrate Claims
DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: Collins Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
ECOBEAR BIOHAZARD: Sarraf Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads

ELANCO ANIMAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 20 Deadline
ELLIS HOSPITAL: Nurse Sues Over Underpayment of Wages
EMERGENCY MEDICINE: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EMSI HOLDING: Fails to Issue Advanced Closure Notice, Cook Says
ENDO INT'L: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 18 Deadline

ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of August 17 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing
ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
EQT CORP: Court Denies EQPTC's Arbitration Bid in Heaster Suit
ERIE INSURANCE: Six Nashville Restaurants Launch Class Action

EVERGREEN HOSPITAL: Waived Right to Arbitration, Says Wash. S.C.
EXETER FINANCE: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rivera TCPA Suit
FAM LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
FCA US: Pistorio Claims Infotainment System Defective
FERRARA CANDY: Artificial Victory in Class Action vs. Candymaker

FIGURE 8: Daniell Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unlawful Retaliation
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Faces Barnes Suit over Proposed Merger
FLORIDA ORTHOPEDIC: Faces $99M Class Action Over Data Breach
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Hau FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Over Takata Airbags Won't Proceed

GLOBAL QUALITY: Default Judgment in Styles Suit Denied as Moot
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Underpays Detention Officers, Austin et al. Say
GPB CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Investment Scheme
GSK CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over Benefiber 100% Natural Claim
H&R BLOCK: HRB Tax Appeals Ruling in Olosoni Suit to 9th Circuit

HALLIBURTON CO: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in LeBlanc FLSA Suit
HAMILTON, ONTARIO: $250 Red Hill Valley Parkway Suit Moving Slowly
HANIL DEVELOPMENT: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Hahn Upheld
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Bouas Stayed Pending Resolution of Garcia
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Accusers to Get $19 Million in Settlement

HARVEY WEINSTEIN: To Settle Sexual Misconduct Class Suit for $19MM
HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Health Plan Notice
HOMESERVE USA: Leone Suit Seeks to Certify Class
IDEANOMICS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 27 Deadline
IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 27 Deadline

IDEANOMICS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 27 Deadline
IDEANOMICS INC: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
INVESTORS BANCORP: Dismissal of Counts I & II in Elburn Suit Denied
J2 GLOBAL: Faces Garcia Suit Over Inflated Share Price
JANI-KING INT'L: Mujo Appeals Judgment in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.

JAY'S LANDSCAPING: McCammon Disallowed as Party in Fitchhorn Suit
KAPPO MASA: Mendez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, Invalid Tip Credit
KARIZMA LOUNGE: Conteras Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Discrimination
KICHO CORP: Class in Chen Class Suit Conditionally Certified
KING COUNTY, WA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Moore Civil Rights Suit

KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Tysor Balks at 24% Decline in Share Price
KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 28 Deadline
KPMG: May Face Class Action Claims Over Miller Energy Audit Failure
L'OREAL USA: Amended Summary Judgment in Carter Suit Granted

LAWRENCE KIA: Humphrey Farrington Files Consumer Class Action
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Edwards Appeals RICO Suit Order to 9th Cir.
LEAPFORWARD FINANCIAL: Landy Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LEGALLY MINE: Cal. Northern Dist. Reinstates Eliasieh Class Suit
LIBRE TECHNOLOGY: $425K Settlement in Hudson Gets Prelim. Approval

LOWE'S HOME: Williams Suit Challenges Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MACY'S WEST: Vazquez Sues Over Unlawful Wages
MALLINCKRODT PHARMA: Methadone Patients File Class Action
MASIMO CORP: PHI Appeals Class Certification Denial to 9th Cir.
MASON COUNTY, WA: Sued Over Hood Canal Mining Operation

MATTERPORT: Faces Class Action Over Lead Program
MDL 2775: Caporale v. Smith & Nephew Moved to District of Maryland
MDL 2848: Court Remands Gentile v. Merck to Southern Dist. of Ohio
MDL 2859: Trujillo v. Zimmer Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
MDL 2873: New Mexico's AFFFs PL Lawsuit Moved to South Carolina

MDL 2913: Breathe DC and Lankford Suits Moved to N.D. California
MDL 2936: 8 SMITTY'S/CAM2 Suits Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri
MDL 2938: 11 Suits vs. Evenflo Co. Moved to Massachusetts Court
MEDICAL CENTER: Averts Class Action Over Hospital Liens
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Bolanos FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter

MITO'S USA: Barraza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MOSS NUTRITION: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, West Claims
MOTORISTS COMMERCIAL: King Cobra Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeal of Reverse Mortgage Holders Nixed
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Dotson FDCPA Suit

NAVITELIA INDUSTRIES: Crena Sues Over Unsolicited Text & Email Ads
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Green-Robinson Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Gyms Threaten Class Action Over Unfair Treatment
NEW YORK: Proposed Class Action Seeks Reopening of Gyms
NINTENDO: President Apologizes for Joy-Con Drift Issue Amid Suit

NORTH CAROLINA: 11 Butner FCC Inmates Withdraw Class Action
NUTANIX INC: Russell Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Denied Breaks
NVIDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Crypto GPU Sales
OAKLAND, MI: Measures to Improve Hygiene & Safety at Jail Ordered
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Faces Lindner Suit in District of New Jersey

OFFICE DEPOT: Court Denies Stein's Class Certification Bid
OHIO: Martin Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to Sixth Circuit
OHIO: S.C. Reverses Appeals Ct. Ruling in Medicaid Recouping Suit
PACIFIC PREMIER: Fahmia Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Settlement in Hoverson Suit Gets Final Approval

PARADIES SHOPS: Bailey Seeks to Certify Employees FLSA Class
PARAGON COIN: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 ICO
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Request for Class Action Dismissal OK'd
PERRIGO CO: Appeals Decision in Roofer's Suit
PILGRIMS PRIDE: UFCW Sues Over Decline in Market Value of Stocks

PITTSBURGH, PA: Faces Class Suit Over Police Response to Protests
PJ CHEESE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Pollard Claims
PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Appeals Ruling in Bandril Suit to 9th Cir.
PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PLAYAGS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Jones Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to E.D. Va.
POST CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez Class Suit
PRECISION 2000: Garcia-Robelo et al. Seek Proper Wages
PRECISION DRILLING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Tyger FLSA Suit
PREFERRED APARTMENT: Ciccone Files Suit for Breach of Contract

PRO TEETH: Faces Class Action Over Dental Products with Charcoal
PROASSURANCE CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 17 Deadline
RASH CURTIS: $89MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Perez Lawsuit
RESPONSE MARKETING: Fabricant et al. Sue over Unsolicited Calls
RET PLANS: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Judgment in ERISA Class Action

RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces Jones FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. Arkansas
RIMROCK ENGINEERING: Judge Okays $3.45MM Class Action Settlement
RYDER SYSTEM: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
RYDER SYSTEM: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 20 Deadline
S. RAYS INC: Website Unaccessible to Blind Users, West Claims

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Drivers, Gatson Claims
SENIOR CARE: Court Certifies Caregivers Class in Moss FLSA Suit
SIRAH 1720 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Alegria Claims
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Pirani Securities Suit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Lucas et al. Sue Over Spam Text Messages

SNAP INC: Appeals Certification Order in Erickson Securities Suit
SONENDO INC: Fite Seeks Conditional Class Certification
STAATS CONSTRUCTION: Workers Slam Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs
SUPER ECONOMIC: Faces Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TARGET CORP: Wage & Hour Class Action Remanded to State Court

TD BANK: Heller Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
TEVA CANADA: Faces Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
THYMES LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
TIM HORTONS: Faces Class in Quebec Over App LocationTracking
TOM'S OF MAINE: Coburn Disputes "All Natural" Label on Toothpaste

TURNCO ENTERPRISES: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Daigle Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Baker McKenzie Discusses Drivers' Suit Ruling
UBER: Judge Trims Drivers' Sick Leave Claim from Class Action
UNITED STATES: ICE Unlawfully Jails Migrant Children, Judge Finds
UNITED STATES: Monk Appeals Ruling in Veterans' Benefits Suit

VICTORIA BECKHAM: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
VITOL INC: BB&B, Rightmyer Suit Assets Gas Price Manipulation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Pitts Sues Over Start/Stop Defect in Vehicles
VOLUME SERVICES: Settlement in Raquedan Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
WIGWAM MILLS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation

WILL LEATHER: Blind Customers Can't Access Web Site, Cruz Claims
[*] AMP Warns Class Actions May Lead to Job Losses, Co. Failures
[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Suits
[*] Victoria Permits Contingency Fees in Class Actions

                            *********

3M COMPANY: McDaniel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kelly McDaniel v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-02489-RMG (D.S.C., June 30,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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 Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks 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 Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The McDaniel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


82ND STREET GROCERY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Perez Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DANIEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. 82ND STREET GROCERY INC. (D/B/A WEST 82ND GROCERY
INC.); PARAMJIT SINGH; and LAKI SINGH, Defendants, Case
1:20-cv-04955 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Deniel was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

82nd Street Grocery Inc. owns, operates, or controls a grocery
store, located at New York, NY, under the name West 82nd Grocery
Inc. [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


AFNI INC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HASIME ISMANI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AFNI, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00957-SCD (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

AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Bansal Sues Over Issuance of Preferred Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARUL BANSAL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS, INC, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT J.
CAMPBELL, DENISE L. DEVINE, NANCE K. DICCIANI, JORDI FERRE, GREGORY
M. FREIWALD, TORSTEN KRAEF, GEORGE LOBISSER, and MACAULEY WHITING,
JR., Defendants, Case No. 2020-0548 (Del. Ch., July 7, 2020)
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the AgroFresh Board of
Directors in connection with the Board's dissemination of a
materially omissive proxy statement which seeks to solicit
stockholder approval in connection with the Company's decision to
issue convertible preferred stock with a high-dividend rate.

On June 13, 2020, AgroFresh entered into an investment agreement
with an affiliate of certain investment funds managed by Paine
Schwartz Partners, LLC ("PSP") pursuant to which PSP agreed to
purchase in a private placement an aggregate of $150,000,000 of new
preferred stock of the Company. Specifically, a total of 150,000
shares of AgroFresh newly-designated convertible preferred stock,
par value $0.0001 per share will be purchased by PSP. The shares of
Preferred Stock will be convertible into 30 million shares of
AgroFresh common stock, which will constitute approximately 36% of
the Company's outstanding shares of common stock on an as-converted
basis.

On July 6, 2020, AgroFresh filed a definitive proxy statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission soliciting stockholder
approval of the Preferred Stock Proposal. The statement is so
materially deficient that it deprives AgroFresh stockholders of any
meaningful way to assess the reasonableness of the process leading
to - or the financial fairness of - the Investment Agreement.

In addition to issuing a materially omissive Proxy Statement, the
AgroFresh Board is wrongfully coercing the Company's stockholders
to approve the Preferred Stock Proposal. This coercive mechanism
leaves stockholders with no choice but to approve the Preferred
Stock Proposal regardless of their views on its merits, because
rejecting it would subject the Company to an economic penalty.

AgroFresh Solutions, Inc. provides solutions to extend the shelf
life of fresh produce for both growers and packers with principal
headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585

AIR METHODS: To Pay $78MM to Flight Crew Employees in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Ruggiero of The Mercury News reports that a medical
helicopter operator has been ordered to pay $78 million to its
flight crew employees for unpaid overtime and missed breaks in a
class-action lawsuit settlement.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith agreed
Wednesday to the preliminary settlement filed by about 450 former
and current medical flight crew members employed in California by
Air Methods Corporation of Colorado.

Air Methods also is expected to pay daily overtime to its medical
flight crew starting from June 28, resulting in an estimated 20% or
more increase to their salaries, according to the attorneys
representing the crew members.

Air Methods is reportedly the country's largest air medical
transport company and operates helicopter bases. Teams of nurses
and paramedics are dispatched in the helicopters, often to remote
areas.

Air Methods was accused of refusing to pay daily overtime for crews
working more than eight hours in a workday. The flight crew
commonly worked 24-hour shifts, according to attorney James Sitkin,
who represented the crew. He alleged that Air Methods did not allow
the flight crew to take off-duty meal breaks or rest breaks.

"When Loyd and Shane (the original plaintiffs) first came to me and
described the company's pay policies, and on top of that how it was
having flight crews work unpaid extra time, it just struck me as
wrong," Sitkin said in a statement.

Since Judge Smith's preliminarily approved the settlement
Wednesday, final approval is expected in October.

It's estimated each plaintiff will receive more than $100,000 each,
on average.

Doug Flanders, director of communications for Air Methods
Corporation, said in a statement that the changes in pay are
positive and focus on how the company treats uninterrupted sleep
time and their approach to the states' daily and weekly overtime.
The changes will result in a "gross pay increase" for all Air
Methods Corporation clinicians in the state, he said.

"This decision to change AMC's pay practices puts our teammates
first. We know this will make us stronger in California by ensuring
we continue to recruit and retain the top medical clinicians in the
state, strengthens our push to be the destination employer for all
in the air medical industry and allows us to continue to provide
the highest level of care to all the California communities we
serve," Flanders said.  [GN]


ALABAMA: Smith Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivey, et al. (INMATE
1). The case is styled as Andrew William Smith, Inmates of Red
Eagle Work Center, and the inmate population of the Alabama
Department of Corrections as a whole, and all those similarly
situated v. Kay Ivey, Governor of the State of Alabama, in her
official and individual capacity; Alabama Department of
Corrections; Jefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner of the Alabama
Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacity;
Red Eagle Work Center; Charles Tipton, Warden II, In his official
and individual capacity; Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles;
Charles A. Graddick, Director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and
Paroles, In his official and individual capacity; Alabama Attorney
General's Office, Case No. 2:20-cv-00464-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala., July
6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
for Prisoner Civil Rights.

Kay Ellen Ivey is an American politician serving as the 54th
governor of Alabama since 2017. A member of the Republican Party,
she was the 38th Alabama State Treasurer from 2003 to 2011 and the
30th lieutenant governor of Alabama from 2011 to 2017.

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the ADOC RED EAGLE,
of Montgomery, Alabama, appears pro se.[BN]


ALASKA: Denial of Bid to Enforce Cleary Deal in Antenor Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUNIOR ANTENOR, KEILAN C. EBLI, and LOREN J. LARSON
JR., Appellants, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Appellee, Supreme Court No. S-17005, No. 7442 (Alaska), Judge Joel
Bolger of the Supreme Court of Alaska (i) reversed the denial of
Larson and Ebli's motion to enforce the Cleary Final Settlement
Agreement; and (ii) affirmed the denial of Antenor's motion to
enforce his claimed right to a particular text about computer
programming.

Appellants Larson, Ebli, and Antenor are inmates in DOC custody at
Goose Creek Correctional Center.  

Under the current appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court addresses two
separate challenges presented by inmates at an Alaska correctional
facility to Department of Corrections ("DOC") policies.  First, the
inmates challenge telephone charges for local calls by inmates,
arguing that the rates they and call recipients must pay for calls
violate their constitutional right to rehabilitation, their
statutory right to reasonable telephone access, and DOC's
contractual obligations under a prior settlement and consent
decree.  Second, one of the prisoners challenges DOC officers'
decision to deny him access to a computer programming book he
ordered from outside the prison.  He contends that DOC placed a
content-specific restriction on the educational materials and
publications prisoners are allowed, violating the Alaska
Constitution's free speech provisions as well as prisoners' right
to reformation.  

Each of these challenges reach the Supreme Court after inmates
exhausted the administrative process from prison as set forth in
Cleary v. Smith -- a previous class action lawsuit by inmates
against DOC.  Inmates appealed to the Superior Court where their
prayers for relief were denied.

The Cleary case began in 1981 as a class action brought against the
state by Alaska prisoners challenging prison conditions.  The
plaintiffs formed three subclasses: pretrial detainees (subclass
A), sentenced prisoners in state owned or operated correctional
centers (subclass B), and prisoners held by the state in federal
facilities (subclass C).  Although the state and subclass C settled
in 1983, litigation continued with the remaining subclasses until
the parties entered a comprehensive settlement, which the superior
court incorporated in a consent decree in 1990.

The settlement agreement applied to all inmates, with some
exceptions, who are or will in the future be incarcerated in
correctional facilities owned or operated by the state and bound
the Department of Corrections and any successor department,
division, or agency of the state of Alaska which is statutorily
responsible for the administration of the state's adult
correctional facilities.  It included elaborate provisions for
future operation of Alaska prisons, enumerated rights of inmates,
guaranteed the availability of specific rehabilitative programs and
services, required the state to implement an inmate classification
system, created population guidelines, and established caps to
eliminate overcrowding.  

The agreement also established mechanisms to monitor ongoing
compliance, including a provision calling for a designated superior
court judge to have continuing jurisdiction over alleged
violations.  The Final Settlement Agreement and Order provided that
individual inmates could raise compliance challenges as long as
they first exhausted all administrative remedies.

In 2000, DOC moved to terminate the Final Settlement Agreement
pursuant to the Alaska Prison Litigation Reform Act ("APLRA").  At
the time, the inmate plaintiffs immediately opposed, raising
several challenges to the APLRA under the Alaska and United States
Constitutions.  Superior Court Judge Elaine M. Andrews issued a
ruling in 2001, interpreting the APLRA to terminate only the
prospective effect of the Final Settlement Agreement, not the
Agreement itself, and concluding that, under this narrow reading,
the statute was constitutional.

Larson and Ebli first argue that DOC breached the Cleary Final
Settlement Agreement by allowing Securus to raise local call rates
by filing a petition with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
rather than by moving to modify the Final Settlement Agreement in
superior court.  In response, DOC argues that neither AS
33.30.231(a)'s guarantee of "reasonable access" to telephones nor
the Alaska Constitution's free speech provision confers a "right to
free telephone calls."

The Supreme Court holds that the superior court made no factual
findings on whether call rates impose unreasonable burdens on
inmates and their families.  It determined only that reasonable
access under AS 33.30.231(a) is not the same as the right to free
phone calls.  In reaching that conclusion, the superior court
appears to have construed Larson and Ebli's argument too narrowly.
In claiming that current rates are unreasonable, they do not assert
that the only reasonable alternative is free local calls.  In fact,
the inmates point to the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement's
maximum of $0.50 per call as support for their argument that $1 is
not permissible.  But the superior court did not consider whether a
reasonable rate could be greater than zero but lower than the
current $1 -- with or without added taxes and fees.  Without
additional evidence and more detailed findings, the Supreme has no
way to meaningfully review the superior court's decision about the
inmates' statutory right to reasonable telephone access

The Supreme Court therefore reverses the superior court's denial of
Larson and Ebli's motion to enforce.  The Supreme Court remands the
case for the superior court to determine whether Securus' current
rates for local telephone calls violate inmates' statutory and
constitutional rights to reasonable telephone access and
rehabilitation.  In making its determination the court should take
into account Alaska's unique geography and economy, as well as its
statewide administration of correctional facilities.

Antenor argues that DOC has violated his rights by imposing a de
facto blanket prohibition on inmates ordering any computer-related
educational literature.  DOC responds that the superior court
correctly relied on United States Supreme Court precedent holding
that prison officials are entitled to broad deference on matters
related to prison security.     

The Supreme Court concludes that denying Antenor access to the
Arduino book based on security reasons did not violate the Alaska
Constitution's free speech provision.  The superior court appeared
to conclude that even if Goose Creek had imposed a blanket ban on
computer related books, it would be justified by security concerns.
Similarly, even if there is in fact a ban on obtaining
computer-related books from outside the facility, Antenor was not
denied access to related materials within Goose Creek. He
acknowledges that he participated in at least one electronics and
robotics class aimed at providing the type of rehabilitation
contemplated in AS 33.30.011(a)(3).  

DOC has some discretion over the rehabilitative programs it makes
available to prisoners; the Court has held, for instance, that
transferring a prisoner from one prison employment position to
another did not violate the prisoner's right to rehabilitation.  In
that case, it emphasized that the prisoner was not denied all
rehabilitative opportunities, merely transferred between positions.
Antenor likewise has not been denied all rehabilitative
opportunities, or even all rehabilitative opportunities in his area
of interest.  Denying him access to a specific book, therefore,
does not violate his constitutional right to reformation.

In sum, because the record does not provide enough evidence to
meaningfully determine the reasonableness of the rates charged
inmates for local telephone calls, the Supreme Court reversed the
denial of Larson and Ebli's motion to enforce, and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.  Because it
concludes that Goose Creek's restrictions on programming-related
books are rationally related to a legitimate interest, and because
they do not infringe on the right to rehabilitation, the Supreme
Court affirmed the denial of Antenor's motion to enforce his
claimed right to a particular text about computer programming.

A full-text copy of the Alaska Supreme Court's April 17, 2020
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/3oqOJ2 from Leagle.com.

Appearances: Junior Antenor, pro se, Keilan C. Ebli, pro se, Loren
J. Larson, Jr., pro se, Wasilla, Appellants.

Matthias Cicotte, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Kevin
Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.


ALDI: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $2 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Katie Clarey, writing for HRDive, reports that Aldi, a discount
grocery store chain, will pay $2 million to settle wage and hour
claims brought by a class of California workers (Gant v. Aldi, Inc.
No. 2:19-cv-03109 (C.D. Calif. June 22, 2020)).

The plaintiffs claimed Aldi violated California law by failing to
pay proper minimum and overtime wages. They also alleged the store
denied workers meal and rest breaks, in addition to other
violations such as failure to pay timely wages at termination.

The class comprised just over 2,000 Aldi workers. [GN]


ALKAFAWEEN FOOD: Monther Seeks Proper Wages for Cashiers
--------------------------------------------------------
ABDULLA MONTHER, Plaintiff, v. ALKAFAWEEN FOOD STORE, INC d/b/a
Midway Food Market f/k/a S&M Grocery, Inc. f/k/a Alqurneh LLC;
ZAQU, INC. d/b/a Midway Food Market f/k/a S&M Grocery, Inc. f/k/a
Alqurneh LLC; MAJED M. ALKAFAWEEN; and MOHAMMED ISSA ALQURNEH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22760-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2020) is
an action brought by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by the Corporate
Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 70-84
hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less
than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was
employed. Plaintiff was employed as a Cashier performing the same
or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated
Cashier(s) whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours
per week without overtime compensation.

Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants from approximately
December 13, 2018 through June 11, 2020.

Alkafaween Food Store, Inc. is a Miami-Dade County, Florida-based
food retailer.

Zaqu, Inc. is a food services provider based in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

ALLERGAN INC: Faces Morrow Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLEY MORROW v. ALLERGAN INC., f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation and ALLERGAN, USA INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-07992 (D.N.J., June 30, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are
defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined the risk of
developing BIA-ALCL was six times higher with Allergan's BIOCELL
textured implants when compared with textured implants from other
manufacturers, the lawsuit says.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends she will be forced to
expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated
with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity
costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

The Morrow case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The Plaintiff is a patient who had Allergan's BIOCELL breast
implants implanted into her body. Evidence has emerged over time
that these implants cause a form of cancer known as Breast- Implant
Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
          RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street (32502)
          P. O. Box 12308
          Pensacola, FL 32591
          Telephone: (850) 435-7023
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6023
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Ploeger Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANN PLOEGER v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOEs 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-07986
(D.N.J., June 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL
textured implants are defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends she will be forced to
expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs associated
with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost opportunity
costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

The Ploeger case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

The Plaintiff is a patient, who had Allergan's BIOCELL breast
implants implanted into her body. Evidence has emerged over time
that these implants cause a form of cancer known as Breast- Implant
Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia M. Buchanan, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
          RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street (32502)
          P. O. Box 12308
          Pensacola, FL 32591
          Telephone: (850) 435-7023
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6023
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com


ANGLICARE: Class Action Mulled Over Newmarch House COVID Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominica Sanda, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that a class action
against Anglicare is being considered after 19 residents died at
its coronavirus-hit Newmarch House nursing home in Sydney.

Family members have approached lawyers who allege Anglicare was
negligent in its handling of the health crisis and breached its
duty of care to residents.

Lisa Flynn from Shine Lawyers said COVID-19 was brought into the
nursing home near Penrith by a staff member who was sick and should
not have come to work.

Ms. Flynn alleges Anglicare was ill-equipped to handle the
outbreak.

"We will be seeking compensation on behalf of the families of the
deceased," she said in a statement.  "The reality is lives would
have been saved if Newmarch House had the right protocols and
medical care procedures in place and adhered to them from the
start."

Ms. Flynn said family members want to know why their relatives
weren't immediately taken to hospital after testing positive to
COVID-19.

NSW Health announced the COVID-19 outbreak at the western Sydney
facility was over in mid-June with 37 residents and 34 staff
catching the virus and 19 residents dying.

Anglicare has been contacted for comment. [GN]


ANGLICARE: Shine Lawyers Explores Class Action Over Health Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Source reports that Shine Lawyers -- which specialises
in personal injury compensation claims -- has announced it is
exploring a potential class action against Anglicare after 19
residents at the home died during its 65-day outbreak in April, May
and June.

National Practice Leader Lisa Flynn said Shine will allege the Not
For Profit was negligent in its handling of the health crisis and
breached its duty of care to residents.

"Anglicare was ill-equipped to handle the outbreak of coronavirus
at the facility and we will be seeking compensation on behalf of
the families of the deceased," Ms Flynn said.

"Grieving relatives want to know why their loved ones weren't
immediately taken to hospital after testing positive so they could
receive the high-level clinical care they needed."

"They also want to know why they were kept in the dark as
coronavirus spread through the facility and why staff were either
not qualified or not properly supported to make critical
decisions."

"The reality is lives would have been saved if Newmarch House had
the right protocols and medical care procedures in place and
adhered to them from the start."

Is the action likely to go ahead?

Class actions require seven people to join the claim to get the
action off the ground.

Shine tells us that they had already been contacted by several
eligible individuals and are currently taking calls through their
call centre from other direct family members who will be contacted
by their lawyers this week.

Anglicare CEO Grant Millard has publicly stated that in hindsight,
he would have preferred for COVID positive residents to have been
transferred to hospital rather than treated in the home under NSW
Health's ‘Hospital in the Home' program.

The ABC Four Corners program ‘Like the Plague' alleged however
that NSW Health had feared the virus spreading into the community
and even threatened residents with fines or jail time if they tried
to leave.   [GN]


ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ceballos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA AXELY CEBALLOS MURALLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS DELI
INC. (D/B/A ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS); ANTOJITOS MEXICANOS DELI II
CORP.; CARMEN REYES; and ROBERTO DOE, Defendants, Case
1:20-cv-02859 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Ceballos was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Antojitos Mexicanos Deli Inc. owns, operates, or controls a Mexican
restaurant, located at Brooklyn, NY, under the name Antojitos
Mexicanos. [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


APPLIED DATA: Derosier Suit Moved From Cir. Court to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN DEROSIER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLIED DATA FINANCE,
LLC d/b/a PERSONIFY FINANCIAL, Case No. CACE-20-008496 (Filed May
22, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Broward
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on June 30, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-61299-DPG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant charged an interest rate
and late fee that exceed the rates allowed under the Florida
Consumer Finance Act.

Applied Data operates as a financial services firm. The Company
offers loans and financing solutions to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-595-6060
          Facsimile: 954-989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: 561 822-3446
          Facsimile: 305 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@clorrg.com

Defendant Applied Data is represented by:

          Peter A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Barbara Fernandez, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Fourth Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-358-7747
          Facsimile: 305-577-1063


ARIZONA: Diaz Sues Board of Regents, Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Diaz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arizona Board of Regents, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-01126 (D. Ariz., June 8, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining Arizona State
University from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

Arizona Board of Regents is the governing board for Arizona's
public universities including Arizona State University where Diaz
was enrolled as a full-time law student at Sandra Day O'Connor
College of Law during the Spring 2020 semester. Arizona State
University decided to close campus, constructively evict students,
and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result
of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Diaz claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. Arizona State
University refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees
and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Phone: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      Email: david@kazlg.com


ASPEN HOME IMPROVEMENTS: Eder Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Eder, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aspen Home Improvements Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01306 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2020), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Aspen Home Improvements sells energy-efficient replacement windows,
doors, siding and roofing in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and West
Virginia areas. It utilizes prerecorded messages to place calls to
unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for the purpose
of selling its goods and services. At no point in time did Eder
provide them with her express written consent to be contacted using
an automated dialer. Eder has been registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry since April 26, 2005. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      Email: Seth@epllc.com

             - and -

      Ignacio Hiraldo
      IJH LAW
      1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (786) 496-4469
      Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com


BAYER AG: To Pay $10 Billion to Settle Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Green of CancerHealth reports that in 2019, German
pharmaceutical company Bayer AG disputed allegations that its
popular weed killer Roundup--used by farmers, homeowners and
groundskeepers--was linked to an increased risk for cancer, liver
disease, birth defects and celiac disease.

Bayer, which faced tens of thousands of claims, continued to sell
the product without a warning label. Now, the company has agreed to
pay more than $10 billion to settle its lawsuits and set aside
funds for any future cases, The New York Times reports.

Bayer acquired Roundup, the world's most commonly used pesticide,
when it bought Monsanto, the weed killer's original manufacturer,
two years ago. At the time, there were already cancer
concerns­­­—in 2015, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, declared glyphosate,
the key ingredient in Roundup, a probable carcinogen.

Lawsuits have centered on non–Hodgkin lymphoma. In 2018, a jury
awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper after finding that
the glyphosate in Roundup caused his illness. In 2019, a jury ruled
that Monsanto's Roundup contributed to another man's non–Hodgkin
lymphoma, calling it a "substantial factor." In a third case in
2019, the jury agreed that Monsanto had to pay $2 billion to a
couple who said using Roundup for decades caused both their
non–Hodgkin lymphoma.

The Times refers to the current deal as "among the largest
settlements ever in U.S. civil litigation," covering an estimated
95,000 cases and including $1.25 billion for any impending future
lawsuits from Roundup customers who might develop non–Hodgkin
lymphoma.

Some money from the $1.25 billion will also be used to establish an
independent expert panel that will work to determine whether
glyphosate causes cancer as well as the minimum dosage or exposure
level considered dangerous. If glyphosate is found to be a
carcinogen, Bayer will not be able to dispute this evidence in any
future cases. That includes all future class action lawsuits.

Separate agreements have been made with 25 law firms whose clients
will receive varying sums of money, ranging from $5,000 to
$250,000. However, 30,000 claims from plaintiffs who have yet to
join the current settlement are still pending.

Despite the settlement, Bayer stands behind its glyphosate-based
herbicides, especially Roundup, and hasn't admitted any liability
or wrongdoing. According to CEO Werner Bauman, the company agreed
to pay up because it was "financially reasonable" and would result
in an end to current and future litigation.

"Our company is grounded in the well-being of our customers,"
Bauman said in a statement. "As a science-based company committed
to improving people's health, we have great sympathy for anyone who
suffers from disease, and we understand their search for answers.
At the same time, the extensive body of science indicates that
Roundup does not cause cancer and, therefore, is not responsible
for the illnesses alleged in this litigation." [GN]

BAYER: July 23 Preliminary Approval Hearing on Roundup Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that one of the more
controversial and critical parts of Bayer's $10 billion-plus
settlements of Roundup cases is a separate deal to resolve future
claims that--because it comes in a class action--faces judicial
scrutiny and potential objections that may unravel the agreement.

The class action settlement, which includes a $1.1 billion fund, is
a key part of Bayer's strategy to cap its subsidiary Monsanto's
Roundup litigation while keeping its product on store shelves.

But, unlike the settlements that resolved 75% of the estimated
125,000 claims over Roundup, the class action settlement is subject
to the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure as well as the class
action guidelines in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, where Judge Vince Chhabria has to approve
the agreement over any objections.

And there could be objections.

Some lawyers already have criticized the deal's creation of a
science panel that would give the final say on whether Roundup
causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ending the debate in the courts. The
settlement also includes $150 million in attorney fees to three
firms that filed the class action last year.

Chhabria has set a July 23 hearing on preliminary approval.

In a conference call, Bill Dodero, Bayer's global head of
litigation, said he was "confident" that the science panel in the
class action settlement would find no link between Roundup and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

"We want the discussion about science," he said. "And that's what
this whole settlement is meant to do: return the conversation to
science. We think that's where the parties' debate is best
served."

The settlement, which resolves the claims of individuals who
haven't even sued yet, gives finality to Bayer, which has stood by
the safety of Roundup and has no plans to withdraw it from the
market.

"This is absolutely Bayer's best attempt at trying to buy some sort
of a peace here and bring this at least as much closure as you can
get with a product still on the market," said Amy Alderfer, of
Cozen O'Connor, who is following the Roundup litigation. "If you're
going to continue to sell this product, and continue to sell it
without a warning on it, I think it's actually very interesting and
creative to try to do this—to box this in in some way and put
these parameters on this."

Under the settlement, a notice program "unprecedented in scope and
saturation," according to Elizabeth Cabraser, of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, lead plaintiffs counsel for the class action
settlement, would reach out to a potential class of up to 125,000
in the United States and Mexico, most of whom are agricultural
workers who regularly use Roundup. The class includes those
diagnosed with cancer and those who have not.

The settlement's fund includes between $100 million and $250
million toward diagnostic testing to what Cabraser referred to as a
"medically underserved population" and at least $650 million for
financial assistance grants ranging from a few thousand dollars to
$35,000. It also includes $25 million to $75 million in research
funds.

"The class settlement for this group is an effort to provide a
practical alternative in real time and to make Monsanto pay for
it," said Cabraser. "It's not a compensatory damages fund. It's a
fund that provides diagnostic services, needs-based payments, while
class members are waiting for the science panel to make
determinations."

But the most controversial element is the science panel, made up of
five experts selected by consent by both sides, which would
determine general causation for all future lawsuits, rather than
have judges and juries decide whether glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin
lymphoma. After that process, estimated to take four years, Bayer
would have a binding decision that could halt future lawsuits.

"You're hoping, more than hoping, betting on the fact that this
science panel will at the end of the day find that glyphosate
doesn't cause cancer," said Alderfer.

If the science panel finds a link, however, class members could
file their lawsuit but only for compensatory damages, not for
punitive damages or medical monitoring.

Not everyone is on board with the idea. Robin Greenwald, of Weitz &
Luxenberg, co-lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation who
settled her firm's cases, said she had "serious concerns about that
proposed class."

"Seven courts found the science sufficiently reliable based on
methodologically sound methods of evaluation to be admissible in a
court to determine whether general causation is met," she said,
including those that oversaw trials ending in three verdicts
totaling nearly $2.4 billion (Bayer has appealed those awards).

Potential objections are important to the survival of the deal,
which includes a provision in which Bayer would back out if a
certain percentage of class members, submitted under seal, opt
out.

Cabraser acknowledged the criticism but noted that the findings of
other judges were not binding, and experts are expensive.

Another provision of the settlement provides $150 million in
attorney fees to lawyers including Cabraser and others at her San
Francisco firm, as well as William Audet of San Francisco's Audet &
Partners and James Dugan, of The Dugan Law Firm in New Orleans.

The firms have not yet filed their motion for fees, which are in
addition to, and not part of, the $1.1 billion settlement fund. But
Cabraser said the fees, held in an escrow account, would include
work needed over the next four years and paid over that period.

"We negotiated that with Monsanto after we had reached agreement on
the essential terms of the class on settlement, and we will explain
to the court the work that will be required to be done over the
life of the program," she said. [GN]


BROADSTAFF LLC: Alexander Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BroadStaff, LLC and Crown Castle
Fiber LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01823 (S.D. Tex., May 26,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BroadStaff is a specialized staffing firm that supplies talent to
the Technology and Telecommunications Industries while Crown is a
technology and telecommunications provider that services various
industries across the United States. BroadStaff has entered into
staffing contracts in Texas with Crown to provide workers where
Alexander worked as a Construction Manager from approximately March
2016 until June 2018. He claims to be paid the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek and denied overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
             tjones@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Frank Cruz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 30 announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
("Brookdale" or the "Company") (NYSE: BKD) common stock between
August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Brookdale investors have until August 24, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a
proposed class action lawsuit had been filed against Brookdale,
accusing the Company of, among other things, purposeful
"chronically insufficient staffing" at its facilities in an effort
to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016.
According to the lawsuit, the Company misinformed both residents
and their families in promising to provide daily living services
and basic care. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of
plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid
for."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.56 per share, or
over 15%, over two trading sessions, to close at $3.12 per share on
May 1, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial
performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's
purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of
litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results and
reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Brookdale securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than August 24, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Brookdale securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 30 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. ("Brookdale" or "the Company") (NYSE:
BKD) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 10,
2016 and April 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 24, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Brookdale sustained its financial
performance throughout techniques such as intentionally
understaffing its senior living communities. These techniques
created a larger risk of litigation and would impact its financial
performance when revealed. The Company's financial performance was
unsustainable. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Brookdale,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


C&L MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, O'Malley Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALLEN O'MALLEY, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C&L MAINTENANCE, INC. d/b/a CLM
MIDWEST, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00571 (N.D. Ind., July 6,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly rate Service
Technician.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff log his hours of work through
a time-tracking app as per Defendant's requirement to its Service
Technicians. Additionally, Plaintiff worked through his lunch most
days, yet Defendant automatically deducted a 30-minute lunch break
from Plaintiff's time report for each day. As a result, Defendant
failed to fully pay minimum wage and overtime wages to Plaintiff
pursuant to the FLSA.

C&L Maintenance, Inc. d/b/a CLM Midwest provides retail maintenance
and repair services and construction management in the Midwest.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Ramsland, Esq.
          RAMSLAND LAW
          17 S. 6th Street, Suite X Box 12
          Lafayette, IN 47901
          Tel: 765-267-1240
          Email: Jason@rams.land


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Take Years to Get Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Dixon, writing for Sportsnet, reports that on June 18, a
statement of claim was issued against the three leagues that
comprise the Canadian Hockey League, the CHL itself and the 60
teams that compete under the CHL banner.

The statement of claim was filed on behalf of the representative
plaintiffs, Dan Carcillo and Garrett Taylor. Carcillo was a member
of the Ontario Hockey League's Sarnia Sting in 2002-03 and Taylor
played for the Alberta-based Lethbridge Hurricanes in the Western
Hockey League in 2008-09. The statement of claim alleges disturbing
acts related to hazing and bullying, including sexual, physical and
mental abuse.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

In the aftermath of the filing, three people who were also members
of the 2002-03 Sting with Carcillo have spoken publicly to
corroborate the claims. Dan Fritsche, Ryan Munce and David
Pszenyczny have all told their stories of alleged abuse to Ken
Campbell of The Hockey News or The Athletic's Aaron Portzline. A
fourth person, Brad Hammett, has come forward and detailed a
similar story of purported abuse to Rick Westhead of TSN. Hammett
played for the Montana-based Billings Bighorns of the WHL in
1981-82.

On June 26, the CHL released a statement indicating it would be
forming an independent review panel to "thoroughly review the
current policies and practices in our leagues that relate to
hazing, abuse, harassment and bullying and the allegation that
players do not feel comfortable reporting behaviours that
contravene these policies."

We are at the start of a civil action that figures to play out over
the course of the coming months and years, especially given there
are four leagues and 60 teams listed on the statement of claim.
"You've got so many defendants in this lawsuit, it's going to be
like herding cats," said Chris Blom, a civil litigation lawyer and
partner with the Toronto-based firm Miller Thomson LLP (which is
not involved in the case).

Blom helped address a handful of things people should know or gain
a greater understanding of related to this case.

The various defendants will deliver what is known as a 'notice of
intent to defend' to identify the lawyers acting for each of them.
A case management judge will likely be appointed to deal with the
procedural issues throughout the action.

Once that happens, the next big step will be a motion for the
certification of the action under a law known as the Class
Proceedings Act of Ontario. The plaintiffs must convince the judge
hearing the motion that they have what is known as a 'cause of
action' or a right to make the claims they have made in the
statement of claim. They must also convince the judge that the
claims of the class members or the defences raise common issues,
and that a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for
the resolution of those common issues.

If the action is certified as a class action, each person who falls
within the class--identified in the claim as "all former and
current players who play or played in any of the Leagues (sic)
while under the age of 18"--will automatically become part of the
class. That's important to establish because, as other players not
listed as plaintiffs on the statement have come forward to tell
their stories in recent days--either publicly or to the plaintiffs'
lawyers--people often ask if they will be joining the class. If
they were under 18 and played in the CHL, they're automatically
included once it's certified.

Once a class action certification order is issued, it has to be
published in the media so that all persons who fit the definition
of the class are aware of the action. "Everybody who falls within
the class defined in the order will be embraced by the claim," Blom
explained. "But those who wish to opt out can opt out. They can
bring their own claim or just not be part of it."

While the plaintiffs will push toward certification as quickly as
possible, it could take upwards of a year to determine that
outcome--especially given all the parties involved on the defence
side. "If you only had one plaintiff and one defendant in a class
action, you could do it in six months," Blom said.

COVID-19 may add some further delay. Though these cases can be
settled between the parties at any time, do not expect that here.

No individual defendants are listed in the statement of claim.
Though it says "coaches and team officials were aware of the Abuse
(sic) and participated in it," it's worth noting that no individual
is being directly sued. The plaintiffs' accusations are aimed at
the larger institutions of the teams and leagues--the broader major
junior hockey culture, if you will--not individuals.

There's a tendency to look at accusations levelled in actions
arising from events that took place 18 years ago in the case of
Carcillo and 12 years ago in the case of Taylor and be dismissive
of them because of some sense that societal norms were different
then. Blom explained the argument, for lack of a better way of
putting it, that "things were different then" does not persuade,
especially in jury trials. What is seen as abuse now, was likely
seen as abuse then.

The trial is likely to be heard by a judge alone, and not a jury,
because of the size of the case, the number of parties and the
complexities involved.

If a judge ultimately finds liability on the part of the teams or
leagues, the next issue will be monetary damages. "The big fight
might be over things like, [Player X] was going to get to the NHL
but he didn't because he was abused," says Blom. "That's a big
difference from a claim that says he would have been a teacher.
Judges look upon it as the loss of a chance [and] there's a whole
series of cases that lay out how you look upon it as a loss of a
chance."

That fight, if it happens at all, is likely years away, and is just
one of the many issues that will come into play over the long arc
of this dispute. [GN]


CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 18, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around
February 7, 2020 (the "IPO").

If you suffered a loss on your Casper investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/casper-sleep-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

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, as well as 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.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that 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; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that 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; (6) that
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 (7) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Casper securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
August 18, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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


CASPER SLEEP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Casper Sleep, Inc. ("Enphase" or the
"Company") (CSPR) securities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Casper securities in or traceable to the Company's
public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 (the
"IPO"). Investors have until August 18, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company misled investors regarding the
strength of Casper's global operations. Casper went public in
February 2020, selling over 8 million shares at $12 a share. Just a
few weeks later, in April 2020, the Company announced that Casper
would decrease its global operations, including a dramatic 21%
reduction to its global operations and sales team, and close its
European operations. Casper also disclosed that Gregory Macfarlane
had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer.

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]


CEPHALON INC: $66M Settlement in Vista Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CEPHALON, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-1833
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the End-Payor
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements
and Memorandum of Law in Support.

The Court finds that the Settlements, which include cash payments
totaling $65,877,600 to be paid by the Defendants in exchange for,
inter alia, dismissal of the litigation between the End-Payor
Plaintiffs and the Defendants with prejudice and releases of
certain claims filed or that could have been filed against the
Defendants by the End-Payor Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes,
are fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Classes.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
solely for the purpose of effectuating the Settlements, the Court
finally certified the Settlement Classes defined as follows:

  a. State Antitrust/Consumer Protection Class: All persons or
     entities in Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
     Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
     Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
     Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota,

     Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin who
     purchased Provigil and/or its generic equivalent intended for

     consumption by themselves, their families or their members,
     employees, plan participants beneficiaries or insureds
     between June 24, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2019.

  b. State Unjust Enrichment Class: All persons or entities in
     Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida,
     Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
     Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
     South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
     Wisconsin who purchased Provigil and/or its generic
     equivalent modafinil, intended for consumption by themselves,

     their families or their members, employees, plan
     participants, beneficiaries or insureds between June 24, 2006

     and Aug. 8, 2019.

The following persons or entities are excluded from the Settlement
Classes: (i) the Defendants and their respective subsidiaries,
affiliates, and employees; (ii) all governmental entities (except
for government funded employee benefit plans); (iii) insured
individuals covered by plans imposing a flat dollar co-pay that was
the same dollar amount for generic as for brand drug purchases;
(iv) insured individuals who purchased only generic modafinil (not
branded Provigil) pursuant to a fixed co-pay applicable to generic
drugs; (v) United Healthcare Services, Inc., including its
subsidiaries; and (vi) fully-insured health plans, i.e., plans that
purchased insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of
the plan's reimbursement obligations to its members.  In addition,
the Settling Health Plans ("SHPs") identified in Schedule A to the
Cephalon Settlement are excluded from the Cephalon Settlement.

Vista Healthplan, Inc., now known as Coventry Health Care of
Florida, Inc., District Counsel 37 Health & Security Plan,
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission, and Shirley Panebianco, are appointed as the
representatives of the Settlement Classes.

Pursuant to Rules 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g), the Court, having
considered the factors provided in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), finally
appointed Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Criden & Love, P.A., and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as the Co-Lead Counsel for the
Settlement Classes.

Based upon the foregoing, which takes into account each of the
factors specified in Rule 23(e)(2), the Court finally approved the
Settlements and the Plan of Allocation.  The Parties are directed
to promptly consummate and administer the Settlements in accordance
with the terms of the Settlements.

The Claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in the Action are hereby
dismissed with prejudice and, except as provided for in the
Settlements and therein, without costs.

The Court approved the Releases in each Settlement Agreement as
binding and effective as to all members of the Settlement Classes
and permanently barring and enjoining such members of the
Settlement Classes from asserting any Released Claims as set forth
in each Settlement Agreement.

The 18 Class Members listed in Exhibit "A" have requested exclusion
from the Class Settlement.  Based on the Declaration of Eric Miller
dated Dec. 13, 2019 and Supplemental Declaration of Eric Miller,
the Court holds that these Class Members have properly excluded
themselves (which includes one late-filed exclusion), and therefore
they will not be governed by the Releases included in the
Settlement Agreements or be subject in any way to the Order and
Final Judgment.

The Class Counsel are awarded an expense reimbursement in the
amount of $2,663,468, together with a proportionate share of the
interest thereon from the date the funds are deposited in the
Settlement Escrow Accounts until payment of such reimbursement of
costs and expenses, at the rate earned by the Settlement Funds.
The expenses will be disbursed from the Settlement Funds in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreements and Plan of
Allocation.

For their prosecution of the litigation over the last 13 years, the
Court awarded the Class Representatives the following incentive
awards: (1) the Consumer Class Representative, Shirley Panebianco
will receive $15,000 from the Settlement Fund; and (2) the
Third-Party Class Representatives -- Vista Healthplan, District
Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Pennsylvania Employees benefit
Trust Fund, and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission -- will each
receive $50,000 from the Settlement Fund.

The Court approved the release of claims as specified in the
Settlements as binding and effective as to all the members of the
Classes and permanently bars and enjoins such members of the
Classes from asserting any Released Claims.  The Court further
directed that, for a period of five years, the Clerk of the Court
will maintain the record of those members of the Classes who have
excluded themselves from the Classes and that a copy of such
records will be provided to the Defendants.  Accordingly, the Clerk
of Court is expressly directed to immediately enter this Judgment
in the Action, which Judgment will be final and appealable.

The Clerk of Court will mark the case closed.

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


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sears Challenges Proposed Sale to Faith Dawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Sears, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED, JIE HAN, TAYLOR ZHANG, LINYUAN
ZHAI, HUIYI CHEN, GUANBAO HUANG, and QINGWEI MA, Case No.
1:20-cv-05156 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
efforts to sell the Company to Faith Dawn Limited and Faith Horizon
Inc.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
public stockholders of China XD Plastics Company Limited, against
China XD and the Company's Board of Directors, for violations of
the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of
the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Faith Dawn Limited
("Parent") and Faith Horizon Inc. ("Merger Sub") (collectively with
Parent, "Faith Dawn") as a result of an unfair process for an
unfair price, and to enjoin the proposition to take the Company off
the NASDAQ and become a privately owned company (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Significantly, the Plaintiff notes, Engineering Plastics Company
Limited, a corporation wholly owned by Defendant and Company
Chairman and CEO, Jie Han, beneficially owns approximately 50.1%,
of the Company's outstanding Common Stock. Through Engineering
Plastics Company Limited, Han controls shares of Company's Class A
Common Stock and Class B Common Stock representing approximately
70% of Company's total voting power. In addition Faith Dawn is also
wholly owned by Han.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a June
15, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Faith Dawn and will acquire all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company not
already beneficially owned by Faith Dawn. China XD public
stockholders will receive, in exchange for each share of China XD
common stock they own, $1.20 in cash per China XD share.

Thereafter, on June 22, 2020, China XD filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule PREM14A with the SEC in support of the
Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Proposed
Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons.
Significantly, the Preliminary Proxy describes an insufficient
process in which the Board rushed through an inadequate "sales
process" in which the only end goal was a sale to Faith Dawn and
Han, with no market check for potentially interested third parties
conducted at any point. Such a sales process, or lack thereof,
clearly indicates that the only end-goal acceptable to the
Defendants was an acquisition of China XD by Faith Dawn and Han,
the Plaintiff adds.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell China XD
without first taking steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Faith Dawn without regard for China XD's
public stockholders, the Plaintiff asserts. Accordingly, this
action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel the
Individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties
to China XD stockholders.

According to the complaint, it is clear that the Proposed
Transaction was engineered by Han to gain complete control over the
Company by any means necessary, a goal which, as the Preliminary
Proxy reveals, he has had since at least 2017. In violation of
Federal Securities laws and in further violation of their fiduciary
duties, the Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient
Preliminary Proxy on June 22, 2020 with the SEC in an effort to
solicit stockholders to vote their China XD shares in favor of the
Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially
deficient, deprives China XD's stockholders of the information they
need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties.

Absent judicial intervention, the Proposed Transaction will be
consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the
Class, says the complaint. This action seeks to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff has been a China XD stockholder.

China XD engages in the research, development, manufacture, and
sale of modified plastics primarily for automotive applications in
the People's Republic of China, and Dubai, the United Arab
Emirates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516.741.4977
          Facsimile: 516.741.0626
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com


CIEE INC: Zhao Suit Removed From Superior Court District of Maine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Annie Zhao, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CIEE INC., COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE INC., Case No. PORSC-CV-20-00243, was removed
from the Maine Superior Court, Cumberland County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine on July 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00240-LEW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

CIEE is a nonprofit study abroad and intercultural exchange
organization that transforms lives and builds bridges between
individuals and nations by sponsoring a wide variety of
opportunities for the exchange of ideas and experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra A. Harriman, Esq.
          Gregory Paul Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY
          One City Center
          P.O. BOX 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Phone: (207) 791-3000
          Fax: (207) 791-3111
          Email: aharriman@preti.com
                 ghansel@preti.com
                 rweill@preti.com
                 sschutz@preti.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad W. Higgins, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN SHUR
          100 Middle Street, West Tower
          P.O. BOX 9729
          Portland, ME 04104-5029
          Phone: (207) 774-1200
          Email: chiggins@bernsteinshur.com


CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Civil Rights Groups Suing Sheriff's Office
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Stafford of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that
civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the Clayton
County Sheriff's Office, alleging the department is failing to
protect people from COVID-19 in the south metro Atlanta community's
jail.

The legal action, filed as putative class action in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, said Sheriff Victor
Hill and his staff have not done enough to protect detainees at the
Clayton County Jail. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four people
incarcerated at the jail.

The groups said that according to the Georgia Department of Public
Health, 45 people at the jail had tested positive for the
coronavirus--including 13 members of jail staff--as of June 11.

"People detained in jails are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19
because of the close spaces in which they are confined, the shared
use of facilities without adequate sanitation or effective personal
protective equipment, and the absence of adequate medical care to
address or treat the spread of infection," said Kosha Tucker, staff
attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, one of
the group's filing the lawsuit.

Alan Parker, a legal advisor for the Clayton Sheriff's Office,
denied the jail faced a COVID-19 outbreak.

"As the legal advisor for the Clayton County Sheriff's Office, I
have reviewed the allegations in the lawsuit, and we will
vigorously defend against this lawsuit in a court of law, not in
the press," he said in a post to the Sheriff's Office Nixle
webpage.

The other organizations suing the Sheriff's Office are the Southern
Center for Human Rights and the ACLU's national office.

The Southern Center and the ACLU of Georgia had filed an earlier
lawsuit in May against the sheriff's office for allegedly violating
open records laws. The groups said the jail did not provide
COVID-19 test numbers as requested. [GN]

CLEARVIEW AI: Thornley Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA THORNLEY, DEBORAH
BENJAMIN-KOLLER, and JOSUE HERRERA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No.
20-2916 (Filed March 19, 2020), was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 30, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03843 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that Clearview has violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by allegedly profiting from the
biometric information and biometric identifiers of Illinois
residents without their permission.

Clearview AI is an American technology company that provides facial
recognition software, which is used by private companies, law
enforcement agencies, universities and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Feeney, Esq.
          Zachary J. Freeman, Esq.
          MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          E-mail: dfeeney@millershakman.com
                  zfreeman@millershakman.com

               - and -

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Forde, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Meara, Esq.
          Kevin R. Malloy, Esq.
          FORDE & O'MEARA LLP
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: kforde@fordellp.com
                  bomeara@fordellp.com
                  kmalloy@fordellp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David P. Saunders, Esq.
          Howard S. Suskin, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          E-mail: hsuskin@jenner.com
                  dsaunders@jenner.com


CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of those who acquired Co-Diagnostics,
Inc. ("Co-Diagnostics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CODX) securities
during the period from February 25, 2020 through May 15, 2020.
Investors have until August 17, 2020 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially misleading
statements that its Covid-19 tests were 100% accurate--a staggering
claim that appeared to set Co-Diagnostics apart from other
competitors developing Covid-19 tests.

On May 14, 2020, news outlets reported that Co-Diagnostics was
reticent to participate in U.S.-based testing to verify its
accuracy claims, casting doubt on Co-Diagnostics' claims of 100%
accuracy. On this news, shares of Co-Diagnostics fell $1.29, or
5.5%, to close at $22.13 per share on May 14, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, after the markets closed, financial news services
began reporting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
announced publicly that no Covid-19 test is 100% accurate,
undermining Co-Diagnostics' claims about its tests' perfect
accuracy. On this news, shares of Co-Diagnostics fell $5.06, or
22.9%, to close at $17.07 per share on May 15, 2020.

If you acquired Co-Diagnostics 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 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
www.kmllp.com [GN]


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Treatment of Cows at Fair Oaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Coca-Cola's
fairlife milk products wrongfully claim that the milk in them comes
from cows that were treated humanely, a new class action lawsuit
says.

A group of plaintiffs filed the case June 25 in Chicago federal
court, claiming they bought fairlife products partly because the
defendant made representations about how cows were treated in a
farm collective.

"But despite making these explicit Animal Welfare Promises, they
were false, deceptive and misleading," the lawsuit says.
"Defendants did not live up to those promises: several undercover
investigations revealed widespread abuse at farms that source
fairlife products--including at Defendants' 'flagship farm' Fair
Oaks."

Undercover video shows livestock suffering abuse at the hands of
farm management, the lawsuit says. Cows were tortured, kicked,
beaten, burned, force-fed and confined to tiny spaces, it says.

About a year ago, the farm was accused of animal rights violations
because of the undercover footage. [GN]


COCONUT JOE'S: Mackie Sues Over Wrongful Dismissal, Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN MACKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COCONUT JOE'S IOP LLC, CJ OFFERING LLC, JOE
PETRO, and CAITLIN WEST, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02562-DCN
(D.S.C., July 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated the Plaintiff
in retaliation to him for leaving work to seek a medical diagnosis
because he was experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms. In addition,
the Defendants compensated the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated servers less than the required statutory minimum wages by
taking the tip credit under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendants' restaurant as a
server from July 2016 to May 2020.

Coconut Joe's IOP LLC is a restaurant business located at 1120
Ocean Blvd., Isle of Palms, South Carolina.

CJ Offering LLC is a restaurant business located at 1120 Ocean
Blvd., Isle of Palms, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
         MULLANEY LAW
         652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 588-5587
         E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

COLONY CAPITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Colony Capital, Inc. (:
CLNY). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Colony Capital, Inc. (: CLNY)

Class Period: August 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

Colony is a leading global investment management firm with assets
under management of $55 billion. The Company manages capital on
behalf of its stockholders, as well as institutional and retail
investors in private funds, and traded and non-traded real estate
investment trusts.

On November 8, 2019, Colony announced its financial results for the
third quarter of 2019. Among other results, the Company reported a
GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which "notably
included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan
losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was
attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of
the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management
business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in
management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from
impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation."

On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 8.76%,
to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019.

Then, on May 8, 2020, Colony issued a press release announcing its
financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020. In
the press release, Colony reported that its portfolio companies had
defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels and
healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a notice
of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted debt.

On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.81%,
to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 significant risk of
default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Colony Capital class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CLNY

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

        Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
        Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
        Marion Passmore, Esq.
        Tel: (212) 355-4648
        E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
        Web site: http://www.bespc.com/[GN]


COLUMBIA GAS: Agrees to Pay $56M in New Gas Explosion Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Pescaro of NBC Boston reports that a week after a federal
judge sentenced a Massachusetts utility to pay $53 million for its
role in the Merrimack Valley gas explosions, Massachusetts'
attorney general has reached an agreement with the company for an
even greater sum.

Columbia Gas agreed to a $56 million settlement and will not be
allowed to operate in the Bay State again, Attorney General Maura
Healey announced.

Healey's office has been investigating the utility since the fires
and explosions that rocked Lawrence, Andover and North Andover in
September of 2018.

Columbia Gas, the utility behind the deadly gas explosions that
rocked Lawrence, Andover and North Andover more than a year and a
half ago was sentenced Tuesday to pay a $53 dollar fine and serve
three years probation.

"The Merrimack Valley gas explosions were heartbreaking and
disruptive for the lives of thousands of families and
businesses--many of whom are still recovering," Healey said in a
statement. "Today's first-of-its-kind agreement ensures that
Columbia Gas never does business in Massachusetts again, invests
millions of dollars in the Merrimack Valley, and helps low-income
customers pay their gas bills."

The company's assets will be transferred to Eversource, which
agreed to acquire them for $1.1 billion earlier this year, on Nov.
1, Healey's office said. The agreement requires Eversource to
analyze potential strategies to decarbonize its natural gas
operations.

"This significant result will lay the groundwork for a safer
natural gas system in the region and bring the benefits of our
clean energy economy to more residents," Healey said.

The settlement also establishes an energy relief fund, which will
wipe out nearly $15 million in debt from the gas bills of
approximately 26,000 low-income customers, according to Healey's
office.

"Today's announcement builds on our commitment to the full recovery
of the communities, residents and businesses of the Merrimack
Valley who were severely impacted by the tragic 2018 gas
explosions, and to improved pipeline safety throughout the
Commonwealth," Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement.

Merrimack Valley Gas Explosion Settlement Payments Begin

The first $70 million in settlement payments to people affected by
a series of natural gas explosions in Massachusetts in 2018 was
mailed July 3.

The federal fine Columbia Gas was sentenced to last week is the
largest ever imposed under the Pipeline Safety Act.

Earlier this year, the company also settled a class action lawsuit
for $143 million.

The explosions on Sept. 13, 2018, left 18-year-old Leonel Rondon
dead and 25 others injured.  About 8,000 people were displaced
after more than 100 homes burned. [GN]

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Sells No Prescription Contact Lenses, Britt Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY BRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Defendant, Case
3:20-cv-04333-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of persons who purchased
contact lenses without a prescription from a licensed medical
professional, from the Defendant's online and mobile application
retail platform, Wish.com.

According to the Plaintiff, the sale or distribution of contact
lenses, even those that do not correct vision and are purely for
cosmetic purposes ("plano contacts"), is prohibited by Federal and
state law for persons and entities that are not licensed to sell,
distribute, or facilitate the sale of contact lenses. Namely, it is
prohibited for any person to offer contact lenses for sale without
requiring the purchasers to present a valid prescription from a
licensed medical professional. Defendant, through its online retail
platforms, Wish.com, and its various mobile phone applications, has
sold and continues to offer contact lenses for sale without being
licensed to sell or distribute contact lenses, and without
requiring or even warning potential purchasers that a valid
prescription is required to purchase contact lenses.

The Plaintiff was one such unsuspecting consumer, and purchased
plano contact lenses from Wish.com without being prompted for a
valid prescription prior to purchase. Indeed, the Defendant did not
even advise consumers like the Plaintiff that they should seek to
obtain a prescription for contact lenses prior to purchase. The
Defendant, in its first party capacity, represents to consumers
that it is prohibited for any merchant to sell contact lenses on
its website. This representation made and published by the
Defendant operates as a promise to the Plaintiff and Class members
that Wish.com will protect consumers from the sale of contact
lenses, among other prohibited items, on its platform. Wish.com,
however, readily allows these "prohibited" contact lenses to be
sold on its website in high quantities from invisible sellers, with
complete indifference as to whether such sales violate state and
federal regulations.

ContextLogic, Inc., doing business as Wish, provides a social
platform to discover, collect, and share products with friends. The
Company helps merchants to reach customers, as well as enable users
to personalize shopping and find the products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com
                  rhecht@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  whogg@schneiderwallace.com


COOL CLOUDS: Faces Lara Suit Over Sale of Puff Bar E-Cigarettes
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH LARA, Individually and as Guardian of her minor child J.S., on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
COOL CLOUDS DISTRIBUTION, INC., UMAIS ABUBAKER, and SHAHID SHAIKH,
Case No. 2:20-cv-08030 (D.N.J., June 30, 2020), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from offering, selling, delivering, or in any manner,
providing or facilitating others to provide Puff Bar products
unless and until Puff Bar obtains Premarket Approval or approved as
a Modified Risk Tobacco Product under the Tobacco Control Act.

According to the complaint, despite legislation banning fruit,
mint, and dessert flavors in refillable cartridge-based
e-cigarettes, the ban carved out an exemption for brands that are
used once and thrown away. Puff Bar, a disposable e-cigarette that
launched in 2019, has been the key beneficiary of the loophole.
Puff bar is sleek, appealing, concealable, and exceptionally easy
to use. Puff Bar is designed to deliver nicotine more efficiently
than some earlier brands. Available in 25 different flavors, this
e-cigarette is made for youth. The company built on its early
success by adding a line of flavor pods called "Puff Krush," which
are compatible with other e-cigarettes and further target the youth
market.

Even though e-cigarettes are unsafe for anyone under 26, Puff Bar
heavily promotes and markets these products to young people, the
Plaintiff contends. She alleges that Puff Bar preys on youth using
themes that exploit young users' vulnerabilities to create and
sustain nicotine addiction, all for financial gain, and without
giving users any warnings about the serious risks of addiction and
other serious injuries.

Plaintiff J.S. was a target and victim of Puff Bar's conduct. As a
result of Puff Bar's conduct, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated have been injured and seek redress.

Puff Bar manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes Puff Bar disposable e-cigarettes and Puff Krush
flavored tip add-on, among other things. Mr. Umais Abubaker is the
Chief Executive Officer of Cool Clouds Distribution, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          Scott P. Schlesginer, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: 954-467-8800
          E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Dist. Denies Venue Change in Rough Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN ROUGH, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants in
the State of California, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01340-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Defendant's Motion to Change
Venue to the Central District of California under the
"first-to-file rule" where the case Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-03454-SVW-Skx, is already
pending.

Plaintiff Megan Rough, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, filed a class action complaint
against Costco in the Superior Court of California, County of
Solano, for violations of the California Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.  The Defendant
subsequently removed the case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Plaintiff brings the present action on behalf of herself and
all current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees who worked
for the Defendant within California and who worked one or more
closing shifts during the period from four years preceding the
filing of the Complaint to final judgment.  The Defendant employed
the Plaintiff as a front-end associate in its warehouse store
located in Woodland, California, from December 2017 to January
2018, and in another warehouse located in Vacaville, California,
from March 2018 to April 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated
employees continued to work after business hours at the Defendant's
stores.  More specifically, after the stores' doors were closed to
customers and locked, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated employees to clock out and then walk to a
designated exit location.  The employees then had to call and wait
for a manager to meet them at the designated exit location.  When
the manager arrived, he or she would inspect the employees' bags
for store merchandise.  After checking the employees' bags, the
manager would radio the stores' security guards to ensure the
parking lot was safe before the exit doors were opened.

According to the Plaintiff, employees were not relieved of their
duties until several minutes after clocking out and were not
compensated for the time they were on-duty and required to complete
the exit security procedure.  She defines two classes of similarly
situated employees.  First, the Plaintiff seeks to represent the
Closing-Shift Class, which includes all current and former
non-exempt employees who worked at the Defendant's warehouse stores
and who worked one or more closing shifts at any time from four
years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present.  Second,
the Plaintiff seeks to represent a subclass of employees entitled
the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass, which includes all members of
the Closing-Shift Class whose employment with the Defendant ended
at any time from three years prior to filing the Complaint to the
present.

The Complaint alleges the following claims under state law: (1)
Failure to Pay Minimum and Regular Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All
Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements;
(4) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of
Employment; and (5) Violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Change
Venue.  The Nevarez action was filed well before the instant one,
and the Plaintiff in that case pursues claims overlapping those
brought in the Rought case.  More specifically, the plaintiffs in
Nevarez also sought to represent various classes of the Defendant's
employees in pursuit of California wage and hour claims based on
its bag-checking and closing-shift exit procedures.  Given the
similarity between that case and the case and between the relative
classes of employees, the Defendant thus seeks to transfer the
action so it may be heard in conjunction with Nevarez and the
subsequently filed Mosley case.

In the instance, Judge England holds that both the parties and the
claims are substantially similar.  That said, the court in Nevarez
declined to certify a class and thereafter remanded the matter to
state court on the basis that it consequently lacked jurisdiction
under CAFA.  In addition, the Mosley plaintiff has now voluntarily
dismissed that action as well.  Accordingly, there is very little
to be gained by transferring the Rough action to a court that never
reached the merits of the claims presented and no longer has any
cases pending before it.  

The Defendant's Motion to Transfer is thus denied, Judge England
ruled.

A full-text copy of Judge England's April 21, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/FGsPFr from Leagle.com.


CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CytomX Therapeutics Inc. ("CytomX" or the
"Company") (CTMX) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and indexed under 20-cv-03432, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired CytomX securities between May 17,
2018, and May 13, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased CytomX securities during the
class period, you have until July 20, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

CytomX was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in South San
Francisco, California. CytomX operates as an oncology-focused
biopharmaceutical company in the U.S. The Company develops a novel
class of investigational antibody therapeutics based on its Probody
technology platform for the treatment of cancer. CytomX's lead
product candidates in the clinical stage include, among others,
CX-072 and CX-2009.

CytomX has been evaluating CX-072 in its "PROCLAIM" series clinical
program for several years. For example, the PROCLAIM-CX-072-001
clinical trial was designed to assess the tolerability and
preliminary antitumor activity of multiple doses of CX-072 as a
monotherapy or as a combination therapy with ipilimumab (which
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company markets under the brand name Yervoy)
or vemurafenib (which Roche markets under the brand name Zelboraf)
in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors or lymphoma.
The Company also began conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called
PROCLAIM-CX-072-002, which was initiated in October 2019 and is an
open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating CX-072 in
combination with ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or
metastatic melanoma.

Likewise, CystomX had been evaluating CX-2009 under its own
"PROCLAIM" brand clinical program. This program includes the
PROCLAIM-CX-2009-001 clinical trial, which is a Phase 1/2 trial
evaluating the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of
CX-2009 as a monotherapy, which CytomX initiated in June 2017. This
clinical program also proceeded in multiple parts-Parts A and A2,
which are monotherapy dose escalation studies; and Part B, which is
a Phase 2 expansion study of CX-2009 monotherapy at 7 mg/kg
administered every three weeks in up to 40 patients with hormone
receptor (ER, PR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, which
Defendants announced in December 2019 based on the tolerability and
activity data from Part A and A2 of the study.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about CytomX's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) CytomX had downplayed issues with
CX-072's efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program;
(ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy
and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 13, 2020, during after-market hours, CytomX made available
abstracts for the Company's clinical presentations for CX-072 and
CX-2009. Results from the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program showed a
response rate of 8.8%, compared to a response rate of 18.5% in
patients receiving the combination of CX-072 and ipilimumab.
Meanwhile, results from the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program
showed "evidence" of clinical activity at doses at least 4 mg/kg
3x/week, but also suggested a significantly higher rate of serious
or greater treatment-related toxicity to the eyes at dose
equivalents at least 8 mg/kg 3x/week.

Following the release of the foregoing data, CytomX's stock price
fell $5.21 per share, or 36.08%, to close at $9.23 per share on May
14, 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 [GN]


DARKTRACE INC: $82.5K Settlement in Der-Hacopian Suit Has Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN, Plaintiff, v. DARKTRACE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiff commenced the consumer class action against Defendant
Darktrace alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Action ("FCRA").  As part of its employment application process,
the Defendant requires consumer reports, known as background
checks, to evaluate prospective employees.  In July 2018, the
Plaintiff applied for a job with the Defendant.  At the Defendant's
request, the Plaintiff agreed to its requirement that he authorize
it, and a consumer reporting agency of its choosing, to perform a
background check on him.  The Plaintiff signed a document titled
"Employee Authorization to Release Records."  The Plaintiff alleges
that the background check contained erroneous information, and the
Defendant denied the Plaintiff employment based on the information
in the report.  As a result, the Plaintiff contends that he
suffered financial and reputational harm.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the FCRA with
these background checks by (1) including a release of future
liability in the Authorization that it required employment
applicants to sign authorizing a background check; and (2) using
the background check to make an adverse employment decision without
timely providing the prospective employee with a copy of the report
and a summary of his or her rights under the FCRA.  Section
1681b(b)(2) requires consumer report authorizations to consist
solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for
employment purposes.  And Section 1681b(b)(3) requires that in
using a consumer report for employment purposes, before taking any
adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person
intending to take such adverse action will provide to the consumer
to whom the report relates a copy of the report and a written
description of the consumer's rights under the FCRA.  

Based on those facts, the first amended complaint asserted two
causes of action under Sections 1681(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the FCRA.


The Plaintiff also sought to represent two classes of consumers
based on each claim, defined as:

  a. All natural persons residing within the United States and its

     Territories regarding whom, beginning five years prior to the

     filing of the Complaint and continuing through the conclusion

     of the action, the Defendant procured or caused to be
     procured a consumer report for employment purposes using a
     written disclosure containing language substantially similar
     in form to the Employee Authorization to Release Records form

     provided to the Plaintiff; and

  b. All natural persons residing in the United States who (i)
     within five years prior to the filing of the Complaint, (ii)
     applied for employment with the Defendant, (iii) were the
     subject of a consumer report used by Defendant for employment

     purposes, (iv) were the subject of an adverse employment
     action by Defendant, and (iv) were not provided with a copy
     of the report and/or a written summary of their rights under
     the FCRA prior to the adverse action.

The Plaintiff initially filed the action on Nov. 6, 2018, and
amended it on Jan. 16, 2019.  The parties reached a class
settlement in principle in June 2019.  With the assistance of Mr.
Loeb, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on Nov. 21,
2019.  The Plaintiff then filed the unopposed motion for
preliminary settlement approval.

On March 31, 2020, the Court requested supplemental briefing from
the parties regarding the scope of the settlement release.  It
raised concerns that although the allegations were relatively
narrow, the release of claims in the settlement agreement as then
written was quite expansive.  In response, the parties agreed to
narrow the scope of the release of claims.  They submitted a
revised Settlement Agreement, and a revised Notice of Settlement

The key terms of the parties' settlement are as follows:

  a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as: All
     applicants for employment with and employees of DarkTrace
     from whom DarkTrace obtained the individual's consent to
     procure a consumer report using a form document substantially

     similar to the authorization form signed by the Plaintiff;
     and procured or caused to be procured a consumer report, as
     defined by the FCRA, between Nov. 5, 2016 and the date the
     Final Judgment and Order approving this Settlement Agreement
     is entered by the Court.

  b. Settlement Benefits: The parties have agreed to both non-
     monetary and monetary relief.  Moving forward, the Defendant
     will comply with the disclosure, authorization, and notice
     practices relating to obtaining consumer reports and the
     provision of consumer reports and summaries of rights
     referenced in Sections 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and 1681b(b)(3) of
     the FCRA.  Additionally, the Defendant will pay each class
     member $300 in a settlement check mailed via regular mail to
     each class member.  The checks will become void 60 days after

     the date of mailing.  The payment is separate from any
     requested service award to the class representative; the
     class counsel's requested attorneys' fees; and the costs the
     Defendant will bear of serving notice to the class of the
     settlement and for administering the settlement payments.

  c. Cy Pres Distribution: Settlement checks that are
     undeliverable or not cashed within 60 days of mailing will be

     void and those funds will be donated to "a recipient to be
     agreed to by the parties."  Following the hearing on the
     motion for preliminary approval, the parties submitted a
     supplemental declaration identifying the National Consumer
     Law Center ("NCLC") as the stipulated cy pres recipient.

  d. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
     mail the "Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and
     Hearing" to the class members by regular mail within 30 days
     of the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement.

     The settlement administrator will make reasonable efforts to
     locate the class members whose notices are returned as
     undeliverable such as using the USPS National Change of
     Address database and commercially available address
     verification resources.

  e. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to submit
     a request for exclusion is 60 days after the date of the
     Notice mailing.  Those wishing to do so may mail their
     request to the settlement administrator.

  f. Incentive Award: The Plaintiff as the class representative
     may apply for incentive award of no more than $15,000.

g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel may file an
    application for attorneys' fees not to exceed $150,000.

Because the parties reached settlement before Judge Gilliam
considered the class certification in the case, he must determine
whether provisional certification is appropriate.  The Judge finds
that it is appropriate under the circumstances.  The total
settlement amount of $82,500 constitutes approximately 30% of the
$275,000 maximum statutory recovery for the approximately 275 class
members.  The settlement amount, given these risks, weighs in favor
of granting preliminary approval.  Having weighed the relevant
factors, the Judge preliminarily finds that the settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and grants preliminary
approval.

The Judge also finds that the content of the proposed notices
provides sufficient information about the case and thus conforms
with due process requirements.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ljlddx from Leagle.com.


DICK'S SPORTING: Underpays Employees, Carroll Claims
----------------------------------------------------
GALE CARROLL, on behalf of herself and the Class members,
Plaintiffs v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-at-00467 (E.D. Cal., July 2, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful employment and
business practices and policies in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt cashier at
Defendant's location in Fresno, California, from approximately
November 2017 to June 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendant regularly required Class
member to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per
week, but does not compensate them at an overtime rate for all of
this work.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to:

     -- pay Plaintiff and Class Members' minimum and overtime
wages;

     -- record hours that Plaintiff and Class members worked
off-the-clock

     -- provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements; and

     -- pay all wages due upon termination.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. owns, operates, and/or manages a chain
of retail stores throughout the U.S. and California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Tel: (415) 421-7100
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Emails: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimback@schneiderwallace.com
                  ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com


DISCOVER BANK: Ward Plaintiffs Compelled to Arbitrate Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Harold C. Ward, Carol Rogers, Michael Powell, Langdon
Erwin, Antonio Bates, Clyde Smith, Tony McCallum, Benjamin
Drakeford, Jon Rosier, Azilee Boykin, Bobby Wilson, Gene Moore, and
Jeanette Vinson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Discover Bank, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02124-SAL (D. S.C.), Judge Sherri A. Lydon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia
Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs are 13 named South Carolina residents who have
previously been sued by Defendant Discover in South Carolina state
court.  Bringing the action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs allege that in the course of the
foregoing state court litigation -- all of which Discover initiated
to collect credit card debt -- Discover unlawfully included in its
public filings Plaintiffs' personal information, including credit
scores and partial social security numbers.  They state causes of
action under S.C. Code Ann. Section 39-1-90, for negligence,
negligence per se, and invasion of privacy.

On Aug. 28, 2019, Discover moved to dismiss the Complaint and to
compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.  It submits
that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration under the
terms set forth in their respective Cardmember Agreements.  In
support of its motion, Discover submitted the declaration of Janusz
Wantuch, the Director of Credit Risk Management for Discover
Products Inc.  Mr. Wantuch testified to the contents of each
Plaintiff's Cardmember Agreement.  The Court relies on Mr.
Wantuch's testimony and the exhibits attached to his declaration to
the extent the Plaintiffs have not submitted contradictory evidence
or otherwise rebutted his assertions.

First, the parties agreed that the Cardmember Agreements are to be
governed by the laws of the State of Delaware and applicable
federal laws.  Each Plaintiff's Cardmember Agreement provides that
use of the account or the associated credit card constitutes
acceptance of the Cardmember Agreement.  All the Plaintiffs used
their Discover cards after receiving their Cardmember Agreement.
In addition, each Cardmember Agreement contains an arbitration
clause.  With minimal variations that neither party claims are
material, the arbitration clauses require arbitration of any claim
"arising from or relating to" the Plaintiffs' accounts.  Some of
the Plaintiffs' Cardmember Agreements provide that claims
challenging the validity or enforceability of the arbitration
agreement, including the Class Action Waiver, however, are not to
be arbitrated.  The "Class Action Waiver" in each contract finally
purports to prohibit litigating or arbitrating any claims as a
representative or member of a class.

Plaintiffs Powell, Erwin, Smith, and Boykin, unlike the nine other
named Plaintiffs in the action, did not initially agree to
arbitrate when they first became Discover cardholders.  Their
Cardmember Agreements do, however, contain the change of terms
clause.  Plaintiffs Powell, Erwin, Smith, and Boykin each received
a notice of amendment to their Cardmember Agreements in 1999.  The
amendment added an arbitration clause to these Plaintiffs'
respective Cardmember Agreements.  Plaintiffs Powell, Erwin, Smith,
and Boykin received instructions on how to opt-out of the
arbitration amendment to their Cardholder Agreements, but none did
so.  All the Plaintiffs continued to use their accounts after
receiving notice of the arbitration clause.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Cardmember Agreements state that
arbitration is to be conducted either by the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") or JAMS in accordance with their respective
rules and procedures.  The rules applicable to arbitration before
JAMS similarly state that jurisdictional and arbitrability
disputes, including disputes over the formation, existence,
validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which
Arbitration is sought will be submitted to and ruled on by the
Arbitrator.

The Plaintiffs oppose compelled arbitration for the following
reasons: (1) Discover's conduct does not "significantly relate" to
its contracts with Plaintiffs such that the arbitration clauses do
not cover the parties' present dispute; (2) Discover's conduct does
not sufficiently involve interstate commerce, and the FAA
accordingly does not apply; (3) with respect to Plaintiffs Powell,
Erwin, Smith, and Boykin, the arbitration agreements are
unenforceable because the arbitration clauses in their contracts
were not contemplated by the Change in Terms clause and not
supported by consideration; (4) the arbitration agreements are
unconscionable; and (5) Discover waived its right to arbitrate by
suing the Plaintiffs to collect debts rather than arbitrate these
claims.

Judge Lydon disagrees with these arguments.  First, the parties
agreed that questions of validity and enforceability are for a
court to decide, i.e., whether, under general Delaware contract
law, the parties agreed to arbitrate and whether any defenses to
enforcement exist.  By incorporating the AAA and JAMS rules,
however, the parties agreed that disputes over interpretation of
the scope of the arbitration clauses are to be determined by an
arbitrator.  Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on whether the
parties' agreements purport to cover the dispute, finding the
question properly reserved to arbitration.

Second, the Court concludes that the transactions between the
Plaintiffs and Discover relate to interstate commerce.  This
element requires that the contract between the parties "in fact
involved interstate commerce" by implicating any part of the
Congress' commerce-clause power.  The Plaintiffs' argument is that
Discover's alleged conduct described in the complaint does not
relate to interstate commerce, therefore claims arising out of that
conduct cannot be arbitrated.  It misapprehends 9 U.S.C. Section 2.
The statute contemplates only that the contract evidence a
"transaction involving commerce," not that the "controversy arising
thereafter" necessarily involve commerce.  Because the underlying
transactions in which the parties agreed to arbitrate relates to
interstate commerce, the FAA applies.

Third, although South Carolina choice of law rules will not give
effect to choice of law clauses where application of foreign law
violates public policy, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish any South Carolina public policy that disallows
what is permitted by 5 Del. C. Section  952(a).  The 1999
amendments to Plaintiffs Powell, Erwin, Smith, and Boykin's
Cardmember Agreements are accordingly valid and enforceable under
Delaware law, which the parties agreed would govern the Cardmember
Agreements.  And, assuming without deciding that the amendment must
be supported by consideration, the parties' mutual obligation to
submit to binding arbitration at the other's election is sufficient
consideration to consummate a contract modification.  The Court
accordingly finds that Plaintiffs Powell, Erwin, Smith, and Boykin
are bound by their Cardmember Agreements as amended and must submit
their claims to arbitration.

Fourth, the Plaintiffs' argument that the amendments are
unconscionable is without merit in light of the foregoing standard.
The  Plaintiffs did have the ability to reject the arbitration
terms: "Rejection of arbitration will not affect your other rights
or responsibilities under your Cardmember Agreement."  The contract
provisions in the record do not appear so one sided or oppressive
so as to make them unconscionable, and the Judge rejects this
defense to enforcement.

Fifth, the Plaintiffs do not provide any authority for the
proposition that litigating one dispute effects a waiver of the
contractual right to elect arbitration in a later dispute.  In
addition, the action was filed on June 20, 2019, in the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas, and it was removed to the Court on
July 29, 2019.  Discover moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss
the action on Aug. 28, 2019, two days after it answered Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.  The case does not present Discover's
substantial utilization of the litigation machinery such that the
Plaintiffs would be prejudiced in arbitration.

Sixth, the parties to the action agreed to arbitrate their claims
on an individual basis, and are properly compelled to do so.  The
parties explicitly agreed not to arbitrate any claims as a
representative or member of a class.  In addition, South Carolina
courts have upheld this type of class action waiver.

Finally, while the FAA provides that a court should stay
proceedings while compelling arbitration of certain claims, the
Fourth Circuit has instructed that when all of the issues presented
in a lawsuit are arbitrable, dismissal is the proper remedy.
Having found that the broad arbitration agreements at issue in this
case encompass all claims against Discover, the case will be
dismissed.

For these reasons, Juge Lydon granted the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration.  The Plaintiffs' claims are compelled to
arbitration on an individual basis, and the case is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/ks85FH from Leagle.com.


DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: Collins Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Diversified
Financing, LLC; Sonoqui, LLC; IRA Services Trust Company; Ferrum
II, LLC; Provident Trust Group; Vantage Retirement Plans, LLC;
Jeffrey Arnold; KATHERINE ARNOLD; RANDALL BAHJAT; JEFF BROWNE; TOM
CHRISMAN; NEAL COLLINS; ERNESTO DIGIORDANO; David Ernest; DEBBIE
EVANS; Evans Family Trust; William Fraser; SHERRIE GEORGE; FEI
HAVENOR; Gerald Holmes; Marie Johnson; CATHY KAISER; JAMES KARG;
JEANINE GORCHEN-KRASLEY; JAMES LAPPAS; VENETIA LAPPAS; Karen
Lawrence; TRISH LAVECK; Richard Lester; ANG LI; HAROLD LIKEY;
ARTHUR MARKS; PEGGY McCAULEY; John McCormick; MITCH McDONALD; TERRY
McKNIGHT; JEFF MULLIS; Hanh Nguyen; Donna Peters; PIRRO PETI; Susan
Pollinger; MARK POULSEN; WENDY PYNE; OLIVIA SAN MIGUEL; LUIS SAN
MIGUEL; TERRI SALTZMAN; FRANK SCHENCK; JACKLINE SLEZAK; CARLISE
STARGILL; JUDITH TALLETT; GREGORY TINDALL; BRAD VAN; DAWN VAUGHN;
Karen Warren; Brian Wilson; LORY WILLIAMS; Yu Zhang; BILL ZOELLIN;
John Does(s); Kimberly burks; Gertrude Collins; Traci Cougle; Diane
Denton; Thomas Denton; Francis Early; David Evans; David Farwick;
John Ferguson; Firenze Family Trust; Jay Sham Gabehart; Jeanine
Hilliard Gorechan; Winston Harris; Scott Havenor; Jacqueline Hazey;
Lian He; Daniel Hebert; Sharal Herbert; Amy Huang; John C Jenkins;
Yanbo Jiang; Leonard Kleinpeter; Hongbin Li; Jin Li; Frank Lopinto;
Keith Morales; Dan Nolan; Xio Yun Pan; Jill Ann Purkey; John Brady
Sessums; Yiling Shi; Patricia Thaxton; Stephen Thaxton; Orvis
Tully; Peina Wang; Deldeirdra Webb; Blake Wellerman; Hong Yu; Scott
Farwick; Bob McCauley; Daniel Nola; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Defendants; JUDITH TALLETT; Collins
Asset Group, LLC; DAWN VAUGHN; Collins Asset Group, LLC;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Counter Claimants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00942, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 6,
2020.

The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02818-CC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Diversified Financial Services was founded in 1990. The Company's
line of business includes providing various business services.

Defendants TERRI SALTZMAN; DAWN VAUGHN; Kimberly Burks; Winston
Harris; Jill Ann Purkey; Micaela Rogers; Orvis Tully; Deldeirdra
Webb and Daniel Nola appear pro se.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Hambelton, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLC
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 885-5345
          Email: ahambelton@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq.
          J. ROBBIN LAW PLLC
          200 Business Park Drive, Suite 103
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (914) 685-5016
          Email: jonathan.robbin@jrobbinlaw.com

The Defendants and Counter Claimants are represented by:

          Dayton Peter Haigney, III, Esq.
          60 East 42nd Street, 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 557-5729
          Fax: (212) 290-5729

               - and -

          Michael J. Slocum, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP-NJ
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (973) 360-7900

               - and -

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
          The Brumby Building
          127 Church Street, Suite 220
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Phone: (770) 578-1314
          Phone Fax: (770) 578-1302
          Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com

               - and -

          Collin Day Hatcher, Esq.
          Russell Donald King, Esq.
          KING, YAKLIN & WILKINS, LLP
          192 Anderson Street, Suite 125
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Phone: (770) 424-9239
          Email: chatcher@kingyaklin.com
                 rking@kingyaklin.com


ECOBEAR BIOHAZARD: Sarraf Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
KEIVAN SARRAF, DDS, INC. d/b/a KAIROS DENTAL LAB, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAYMOND J.
MAGNO d/b/a ECOBEAR and d/b/a ECOBEAR BIOHAZARD CLEANING COMPANY
and EMILY KIL d/b/a ECOBEAR and ECOBEAR BIOHAZARD CLEANING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05708 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax
ad in his fax machine number (714) 754-5452 on or about May 7,
2020. The fax, which constitutes material advertising the quality
or commercial availability of an infectious disease cleaning
services, was allegedly from Defendants who also have transmitted
similar template facsimiles to at least 40 other persons as part of
their plan to broadcast fax advertisements without obtaining their
prior express invitation or permission to receive such fax
advertisements.

The complaint asserts that Defendants' unlawful transmission of fax
advertisements have caused concrete and personalized injury to
Plaintiff and the Class.

Raymond J. Magno and Emily Kil own and operate Ecobear and
Biohazard Cleaning Company.

Ecobear and Ecobear Biohazard Cleaning Company provide biohazard
cleaning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-524-2820
          Fax: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


ELANCO ANIMAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Elanco Animal Health Incorporated ("Elanco" or
the "Company") (NYSE: ELAN) of the July 20, 2020 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Elanco stock or options between January 10, 2020
and May 6, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/ELAN. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

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

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

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all those who purchased
Elanco securities between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health
Incorporated et al., No. 1:20-cv-01460 was filed on May 20, 2020
and has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that, after
consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company
increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal
products, held by each distributor; (2) that Elanco's distributors
were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the
inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect
to companion animal products; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 7, 2020, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial
results in a press release, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and
earnings per share of -$0.12. According to the Company, revenue
declined "9 percent due to a reduction of approximately $60 million
in channel inventory driven by factors resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic." Defendant Simmons attributed the disappointing results
to "distributor performance," among other things, and stated that
Elanco planned "to tighten [its] approach across many facets of
[its] distributor relationships."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $22.93 per share
on May 6, 2020 to $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020: a $3.05 or 13.3%
drop.

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

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

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/58729 [GN]


ELLIS HOSPITAL: Nurse Sues Over Underpayment of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
John Cropley of The Daily Gazette reports that an Ellis Hospital
nurse is bringing a federal lawsuit against Ellis, claiming it
violated state and federal labor laws and underpaid her in the
process.

The allegations center on the number of hours worked per week,
overtime not paid and lunch breaks denied. Her attorney is seeking
class-action and collective-action status on behalf of hundreds of
other Ellis employees that may be in a similar situation.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York in Albany. It seeks unpaid wages and overtime
wages, interest, penalties, attorney fees and legal costs.

Ellis declined to comment on the litigation but defended its
compliance with labor regulations. "Speaking generally, Ellis
Medicine respects and adheres to state and federal labor laws," it
said in an emailed statement.

John Nestico, the North Carolina attorney representing nurse Denise
Davella, did not return a request for comment for this story.

The court papers he filed make the following assertions and
allegations:

    Ellis requires Davilla and similar employees to be on duty and
available for work during their meal breaks, meaning they are not
bona fide uninterrupted 30-minute breaks, as required by law.
    Ellis nonetheless deducts a 30-minute break from their shift,
thus denying them wages due under state and federal labor rules for
having worked or been on standby to work for those 30 minutes.
    Working through meal breaks boosts the employees' work week
above 40 hours but Ellis does not pay these employees the required
rate of 1.5 times their normal wage for hours worked in excess of
40 per work week.
    Ellis is aware these employees sometimes work more than 10
hours per workday but does not provide them the extra one hour of
pay required when the workday exceeds 10 hours.
    The identity and total number of these similar employees will
be readily available through Ellis' payroll records; Davella
believes there are more than 500 such employees.
    Ellis did not maintain payroll records accurately showing the
number of hours worked by Davella and the other employees, nor
provide them with accurate itemized wage statements.

Nestico is seeking a jury trial.

In addition to money, the legal complaint seeks a declaration that
Ellis' actions were illegal, and that Ellis broke the law
willfully; an order preventing Ellis from retaliating against
Davella or any other employee involved in the lawsuit; and
designation of the case as a class action and collective action.
[GN]

EMERGENCY MEDICINE: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Aguilar, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Emergency Medicine Specialists, LLP,
Mark Ingram and Misty Ingram, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01368 (N.D.
Tex., May 27, 2020), seeks all damages available including back
wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment
interest pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

Aguilar worked for Fastercare as an hourly paid nurse practitioner
from approximately July 2017 to May 2020. She claims that she was
misclassified as an independent contractor and W-2 employee thus
denied overtime for every hour worked over 40 during all workweeks.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
      1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 251-4157
      Fax: (214) 261-5159
      Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com


EMSI HOLDING: Fails to Issue Advanced Closure Notice, Cook Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAILEY COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMSI HOLDING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-02364 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt
employee to work in its facilities.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff
and other employees a sufficient minimum wage and overtime wage for
all hours worked during June and July 2020. Also, Defendant failed
to notify Plaintiff and other employees and provide advance notice
that the company was closing effective immediately.

EMSI Holding Company provides medical records, exams, and
inspection reports for insurance companies, law firms and clinical
trials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         One Financial Center
         650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Tel: (501) 221-0088
         Fax: (888) 787-2040
         Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ENDO INT'L: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on June 30 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Endo International plc ("Endo" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ENDP) between August 8, 2017 and May 1, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the full scope of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries'
contributions to the opioid crisis, including, but not limited to,
their opioid products' disproportionately negative impact on New
York, one of the most populous states in the U.S., as well as the
fraud that Defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market;
(ii) part of that contribution to the crisis included Endo
publishing and disseminating false information to health care
providers regarding the risks and benefits of opioids; (iii) that
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject
Endo and/or its subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement, as well as significant financial and/or reputational
harm, particularly with respect to New York; and (iv) that, as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 10, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ("Governor Cuomo")
announced that the New York Department of Financial Services
("DFS") had filed administrative charges against Endo in connection
with its role in the opioid crisis, alleging that Endo fraudulently
misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its opioid drugs while
minimizing the risk of addiction and other ill effects. That same
day, DFS issued its own press release specifically announcing that
it "has filed charges and initiated administrative proceedings
against Endo . . . and its subsidiaries, [EHS], [EPI], and [PPCI]"
in connection with "DFS' ongoing investigation into the entities
that created and perpetuated the opioid crisis"; that "[t]he DFS'
statement of charges alleges that, like other opioid Manufactures,
Endo . . . [k]nowingly furthered a false narrative to legitimize
opioids as appropriate for broad treatment of pain by downplaying
their long-known addictive nature and risks"; and that Endo and its
subsidiaries "[m]isrepresented the safety and efficacy of opioids,
without legitimate scientific substantiation," and "[d]eployed a
large sales force to target healthcare providers directly with
these misrepresentations." On this news, Endo's Ordinary share
price fell $0.66 per share, or 14.63%, to close at $3.85 per share
on June 10, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 18, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Endo securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/endointernationalplc-endp-shareholder-class-action-stock-fraud-279/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter. [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel,
Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), remind
investors that they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead
plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit filed
against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENPH). Shareholders with
losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to contact the Firm to
discuss their options.

On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management ("Prescience
Point"), a private investment manager that focuses on
investigations of public companies, published a negative research
report on Enphase Energy, Inc. supporting its short position.
According to Prescience Point, its research suggests that at least
39%, or $205 million, of US revenue reported by the company is
potentially fabricated, as is a significant portion of the
company's international revenue. Eiad Asbahi, Founder and Portfolio
Manager of Prescience Point said, "The explosive growth that
Enphase has reported to investors over the last two years is
nothing but a sham which has lined the pockets of those at the top
of the company . . . We believe the evidence presented in our
report will result in multiple government investigations, a major
accounting restatement, shareholder lawsuits and a delisting of
ENPH shares from the NASDAQ." On this news, the Company's share
price fell nearly 26%.

A lawsuit, Gregory A. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No.: 5:20-cv-04036, has now been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common stock between February 26, 2019
and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
alleges that Enphase and certain of its executives failed to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges, in
part, that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
to investors that Enphase's revenues were inflated, that Enphase
engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices, and the
Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were
overstated.

If you purchased shares of Enphase and would like to discuss the
case and your options as a class member and serving as a lead
plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney
Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at
anthony@barjolaw.com; and/or Neil Rothstein via email at
neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a
qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.

Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a nationally ranked investor rights law firm,
on June 30 announced 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. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

                         About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- 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.

CONTACT:
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
dschwartz@labaton.com or recover@labaton.com [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 30 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.

LOPE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7660&wire=1
ENPH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7660&wire=1
BKD Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7660&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

LOPE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 5, 2018
- January 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7660&wire=1

According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were
false and/or misleading because, following Grand Canyon's spin-off
of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i)
GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would
remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon
would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would
continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon
employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an
off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to
funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount
of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)

ENPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2019 - June 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7660&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 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.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (BKD)

BKD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 10, 2016 -
April 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7660&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other
things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living
communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an
increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's
financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

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 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
http://www.zlk.com[GN]


EQT CORP: Court Denies EQPTC's Arbitration Bid in Heaster Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM HEASTER, Individually and For Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EQT CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 19-1463 (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted Plaintiff Heaster's Motion to Strike Non-Party EQT
Production Company's Improperly Filed Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Dismiss.

The class action lawsuit was filed by Adam Heaster for recovery of
allegedly unpaid and owing overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA").  Heaster contends that EQT Corp. is liable for overtime
wages for the period October 2016 through April 2018 while he
worked as a landman for EQT Corporation.  

EQT Production Co. ("EQTPC") has filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss contending that EQT has been
incorrectly identified as a Defendant and that certain of Heaster's
claims against Defendant EQT are subject to a "Pre-Assignment
Acknowledgement and Arbitration Agreement" entered into between
Heaster and Percheron Professional Services, LLC on March 22, 2018.
EQTPC states that Heaster was employed by Percheron pursuant to a
master land services agreement entered into by and between
Percheron and EQTPC, and not between Percheron and EQT
Corporation.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Heaster's Motion to Strike.
Plaintiff seeks to strike the Motion to Compel Arbitration on the
basis that EQTPC is not a party to the action.  EQT responds that
the Motion to Compel Arbitration was filed by EQT.  The Motion to
Compel Arbitration plainly states that it is submitted by EQT
Production Co., incorrectly captioned as EQT Corp."  At this stage
of the litigation, that issue has not yet been resolved and EQTPC
is not yet a party.  Alternatively, EQT argues that it is entitled
to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary
under applicable federal and Pennsylvania law.  Accordingly, if the
Motion to Strike is granted, EQT asks the Court to hold the Motion
to Compel Arbitration in abeyance to permit EQTPC to intervene in
this action pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

It is apparent from Heaster's Amended Complaint, the Motion to
Compel Arbitration, and the exhibits attached thereto, that at
least a portion of Heaster's claims for unpaid overtime wages are
subject to the arbitration agreement, and that certain defenses and
rights to indemnification related to those claims cannot be
adequately resolved in the absence of EQTPC.  EQTPC has not filed a
motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not yet a party.  EQT does
not direct the Court to any authority permitting a non-party to
file a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the absence of an order
granted a motion to intervene.

Accordingly, Judge Kelly granted the Motion to Strike.

EQT is granted leave In the case, ADAM HEASTER, Individually and
For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EQT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-1463 (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge
Maureen P. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiff Heaster's Motion to
Strike Non-Party EQT Production Company's Improperly Filed Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss.

The class action lawsuit was filed by Heaster for recovery of
allegedly unpaid and owing overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA").  Heaster contends that EQT is liable for overtime wages
for the period October 2016 through April 2018 while he worked as a
landman for EQT Corporation.  EQT Production Co. ("EQTPC") has
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss
contending that EQT has been incorrectly identified as a Defendant
and that certain of Heaster's claims against Defendant EQT are
subject to a "Pre-Assignment Acknowledgement and Arbitration
Agreement" entered into between Heaster and Percheron Professional
Services, LLC on March 22, 2018.  EQTPC states that Heaster was
employed by Percheron pursuant to a master land services agreement
entered into by and between Percheron and EQTPC, and not between
Percheron and EQT Corporation.

Pending now before the Court is Plaintiff Heaster's Motion to
Strike.  He seeks to strike the Motion to Compel Arbitration on the
basis that EQTPC is not a party to the action.  EQT responds that
the Motion to Compel Arbitration was filed by EQT.  The Motion to
Compel Arbitration plainly states that it is submitted by EQT
Production Co., incorrectly captioned as EQT Corp."  At this stage
of the litigation, that issue has not yet been resolved and EQTPC
is not yet a party.  Alternatively, EQT argues that it is entitled
to enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary
under applicable federal and Pennsylvania law.  Accordingly, if the
Motion to Strike is granted, EQT asks the Court to hold the Motion
to Compel Arbitration in abeyance to permit EQTPC to intervene in
this action pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

It is apparent from Heaster's Amended Complaint, the Motion to
Compel Arbitration, and the exhibits attached thereto, that at
least a portion of Heaster's claims for unpaid overtime wages are
subject to the arbitration agreement, and that certain defenses and
rights to indemnification related to those claims cannot be
adequately resolved in the absence of EQTPC.  EQTPC has not filed a
motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not yet a party.  EQT does
not direct the Court to any authority permitting a non-party to
file a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the absence of an order
granted a motion to intervene.

Accordingly, Judge Kelly granted the Motion to Strike.

EQT is granted leave to refile its Motion to Compel Arbitration on
its own behalf as a third-party beneficiary. Alternatively, in the
interest of the efficient administration of justice and pursuant to
Rule 24(b), the Judge granted leave to permit EQTPC to file a
motion to intervene as a defendant in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2020 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/c7oOyQ from Leagle.com.


ERIE INSURANCE: Six Nashville Restaurants Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, The Higgins Firm, and the
Law Office of Alexandra Foote have filed a federal nationwide class
action lawsuit against Erie Insurance Exchange on behalf of six
Nashville-area restaurants and bars accusing the insurance carrier
of breach of contract in its failure to pay valid business
interruption insurance claims. This is the first such federal class
action filed in Nashville.

The plaintiffs are six popular restaurants and bars in the
Nashville area: Crow's Nest, Hillwood Pub, Joe's Place, Plaintiff
Plantation Pub, Inc., Sidelines Grill Pleasant View, and Sidelines
Grill Ashland City. Several, like Sidelines Grill, are family-owned
and host live music. Others, like Hillwood Pub and Plantation Pub,
are nightlife-oriented but also serve "pub style" food popular in
local communities. In 2014, Hillwood Pub participated in and won
the "Music City Hot Wings Festival." The plaintiffs are bringing
claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of restaurants and
bars.

As set forth in the complaint, several months ago all six plaintiff
establishments were forced to shut down at the order of both state
and local governments who required the restaurants, their workers,
and their customers to "shelter in place" and abide by strict
"social distancing" guidelines. These compulsory shutdowns forced
the restaurants to lay off employees and to lose income for several
months while continuing to pay many regular expenses, causing
severe financial losses, which the plaintiffs' restaurants and bars
were unable to recoup even after they were permitted to re-open
with limitations.

As the complaint details, to protect their business from
catastrophic situations like this one, the plaintiffs purchased
insurance from Erie Insurance Exchange that included coverage for
business interruption. The policies expressly provide coverage for
"Lost Income" and the consequences of actions by "Civil Authority."
Accordingly, the restaurants expected that their policies would
help protect their businesses in the event that the government ever
ordered them to stop or severely restrict operations in connection
with a pandemic or any other covered cause of loss.

When plaintiffs submitted their claims to Erie Insurance Exchange,
the claims were summarily denied. The complaint alleges that these
denials were part of a premeditated strategy by Erie to deny all
claims related to the "shelter in place" orders and COVID-19. The
complaint alleges these denials were untethered to the facts of the
claims, which Erie did not adequately investigate, or to the
specific coverage provided by the plaintiffs' business insurance
policies.

"These small businesses bought insurance to protect against
business interruption," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P.
Chalos, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "The last
thing that small businesses need right now is their billionaire
insurance company wrongfully denying claims."

"We're proud to represent this group of locally-owned Nashville
bars and restaurants, businesses that serve our community," notes
The Higgins Firm's Jim Higgins, who also represents the plaintiffs
in the suit. "Erie's systematic, blanket denial of their insurance
claims is just wrong, and this lawsuit seeks to correct that
wrong."

"It has been a difficult time for many small businesses in
Tennessee, especially restaurants and bars," said Doug Crow, owner
and operator of the plaintiff businesses. "We are standing up to
these insurance companies that are refusing to do what they
promised to do."

The class in the lawsuit is defined as "All persons or entities in
the United States who own an interest in a business that served
food or drink on the premises and was insured by Erie Insurance
Exchange in March 2020, made (or attempted to make) a claim with
Erie arising from loss of income (or extra expense or other losses
related to business interruption) at that business related to
COVID-19, and did not receive coverage for that claim."

The lawsuit states claims for breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks injunctive
relief as well as damages.

Contact:

         Mark P. Chalos
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         222 2nd Avenue South
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Telephone: 315-313-9000
         E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com

         Jim Higgins
         The Higgins Firm
         525 4th Ave South
         Nashville, TN 37210
         Telephone: 615-353-0930 [GN]


EVERGREEN HOSPITAL: Waived Right to Arbitration, Says Wash. S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Gallo of Carlton Fields, in an article for JD Supra
titled "Washington Supreme Court Finds Hospital Waived Its Right to
Arbitration When It Chose to Litigate for Nine Months", wrote that
the Supreme Court of Washington recently affirmed the denial of
Evergreen Hospital Medical Center's motion to compel arbitration on
the grounds that Evergreen waived its right to compel arbitration
of claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement between
Evergreen and the Washington State Nurses Association governing
nurse employment.

A member employee brought this putative class action against her
employer, Evergreen, alleging that Evergreen failed to give
required rest and meal breaks. After nine months of litigation and
the addition of a second named plaintiff, Evergreen moved to compel
arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of
appeals affirmed. Evergreen petitioned to the Supreme Court of
Washington, which granted review.

The court analyzed three factors to determine whether Evergreen
waived its right to arbitration: (1) knowledge of an existing right
to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that right; and
(3) prejudice.

As to the first factor, the court found there was no dispute that
Evergreen believed it had an existing right to arbitrate. As to the
second factor, the court found that through its conduct, Evergreen
chose to litigate for approximately nine months rather than
arbitrate, and thus behaved inconsistently with a party seeking to
arbitrate. The court noted that the parties engaged in discovery
and litigation for approximately nine months without seeking
mediation or awaiting a decision from the court in another case and
that Evergreen did not move to compel until the third iteration of
the complaint even though the complaint had almost identical claims
throughout.

As to the third factor, the court found that granting the motion to
compel arbitration this late in litigation would cause severe
prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had already incurred more than
$140,000 in legal fees (from discovery, sending the notice of the
class action to all the nurses, and securing expert witnesses), and
would improperly allow Evergreen to relitigate class certification
on which it lost.

Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals on the ground
that Evergreen waived the right to compel arbitration, and remanded
to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with the
Supreme Court's opinion.

Lee v. Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, No. 97201-0 (Wash. June
4, 2020).  [GN]


EXETER FINANCE: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rivera TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Edgar Rivera filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp., Case No.
1:15-CV-01057-PAB-MEH, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the instant class action lawsuit alleging a violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The Plaintiff contends
that he and others similarly situated received debt collection
telephone calls on their cell phones when, in fact, those calls
were intended not for them but for the prior subscriber of their
cell telephone number.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's ability to prevail
depends on the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (or ATDS) under the TCPA, and on whether the statute
supports liability for calls to reassigned telephone numbers.  The
Defendant further contends that both these issues were addressed by
the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) latest Declaratory
Ruling and Order (Ruling), and that the Ruling has been appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp.,
Case No. 19-704, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David McDevitt, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          5235 East Southern Avenue, Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: 602-845-5969
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com

Defendant-Respondent EXETER FINANCE CORP. is represented by:

          John Robert Chiles, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1420
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-414-6203
          E-mail: jchiles@burr.com

               - and -

          Brent D. Hitson, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          P.O. Box 830719
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0719
          Telephone: 205/251-3000
          E-mail: bhitson@burr.com

               - and -

          Austin Evans Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          2000 South Colorado Blvd., Tower 3, Suite 900
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: 303-764-6800
          E-mail: austin.smith@ogletree.com


FAM LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fam, LLC. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fam, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05144 (S.D.N.Y., July 6,
2020).

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

FAM LLC designs, manufactures, and distributes apparels. The
Company offers activewear, yoga apparel, sport bras, shape wear,
cover-ups, denim, outerwear, knit tops, and footwear and fitness
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCA US: Pistorio Claims Infotainment System Defective
-----------------------------------------------------
EDWARD PISTORIO and PAUL MURDOCK on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich., July 7, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any
2017-2019 Chrysler Pacifica or Chrysler 300 vehicles equipped with
FCA US LLC's defective "UConnect" infotainment system designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or
serviced by FCA US LLC.

The case arises from FCA's failure to disclose material facts
regarding a safety defect in the Class Vehicles sold to consumers
and FCA's failure to fulfill its warranty obligations with respect
to that defect.

According to the complaint, FCA manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that
the Class Vehicles' UConnect infotainment system was defective.
Specifically, the Uconnect system is designed and/or manufactured
with screens, including their operating software and routing
modules, that suffer from freezing, loss of back up camera
functionality, loss of navigation system functionality, black
screens, repeated unintentional reboots, and general lack of
operation. The UConnect Defect results in the need for frequent
software updates and expensive replacements of screens and related
components. FCA knew about the deficiencies of the UConnect well
before Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles.

The Uconnect Defect is material to consumers because it poses a
serious safety concern. As attested by Class Members in scores of
complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
and other online forums, the UConnect Defect can result in a loss
of backup camera, loss of navigation, black screens, and
inadvertent reboots among other failure modes. The failure of the
backup camera and navigation system puts lives at risk. A faulty
backup camera leaves drivers unable to see small children or
wheelchair-using adults behind their vehicles. A malfunctioning
navigation system requires drivers to rely on their phones for
navigation, which increases distraction and the risk of an accident
and may violate handsfree laws.

FCA US LLC designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class
Vehicles across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  eeh@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Laurence Deutsch, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net

               - and -

          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

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

FERRARA CANDY: Artificial Victory in Class Action vs. Candymaker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that lawyers representing a class action
against the makers of SweeTarts candy over ingredient claims got a
sweet deal.

Such is as the heart of a decision issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco in which plaintiffs in a lawsuit
against the Ferrara Candy Co. over the company's claim that its
product contains "no artificial flavors" when in fact it contained
"dl-malic" acid, according to court documents.

In the recent proceeding, the one plaintiff in the class objected
to final approval of the settlement - $272,000 - arguing that the
money went to legal fees and that "the purported injunctive relief
had no settlement value" to plaintiffs, adding that "valueless
injunctive relief" could not justify "class counsel's
disproportionate fee."

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs would now be able to
"make a learned judgment" about purchasing SweeTARTS products in
the future, according to documents.

The court, meanwhile, determined that the settlement, including the
attorney's fees award, was "fair, reasonable, and adequate,"
affirming a district court ruling that noted "weaknesses" in the
case.  [GN]


FIGURE 8: Daniell Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unlawful Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEFF DANIELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE 8 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00125-KRG (W.D. Pa., July 2, 2020) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Lineman from January 2019 to
April 2019.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant underreported the piece rate of its
Linemen to suppress Plaintiffs' wages, applied the underreported
piece rate to decrease Plaintiffs' "regular rate" of pay, and
frequently forced Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per
week. As a result, Defendant willfully refused to pay Plaintiffs
their correct piece rate, "regular rate" of pay, and overtime for
the time they worked in excess of 40 hours per week from their date
of hire through the filing date of this complaint.

Moreover, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in April 2019 after his
insistent complaints to correct Defendant's wage and hour
violations.

Figure 8 Communications, Inc. provides construction installation
and maintenance services to telecommunication companies throughout
the Northeastern United States, including the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          Tel: (717) 238-5707
          Fax: (717) 233-8133
          Emails: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                  lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                  smahan@weisbergcummings.com
    



FINJAN HOLDINGS: Faces Barnes Suit over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.; ERIC BENHAMOU; DANIEL
CHINN; GLENN DANIEL; HARRY KELLOGG; ALEX ROGERS; MICHAEL
SOUTHWORTH; GARY MOORE; and JOHN GREENE, Defendants, Case
3:20-cv-04289 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020) alleges violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Finjan Holdings, Inc.,
against Finjan and the Company's Board of Directors for violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company to CFIP Goldfish Holdings LLC ("Parent"), and CFIP Goldfish
Merger Sub Inc. as a result of an unfair process for an unfair
price, and to enjoin an upcoming tender offer on a proposed
all-cash transaction valued at approximately $43.9 million.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a June
10, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Finjan will
become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortress, and Finjan
stockholders will receive only $1.55 in cash for each share of
Finjan common stock they own. Following successful completion of
the tender offer, Fortress will acquire all remaining shares not
tendered in the offer through a merger at the same price as in the
tender offer. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff
and other Finjan stockholders will be frozen out of any future
ownership interest in the Company.

Thereafter, on June 24, 2020, Finjan filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed
Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons.
Significantly, the Recommendation Statement describes an
insufficient process in which the Board created an inadequate
"transaction committee" that was ineffectual and sidelined from the
start.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Finjan
without first taking steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class
members, would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed
Transaction to benefit themselves and/or Fortress without regard
for Finjan public stockholders.

Finjan Holdings, Inc. is an online security and technology company
which owns a portfolio of patents, related to software that
proactively detects malicious code and thereby protects end-users
from identity and data theft, spyware, malware, phishing, trojans
and other online threats. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA ORTHOPEDIC: Faces $99M Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway of ABC Action News reports that one of Florida's
largest orthopedic providers is facing a class-action lawsuit after
hackers stole personal information from potentially thousands of
patients.

Attorney John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan filed the lawsuit
against the Florida Orthopedic Institute, seeking at least $99
million on behalf of patients and former patients citing a "failure
to properly secure and safeguard protected health information,"
according to the complaint filed June 30.

"If you retain this information and you lose it, you are
responsible for the repercussions of its loss," Yanchunis told ABC
Action News.

The case filed in Hillsborough County seeks long-term identity
theft protection for patients, payment for victims who suffer
losses as a result of the breach and a court order to force the
medical group to strengthen its cybersecurity methods going
forward.

ABC Action News confirmed several patients received a letter from
Florida Orthopedic Institute dated June 19, alerting them about the
data breach. But that notice reports the medical group learned of
the ransom-ware attack on or around April 9.

"I was a little bit shocked that it took so long to let us know,"
said Andrea Carbone, a paralegal at Morgan & Morgan and one of the
complainants in the lawsuit.

Carbone said she received a letter about the data breach, which
includes an offer for the institute to pay for identity theft
monitoring service. Carbone said when she signed up, she found out
it only covers one year, which she said she believes is too short
of a time period.

ABC Action News asked the Florida Orthopedic Institute for an
interview about the lawsuit and the timing on its notification to
patients on the data breach. The company declined the interview
request but emailed a statement, saying:

"Florida Orthopedic Institute ("FOI") discovered an incident that
involved the personal information of our patients. While FOI is not
aware of the misuse of any information impacted by this incident,
we are in the process of directly notifying the individuals
potentially affected by this incident and are providing them with
resources to assist in protecting their personal information. We
encourage anyone with questions about this incident to visit our
website, www.floridaortho.com."

Victims of any data breach can take the following steps to protect
themselves:

    Place a freeze on your credit through these credit
    reporting companies: Experian, Equifax and Transunion.

    Sign up for a credit monitoring service.

    Check your credit report at least once a year. [GN]


FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Hau FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Phillip Hau, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Frost-Arnett Company, Case No.
2020CV000395, was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of
Wisconsin, Rock County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on July 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00622-wmc to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Frost-Arnett Company operates as a account receivable management
company. The Company offers collections, recovery on delinquent
accounts, early-out, return on investment- enhancing, insurance
follow-up, pre-registration, and extended business office
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Phone: (973) 379-7500
          Fax: (973) 532-5868
          Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com
                 francis@sternthomasson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick Frasor Moran, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          1 North Franklin, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 980-6774
          Fax: (312) 565-6511
          Email: pmoran@gordonrees.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Over Takata Airbags Won't Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarComplaints.com reports that a nationwide class-action lawsuit
filed against General Motors will not be allowed to proceed after a
judge found the plaintiffs "lacked standing."

The class-action lawsuit pertains to faulty Takata airbags that
were installed in a number of different, older model GM vehicles.
The faulty Takata airbag inflator, which is prone to exploding due
to the use of ammonium nitrate as a propellant, has led to the
recall of millions of vehicles worldwide. Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit say GM should have known about the defective Takata
inflator before installing the airbags in its vehicles and accuses
the automaker of concealing the problem and failing to inform
owners of the risks the airbag posed.

GM, for its part, says the lawsuit is without merit and has been
actively fighting it in court. A judge previously dismissed a claim
that GM violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act during its handling of the Takata airbag recall. The
judge then dismissed the nationwide class action suit entirely this
week on the grounds that plaintiffs cannot represent GM owners in
states where it did not break laws pertaining to breach of implied
warranty.

A number of claims are being allowed to pass through the courts,
however, including "certain statewide consumer protection and
breach of implied warranty claims," according to CarComplaints.com,
along with claims for fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment.
These claims are only being brought forth in certain states,
including but not limited to Alabama, California, Georgia,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously found
a total of 16 people in the United States had been killed by the
exploding Takata airbag inflators, while another 250 had been
injured. The inflators explode with too much force when exposed to
certain conditions, which can send shrapnel flying into the cabin
and severely injure the driver and passengers. [GN]


GLOBAL QUALITY: Default Judgment in Styles Suit Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VIVIAN STYLES, RAMON GOMEZ, FOR THEMSELVES AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL
QUALITY, INC., ONE LINK LIMO, INC., and LANDMARK WORLDWIDE GROUP,
INC., Defendants, Docket No. 155621/2017, Motion Seq. No. 003 (N.Y.
Sup.), Judge Kathryn E. Freed of the New York County Supreme Court
denied as moot the Plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against
the Defendants.

The case is a class action, commenced pursuant to New York Labor
Law Section 663 and 198 and 12 New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations Section 142-2.2, to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to Plaintiffs Styles, Gomez, and the others
similarly situated who are or were employed by the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 3215, for a default judgment
against the Defendants.

The captioned action was commenced by the filing of a summons and
complaint on June 20, 2017.  The Plaintiff thereafter served the
Defendants with process.  The latter thereafter joined issue by
their answer filed Sept. 20, 2017.

By order to show cause filed May 11, 2018, Phillips Nizer LLP moved
to be relieved as the counsel for Defendants on the ground that it
had not been paid for its legal services in the matter.  Phillips
Nizer's motion was granted by order entered June 19, 2018.  The
said order directed the Defendants to obtain new counsel within 30
days of entry and required them to appear for a preliminary
conference on Oct. 23, 2018.

Although the Plaintiffs' attorney appeared for the preliminary
conference on Oct. 23, 2018, neither the Defendants nor anyone on
their behalf attended.  In an order issued that day and entered
Oct. 25, 2018, the Court noted that the Defendants had defaulted in
appearing and that the Plaintiffs' counsel intended to file a
motion for default.  The Court further directed all parties to
appear for a compliance conference on March 26, 2019.

On March 26, 2019, the Defendants again failed to appear for the
scheduled discovery conference.  In an order issued that day, the
Court directed that the Defendants appear for a conference on July
16, 2019 and that, if they did not, the Court will consider
imposing appropriate sanctions, including striking of pleadings,
the granting of a default and/or the dismissal of the case, in
accordance with 22 NYCRR Section 202.27.  The order further
directed the Plaintiffs' attorney to serve the Defendants with a
copy of the order by certified mail, return receipt requested, and
to provide proof of such service at the July 16, 2019 conference.
Such proof of service has been provided to the Court.

On July 16, 2019, the Defendants again failed to appear for the
scheduled discovery conference despite the warning set forth in the
March 27, 2019 order. By order entered July 17, 2019, the Court
granted a default judgment against the Defendants due to their
failure to appear and referred the case for an inquest on damages.
It further directed plaintiffs to serve the order on all the
parties and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
against the Defendants upon proof of service of the order upon the
Defendants.  The July 17, 2019 order was served on all parties by
first class and certified mail.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking a
default judgment against the Defendants pursuant to CPLR 3215.  The
motion is denied as moot, however, since the relief sought has
already been granted by the Court in its order entered July 17,
2019.

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, Judge Freed denied as moot
the Plaintiffs' motion.  The matter is referred to a Special
Referee for the purpose of conducting an inquest as to damages to
be awarded to the Plaintiffs.

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


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Underpays Detention Officers, Austin et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANGSTON AUSTIN, and ERNEST FULLER III, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00073-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., July 6, 2020)
is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for
their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime
wages for all eligible hours worked.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendant as non-exempt Detention Officers
-- Plaintiff Austin is currently employed and has been for at least
3 years, while Plaintiff Fuller was employed for approximately 20
months and ended on July 3, 2020.

According to the complaint, Defendant totaled Plaintiffs' and other
Detention Officers' hours every two weeks for payroll purposes and
paid them for hours worked in the preceding two-week period every
two weeks.

The complaint asserts that Defendant underpaid Plaintiffs and other
Detention Officers overtime wage by incorrectly and illegally
calculating all of their applicable overtime.

Glynn County, Georgia is a municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Georgia organized and existing under
the Constitution of the State of Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Pkwy SE Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Tel: (404) 876-8100
          Fax: (404) 876-3477
          Email: alampros@hallandlampros.com

                - and –

          Joseph Padgett, Esq.
          RODEN LAW
          1111 Glynco Parkway, Suite 30-B
          Brunswick, GA 31525
          Tel: (912) 303-5850
          Email: jpadgett@rodenlaw.com

                - and –

          Thomas Withers, Esq.
          GILLEN, WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          8 East Liberty Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Tel: (912) 447-8400
          Fax: (912) 629-6347
          Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com


GPB CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Investment Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Mitchell, writing for Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reports that
lawyers are cautioning victims of an investment scheme that
allegedly bilked more than 2,000 people out of $1.8 billion to take
action.

Anyone who invested with GPB Capital poured money into a Ponzi
scheme, said Joseph Peiffer, managing partner of Peiffer Wolf Carr
Kane & Conway.

"If you invested in this, you are going to lose your money,"
Peiffer said.

A class-action complaint was filed on June 30 in federal court in
Austin to help victims go after GPB Capital and its affiliate
organizations. Lawyers with Peiffer have also filed nearly three
dozen arbitration claims in an attempt to recover money for the
clients, Peiffer said.

Officials with GPB Capital and partner Ascendant Capital did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit describes a basic Ponzi scheme, where the old investors
are paid with proceeds obtained from new investors. Investors were
promised an 8% return, the lawsuit says.

Loretta DeHay, 62, of Austin, said she lost $100,000 of her
family's savings that she and her late husband took decades to
build.

"This is a nightmare for me," she said.

"I was assured that this was a safe investment that would generate
retirement income for me that I could rely on," DeHay said. "My
brokerage firm sold me on GPB's automotive division. I trusted my
broker, and he recommended what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.
Now, I'm fighting to hold GPB, the brokerage firm, and anyone else
who profited off of this accountable."

According to the lawsuit, GBP and Austin-based Ascendant Capital
built an intricate network of interlinked organizations to rope in
the new investors needed to keep the companies afloat. At its
height, sales commissions reached $800,000 a month, the lawsuit
said.

And plan administrators siphoned off investor funds in other ways,
so much so that the 8% return promised to investors was impossible,
the lawsuit said. Auditors and the fund administrator papered over
those broken promises, the lawsuit said, at times issuing documents
and audits that were false and misleading — all while receiving
handsome fees for their efforts.

Many of the retirees who fell victim to this scheme are
concentrated in Texas, Florida and Arizona, according to a news
release from their attorneys. Among its assortment of funds, the
GPB Automotive portfolio is comprised of auto dealerships
attractive to investors, the lawsuit states. GPB Capital's Prime
Automotive Group was "run into the ground" and is now in jeopardy
of losing its association to leading auto manufacturers, the
lawsuit says. [GN]


GSK CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over Benefiber 100% Natural Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that prebiotic
powders sold by GSK Consumer Health aren't so natural, a class
action lawsuit says.

Susan Swetz filed her case June 19 against the company's Benefiber
products, which, she says, contain wheat dextrin.

As a synthetic ingredient, its inclusion in Benefiber dooms the
representation that it is 100% natural. The case says the National
Advertising Division has determined the claim is misleading.

"The complex chemical process used to create the wheat dextrin in
the Products is not superfluous. Rather it is integral to
conferring the benefits that consumers desire including its high
fiber content, viscosity, solubility, and sweetness," the lawsuit
says. [GN]


H&R BLOCK: HRB Tax Appeals Ruling in Olosoni Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB Digital LLC filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Pelanatita Olosoni, et
al. v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 17,
2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R
Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco
(Case No. CGC-19576093) styled Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2019
(Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK).

The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019,
dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In their amended complaint,
the Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between
May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block(TM)'s internet-based filing
system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free
through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program,
and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of
the payments.

The Plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The appellate case is captioned as PELANATITA OLOSONI; DEREK SNARR,
on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC.; HRB DIGITAL
LLC, Defendants-Appellants, and H&R BLOCK, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-17441, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]


HALLIBURTON CO: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in LeBlanc FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled LeBlanc, et al. v. Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-00718-KG-GJF, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico, Las Cruces.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on July 10,
2017, Brent LeBlanc filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint
in which he alleged the Defendant failed to pay him and similarly
situated workers overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.  The Defendant filed an
Answer to the Complaint on Aug. 28, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as LeBlanc, et al. v. Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 19-2202, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees BRENT LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, JEREMY O. FISHER, TODD GUFFY,
MARSHALL E. HATCHER, JESSE MARKER and THOMAS RUSSELL are
represented by:

          Richard Jennings Burch, Esq.
          David Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com

Defendant-Appellant HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., is
represented by:

          Paige T. Bennett, Esq.
          Mark D. Temple, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 469-3800
          E-mail: pbennett@reedsmith.com
                  mtemple@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Lowry, Esq.
          Charles J. Vigil, Esq.
          RODEY DICKASON SLOAN AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
          201 Third Street NW, Suite 2200
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: 505/765-5900
          E-mail: jllowry@rodey.com
                  cvigil@rodey.com


HAMILTON, ONTARIO: $250 Red Hill Valley Parkway Suit Moving Slowly
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Mitchell of Global News (Canada) reports that a lawyer from one
of two firms involved in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit alleging
improper design and maintenance of the Red Hill Valley Parkway
(RHVP) says the representative plaintiffs have asked a judge to
certify their class action against the City of Hamilton.

Robert Hooper, from the firm Grosso Hooper, says the families of
crash victims Corinne Klassen and Michael Sholer filed documents
before a justice and have asked for their $250-million class action
to go forward.

However, Hooper says due to the COVID-19 pandemic the case is not
moving as quickly as he and his clients had hoped.

"We will hopefully meet with Justice (Gerald E.) Taylor either by
video conference or in person in the next month or six weeks to set
a timetable for the ultimate hearing of certification, which we are
guessing right now will be some sometime in the spring of 2021,"
said Hooper.

Two Hamilton law firms, Grosso Hooper and Scarfone Hawkins, are
representing drivers who've crashed on the RHVP since its opening
in 2007.

The two families at the forefront of the claim are relatives of
Klassen, a London homemaker who was left disabled by a crash on the
highway in 2007, and Sholer, who died in a 2017 crash on the RHVP.

The suit draws much of its evidence from a 2013 Tradewind
Scientific report, which analyzed friction levels on the parkway
and suggested some safety issues with the roadway.

The audit recommended "remedial actions" and an investigation of
the asphalt after friction values were discovered to be "below or
well below" U.K. safety standards, which were used as a benchmark
in the study.

The report came to light in 2018 when the new director of
engineering services for the City of Hamilton came across the
Tradewind study and its recommendations for "further examination of
the pavement surface, composition and wear performance" and "more
investigatory work."

The lawsuit alleges three failures by the city tied to the
construction of the roadway and two connected to failing to
disclose the third-party report to the public.

The motion by Hooper's clients to certify the suit comes a week
before the resumption of the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry
(RHVPI)--commissioned by the city in February of 2019 to answer
questions about the Tradewind report.

Although the legal action and inquiry are "apples and oranges" and
not dependant on each other, according to Hooper, he and his
clients still have some interest in its potential findings.

He expects that with delays tied to the ongoing pandemic, RHVPI
Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel will likely not start the inquiry this
fall as first anticipated.

"I think the public statements so far from his counsel, Rob Centa,
have indicated that that process hasn't gone quite as fast as they
hoped for various reasons, including the pandemic."

In a release at rhvpi.ca, commissioner Wilton-Siegel said the
inquiry is still in the "document collection and research phase"
and has yet to interview persons of interest connected to the
case.

The post says the coronavirus pandemic "resulted in some delay" due
to physical distancing and issues connecting with some participants
and non-participants tied to the investigation.

In February, Wilton-Siegel excluded the two law firms' clients from
the probe, saying it was in the best interest of the inquiry to
draw from a more "broad-based" coalition of concerned citizens
sharing personal experiences connected to crashes on the parkway.

The RHVPI virtual public hearing took place on Tuesday, July 7 at
10 a.m.

In a statement about the inquiry, city representatives noted that
judicial inquiries "are a way for governments to examine issues and
problems outside the regular legislative process," and can help
communities with an "independent, neutral examination of public
issues. Public inquiries can also help shape public policy and make
recommendations that will serve the public in future." [GN]



HANIL DEVELOPMENT: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Hahn Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRY HAHN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
HANIL DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; MYUNG
JA KANG et al., Objectors and Appellants, Case No. B291568 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Three, upheld the trial court's order denying the
Objectors' motion to intervene.

Each of the class members purchased a membership in Aroma Spa &
Sports, LLC, a spa and fitness center located in the Koreatown
neighborhood of Los Angeles.  The class members paid initiation
fees ranging between $10,000 and $30,000 in exchange for either a
10-year or lifetime membership at Aroma.  The complaint asserted
the memberships violated the Health Studio Services Act (Civil Code
section 1812.80 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.).

Representative Plaintiffs Hahn and Hong initiated the class action
on Aug. 30, 2011, and filed the operative complaint on May 11, 2012
against Defendants Hanil Development and Aroma.  The court
certified a class of all individuals and/or families who purchased
lifetime memberships and 10-year memberships at Aroma Spa Resort
during the period of November 2000 to present.  The cause was
extensively litigated but the parties ultimately negotiated a
settlement shortly before the trial was to take place.  The court
granted the Representative Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement on April 10, 2015, and set July 10, 2015
as the deadline for class members to object to or reject the terms
of the settlement.  More than 100 of the 301 class members objected
to the settlement.

On July 16, 2015, a group of 10 class members filed a motion
asserting that one of the Representative Plaintiffs promised them a
greater recovery than was provided by the settlement.  The class
members requested that the court retroactively extends the date to
opt out of the class action so they could then opt out of the
class.  The court denied the motion.

Meanwhile, the Representative Plaintiffs filed a motion for final
approval of the settlement.  The same 10 class members submitted a
written opposition to the motion.  After hearing argument, the
court requested and received supplemental briefing from the 10
class members and the parties.  On Oct. 2, 2015, the court granted
the motion for final approval of the class action settlement and
dismissed the action pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement.

The objectors appealed from the judgment.  Guided by the Supreme
Court's decision in Eggert v. Pac. States S. & L. Co., holding that
the unnamed class members may not appeal from a judgment or
settlement in a class action unless they are parties to the action,
the division dismissed the appeal.  The remittitur issued on March
15, 2018.

On May 16, 2018, the objectors filed a motion for mandatory or
permissive intervention under Code of Civil Procedure section 387.
Although they acknowledged that a motion for intervention must be
timely, they argued there is no way that they could have known that
they needed to intervene before Jan. 29, 2018, when the Supreme
Court issued its opinion in Hernandez.

The Representative Plaintiffs and the Defendants opposed the
motion.  They argued the motion was untimely because the objectors
knew by April 10, 2015, when the court granted preliminary approval
of the class settlement, that their interests in the litigation
were not aligned with or adequately represented by the
Representative Plaintiffs.  Further, Hernandez did not change the
legal landscape -- it only reaffirmed Eggert.

The Representative Plaintiffs and the Defendants also argued they
would be prejudiced if the motion were granted because payments
made to the class members and the counsel under the terms of the
settlement could not be retrieved.  Indeed, 41 of the 94 objectors
received and cashed their settlement payment checks.  The
Representative Plaintiffs emphasized that intervention at this late
date would create "a logistical accounting nightmare for all
parties."

The court denied the motion on June 8, 2018.  The objectors filed a
timely notice of appeal.

The Objectors contend the trial court abused its discretion in
finding their motion for intervention untimely under the totality
of the circumstances of the case.  According to them, few would
have foreseen the overturning of decades old precedent by Hernandez
in favor of a 75-year old Eggert that has been consistently
ignored.

Viewing the objectors' proposed intervention, the Appellate Court
holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
denied the motion as untimely.  Although no statutory time limit is
placed on motions to intervene, it is significant that the
objectors took no steps to intervene in the litigation until May
16, 2018, several years after the class action settlement had been
reached.  But on July 16, 2015, many of them had moved to extend
the date to opt out of the class action retroactively because they
were displeased with the settlement and believed it to be unfair.
Thus, their own actions reflect that these objectors knew no later
than July 2015 that their interests in the litigation were not
being adequately represented.  

Moreover, all the objectors should reasonably have suspected their
interests were not adequately represented even earlier -- i.e., by
February 2015 when the parties filed a notice of class settlement,
or by April 2015 when the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.

In addition, allowing the objectors to intervene at this late stage
would have upended the settlement reached by the Representative
Plaintiffs and the Defendants in 2015 -- an untenable result.  As
noted by the class administrator, settlement checks were mailed to
class members nearly two years ago, in April 2018.  And 41 of the
94 objectors involved in th appeal received, and cashed, their
settlement checks prior to the hearing on their motion to intervene
in the litigation.

These issues notwithstanding, the objectors' attempt to justify the
delay of approximately three years between the court's preliminary
approval of the settlement and their motion for intervention by
pointing to the Supreme Court's recent Hernandez decision.   They
argue their motion was timely because, they contend, prior to
Hernandez, the class members had standing to appeal without having
to intervene in the litigation and it would therefore be
inequitable to apply Hernandez retroactively.  The objectors also
argue that if Hernandez does apply to the case, then the settlement
notice violates due process because it failed to inform class
members that they must intervene in the class action to have
standing to appeal.  The Appellate Court finds no merit in these
arguments.

First, the objectors incorrectly argue that Hernandez effected a
change in the law.  In January 2018, the Supreme Court issued its
opinion in Hernandez, affirming the appellate court's determination
that the unnamed class members may not appeal a class judgment,
settlement, or attorney fees award unless they intervene in the
action.  Specifically, Hernandez confirmed that the standing rule
announced in Eggert remains the rule in California and requires
that a class member wishing to challenge a judgment pursuant to
settlement on appeal must have become a party of record in the
trial court, either by formally intervening in the class action or
by filing a motion to vacate the judgment.  And before Hernandez,
Eggert was binding Supreme Court precedent.  Thus, the objectors
failed to comply with the Eggert rule at their own peril.

Second, Hernandez expressly addressed, and rejected, the objectors'
argument that the Eggert rule should not apply to class action
settlements.  Following Eggert and requiring intervention does not
discourage the unnamed class members from filing a meritorious
appeal.  Rather, it continues a manageable process under a
bright-line rule that promotes judicial economy by providing clear
notice of a timely intent to challenge the class representative's
settlement action.  Formal intervention also enables the trial
court to review the motion to intervene in a timely manner.

Equally unpersuasive is the objectors' argument that Hernandez
should not be applied retroactively to this case because
retroactive application would be unfair.  The main problem with the
argument against retroactive application of Hernandez is that
Hernandez does not establish a new rule of law.  Rather, Hernandez
merely reaffirmed and directly applied a well-established rule of
law.  Hernandez did not expand or modify Eggert, such that
Hernandez could reasonably be construed to constitute a new
application of an old rule.  The rule requiring that one must be a
party of record to have standing to appeal has been the rule in
California for over 75 years, since Eggert.  And because Hernandez
did not announce new law, it simply becomes part of the body of
case law of the state, and under ordinary principles of stare
decisis applies in all cases not yet final.

Finally, the Judge rejects the objectors' contention that the May
26, 2015 notice regarding the proposed settlement violated their
due process rights.  Procedural due process requires that affected
parties be provided with the right to be heard at a meaningful time
and in a meaningful manner.  To satisfy due process, the notice
provided to the class members regarding a settlement must fairly
apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed compromise
and of the options open to dissenting class members.  Under the
California Rules of Court governing class actions, notice of the
final approval hearing must be given to the class members in the
manner specified by the court.  The notice must contain an
explanation of the proposed settlement and procedures for them to
follow in filing written objections to it and in arranging to
appear at the settlement hearing and state any objections to the
proposed settlement.

In the case, the Appellate Court finds that there is no indication
that the settlement notice failed to disclose the process for
objecting to the settlement, or that it omitted any other relevant
information that was required by the court to be included in the
notice. The objectors do not argue otherwise.

Instead, the objectors claim that the settlement notice violated
their right to due process by failing to inform them that they must
become a party of record to have standing to appeal from the
judgment to be entered. This argument suggests that a settlement
notice or settlement agreement must advise class members that if
they wish to appeal, they must also intervene. The objectors
provide no authority for such a proposition, and we decline to
adopt such a rule.

In short, the objectors' motion for intervention was untimely.  The
Appellaete Court therefore affirmed the order denying intervention.
The Representative Plaintiffs and the Defendants will recover
their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's April 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/I1GMJr from Leagle.com.

Moon & Dorsett, Dana M. Dorsett and Jeremy Cook --
dm@danamoon.com -- for Objectors and Appellants.

Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Steven J. Lipscomb --
slipscomb@elllaw.com -- Law Offices of Henry H. Bahk and Henry H.
Bahk; Stalwart Law Group, Paul A. Traina -- paul@stalwartlaw.com
-- and Ian P. Samson -- ian@stalwartlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang & Waimey, Douglas Smith --
dsmith@lhlaw.com -- Yvonne Dalton -- yvonne.dalton@lhlaw.com --
and Matthew J. Soroky -- msoroky@lewitthackman.com -- for
Defendants and Respondents.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Bouas Stayed Pending Resolution of Garcia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendant's Motion to
Stay the case, KENNETH BOUAS, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-1367-NJR (S.D.
Ill), pending resolution of Garcia v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.,
No. 3:19-cv-02054.

The case is one of three duplicative class actions filed against
Harley-Davidson currently pending in federal courts in California,
Arizona, and Illinois.  Harley-Davidson asks the Court to stay all
proceedings and deadlines in the action pending resolution of a
previously filed, substantially-related class action currently
pending in the Northern District of California, i.e., Garcia.
According to Harley-Davidson, discovery in Garcia is well underway,
with expert discovery relating to class certification set to begin
in June and Garcia's motion for class certification due in October.
Bouas has not filed a response and thus the motion is unopposed.

The first-to-file rule provides that a district court may, for
purposes of judicial administration, dismiss or stay a suit when it
is duplicative of a parallel action that is already pending in
another federal court.  While the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
does not rigidly adhere to the first-to-file rule, the decision to
invoke the rule is part of the district court's inherent power to
administer their dockets so as to conserve scarce judicial
resources by avoiding duplicative litigation.  The Seventh Circuit
has further stated that staying a case, rather than dismissing it,
may be appropriate pending the outcome of an earlier-filed lawsuit
addressing the same issues.

Having considered the Defendant's motion, and in light of the
Plaintiffs' lack of opposition, Judge Rosenstengel granted the
Motion to Stay.  All proceedings and deadlines in the case are
stayed pending resolution of Garcia.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/s1LU1v from Leagle.com.


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Accusers to Get $19 Million in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Lamb of Upnews Info reports that the New York Lawyer
General's workplace has requested a virtually $19 million
settlement for gals who ended up sexually assaulted and raped at
the arms of disgraced Hollywood govt Harvey Weinstein.

"Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company failed their female
employees. After all the harassment, threats, and discrimination,
their victims are finally receiving some justice," New York Lawyer
Normal Letitia James explained.

In accordance to the Normal Attorney's workplace, the fund will be
for "women who experienced a hostile work environment, sexual
harassment, and gender-based discrimination while working at The
Weinstein Company, as well as sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein."

Weinstein was convicted on a single rely of prison intercourse act
for forcibly executing oral intercourse on a girl in 2006 and a
single rely of 3rd-diploma rape for a 2013 assault on yet another
girl. He obtained 23 a long time for his crimes and its most likely
that he will shell out the relaxation of his daily life powering
bars.  [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: To Settle Sexual Misconduct Class Suit for $19MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that an
$18.875 million settlement fund will be created as part of a deal
to resolve a class action complaint against Harvey Weinstein and
The Weinstein Co.

The settlement resolves a 2017 class action from women alleging
Weinstein "engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and abuse" as
well as a 2018 lawsuit from the New York Attorney General's Office
that alleged he created a hostile work environment and the conduct
was aided and abetted by the company in violation of the state's
human rights laws.

New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the settlement on
Twitter, writing, "After all the harassment, threats, and
discrimination, these survivors are finally receiving some
semblance of justice. I thank them for bravely sharing their
stories."

Defendants still deny all allegations, but the parties agree its in
everyone's interest to resolve the claims. The accusers will
forever release the defendants, who include TWC board members,
execs and Bob Weinstein, from claims arising from the alleged
sexual misconduct, and James' office will be barred from
prosecuting any related action.

The insurance companies will pay out a total of more than $46.7
million as part of the global settlement.

From that, the $18.8 million settlement fund will be created and
each class member can submit a form describing her experience and
its effects. Tier 1 claimants will receive a payment between $7,500
and $150,000. Tier 2 claimants will receive between $7,500 and
$750,000, and those claims require an interview with a special
master who is assigned to evaluate them.

Separately, $5.4 million will be paid to an individual plaintiffs'
settlement fund, which goes to a group of women who negotiated a
separate settlement. Those women include Weinstein's former
assistant Sandeep Rehal and actress Paz de la Huerta, each of whom
will receive $500,000.

The proposed settlement includes a $12 million payment to defense
lawyers at Seyfarth Shaw, plus additional attorneys' fees in an
amount to be determined for the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Further, "The Defendants expressly release any member of the
Settlement Class from any confidentiality, non-disclosure, or
non-disparagement agreement arising out of or related to any Sexual
Misconduct Claims."

Weinstein's lawyer Imran Ansari on June 30 sent The Hollywood
Reporter a statement. "With closure in sight on one front, Mr.
Weinstein remains intently focused in defending himself on all
remaining legal matters, including the appeal of his criminal
conviction, civil lawsuits, and the charges filed against him in
LA. He continues to pursue all legal recourse available to him and
remains steadfast in the defense of those matters."

The settlement excludes several accusers including Ashley Judd,
Rose McGowan, Alexandra Canosa, Wedil David and Dominique Huett. If
any of the latter three parties votes to accept the plan, they
would receive $150,000 from a separate $1.5 million segregated
defense fund.

Attorneys Douglas Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who represent six women
accusing Weinstein of sexual misconduct, on June 30 issued a
lengthy statement decrying the deal.

"The proposed settlement is a complete sellout of the Weinstein
survivors and we are surprised that the Attorney General could
somehow boast about a proposal that fails on so many different
levels," it reads, in part. "While we do not begrudge any survivor
who truly wants to participate in this deal, as we understand the
proposed agreement, it is deeply unfair for many reasons."

The claim forms, details about what the special master will be
evaluating and a press release from the attorneys at FeganScott and
Hagens Berman are included in the document that's posted below.

A New York federal judge will decide whether to grant preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Here's the full statement from Wigdor and Mintzer:

"The proposed settlement is a complete sellout of the Weinstein
survivors and we are surprised that the Attorney General could
somehow boast about a proposal that fails on so many different
levels. While we do not begrudge any survivor who truly wants to
participate in this deal, as we understand the proposed agreement,
it is deeply unfair for many reasons. First, Harvey Weinstein
accepts no responsibility for his actions. Second, Harvey Weinstein
isn't paying any money toward the settlement despite now having
been found guilty in Manhattan criminal court. Third, the director
defendants, who we allege had knowledge of Weinstein's behavior,
will be receiving millions of dollars to reimburse their defense
costs. Fourth, if this settlement were approved by the courts,
survivors who do not wish to participate in settlement but would
prefer instead to hold Harvey Weinstein accountable, will be unable
to pursue the multi-billion dollar insurance companies and the
directors because they will receive legal releases. And Fifth, the
class action lawyers will be seeking millions of dollars in fees
for an objectively unsuccessful result. We are completely astounded
that the Attorney General is taking a victory lap for this unfair
and inequitable proposal, and on behalf of our clients, we will be
vigorously objecting in court." [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Health Plan Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01561 (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated members of the Home
Depot Welfare Benefits Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by
the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), about
their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence
of a qualifying event as defined by the statute. Rather than
including all information required by law, written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, Home
Depot's COBRA notification process instead offers only part of the
legally required information in haphazard and piece-meal fashion.
In addition, the Defendants failed to correctly identify the plan
and the plan administrator in violation of Sec. 2590.606-4(b)(4)(i)
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

As a result of receiving the defective COBRA enrollment notice, the
Plaintiff and Class members failed to understand the notice and,
thus, they could not make an informed decision about their health
insurance and lost health coverage.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, with principal place of business located in Cobb
County, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                 
         Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
         Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
         WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
         1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 224-0431
         Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
         E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 gnichols@wfclaw.com

                - and –

         Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
         E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

HOMESERVE USA: Leone Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK and AMANDA LEONE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HOMESERVE
USA CORP.; HOMESERVE USA REPAIR MANAGEMENT CORP.; HOMESERVE USA
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; and SOUTH JERSEY GAS, Case No.
1:19-cv-20505-PSD-TR (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on July 17, 2020, for an order granting their motion for class
certification.

HomeServe USA is the North American arm of HomeServe plc, a London
Stock Exchange-listed company with operations in the U.S., Canada,
UK, France, and Spain.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN & PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott Casher, Esq.
          Konrad R. Krebs, Esq.
          WHITE & WILLIAMS, LLP
          Liberty View
          457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220

               - and -

          Christopher Gibson, Esq.
          Trevor J. Cooney, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER
          One Centennial Square
          PO Box 3000
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033-0968

IDEANOMICS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, on June 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ideanomics, Inc.
("Ideanomics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IDEX) common stock between
March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Ideanomics investors have until August 27, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Ideanomics investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ideanomics-inc/.You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On June 25, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a series of tweets
stating that Ideanomics "is an egregious & obvious fraud."
Hindenburg claimed that it found evidence that Ideanomics "doctored
photos in its PR to suggest it owns/operates" a facility.
Hindenburg further stated that it had an investigator who visited
Ideanomics' "supposed MEG sales center," and that the "facility is
actually operated by almost 100 sales groups," that had never heard
of Ideanomics. Additionally, Hindenburg claimed that its
investigator called five of Ideanomics' purported electric vehicle
customers, and that none were aware of Ideanomics, nor could they
confirm doing business with Ideanomics.

The same day, J Capital Research published a report, corroborating
Hindenburg's allegations. Specifically, J Capital "called all the
'buyers' named in [the Company's] 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 news, the Company's share price fell $0.65, or more than
21%, to close at $2.44 per share on June 25, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on June 26, 2020, the Company issued a press release, seeking
to "clarify the status" of its purported hub in Qingdao, China.
Therein, Ideanomics walked back certain of its prior statements
regarding the MEG Center, stating its as launching three phases of
its MEG Center that will eventually total one million square feet.
The first phase occupies only 215,000 square feet.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.98, or 40%, to
close at $1.46 per share on June 26, 2020, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a
one million square foot EV expo center"; (2) that the Company had
been using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG
Center in Qingdao; (3) that the Company's electric vehicle business
in China was not performing nearly as strong as Ideanomics had
represented; and (4) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Ideanomics common stock during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than August 27, 2020 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:  IDEX) ("Ideanomics") on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics common stock between
March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 27, 2020,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/ideanomics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ideanomics.

According to the complaint, Ideanomics is a global company focused
on facilitating the adoption of commercial electric vehicles ("EV")
and developing next generation financial services and Fintech
products.

The Class Period commences on March 20, 2020, when Ideanomics
issued a press release in which it announced "that the Qingdao-MEG
Sales Center, branded as Mobile Energy Group Center, is scheduled
to start sales operations by May 1." Throughout the Class Period,
Ideanomics continued to laud its EV expo center, claiming the MEG
Center is "the largest auto trading market in Qingdao," China.
However, the truth was eventually revealed.

According to the complaint, on June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg
Research issued a series of tweets in which it called Ideanomics
"an egregious & obvious fraud." Hindenburg asserted that it found
evidence that Ideanomics had doctored photos for use in its press
releases to suggest that it owns or operates a vehicle sales center
in Qingdao, China, when it in fact does not. Hindenburg further
asserted that it had an investigator go to Ideanomics' purported
MEG Center in Qingdao, China, where the investigator was unable to
find any trace of Ideanomics or its purported MEG Center. Also, on
June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report on
Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes". J Capital Research
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 Research 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.'" Following this news, Ideanomics' stock price
fell from its June 24, 2020 close of $3.09 to a June 25, 2020 close
of $2.44 per share, a one day drop of $0.65 or approximately 21%.

Then, on June 26, 2020, Ideanomics issued a press release in which
it sought to "clarify the status" of its purported EV hub in
Qingdao, China. In this release, Ideanomics walked back certain of
its prior statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating
that it was launching three phases of its MEG Center that will
eventually total one million square feet. The first phase,
according to Ideanomics, occupies only 215,000 square feet.
Following this news, the stock price continued to fall on June 26,
2020, dropping to a close of $1.46 per share. This represents a two
day drop of approximately 53%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one
million square foot EV expo center"; (ii) Ideanomics had been using
doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in
Qingdao; (iii) Ideanomics' EV business in China was not performing
nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a
result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Ideanomics investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud
class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to
contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq.
or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.

Ideanomics investors may, no later than August 27, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


IDEANOMICS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on June 30 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Ideanomics, Inc. ("Ideanomics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IDEX)
securities during the period from March 20, 2020 through June 25,
2020. Investors have until August 27, 2020 to apply to the Court to
be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i)
Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one million square
foot EV expo center;" (ii) the Company had been using doctored or
altered photographs of the purported Mobile Energy Global ("MEG")
Center in Qingdao; and (iii) the Company's electric vehicle
business in China was not performing nearly as strong as Ideanomics
had represented.

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of
tweets in which it called Ideanomics "an egregious & obvious fraud"
and asserted that it found evidence that Ideanomics had doctored
photos for use in its press releases to suggest that the Company
owns or operates a vehicle sales center in Qingdao, China, when it
in fact does not. On the same day, analyst J Capital Research
tweeted 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 news,
Ideanomics' share price fell $0.65, or 21.0%, to close at $2.44 per
share on June 25, 2020.

On June 26, 2020, Ideanomics walked back certain of its prior
statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating that it was
launching three phases of its MEG Center in Qingdao to eventually
total one million square feet but that the first stage was only
215,000 square feet. On this news, Ideanomics' share price fell
$0.98, or 40.2%, to close at $1.46 per share on June 26, 2020.

If you acquired Ideanomics 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]


IDEANOMICS INC: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX)
investors that the firm has initiated an investigation into
possible securities fraud, and may file a class action on behalf of
investors.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.

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%.

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]


INVESTORS BANCORP: Dismissal of Counts I & II in Elburn Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT ELBURN, derivatively on behalf of INVESTORS
BANCORP, INC., and individually and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. ROBERT C. ALBANESE, DENNIS M. BONE, DOREEN R. BYRNES,
DOMENICK A. CAMA, PETER H. CARLIN, WILLIAM V. COSGROVE, KEVIN
CUMMINGS, JAMES J. GARIBALDI, MICHELE N. SIEKERKA, PAUL N.
STATHOULOPOULOS and JAMES H. WARD III, Defendants, and INVESTORS
BANCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, C.A. No.
2019-0774-JRS (Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R. Slights, III of the Court
of Chancery of Delaware denied (i) the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count III of the
Complaint.

In 2015, the stockholders of nominal defendant, Investors Bancorp,
Inc. ("Investors Bancorp" or the "Company"), voted to approve an
equity incentive plan ("EIP") adopted by the Company's board of
directors (the "Board").  After the stockholders approved the EIP,
the Board awarded itself substantial restricted stock awards
("RSAs") and stock options under its terms (the "2015 Awards").
Kevin Cummings, a Board member and Company CEO, and Domenick Cama,
also a Board member and Company President and COO, were the EIP's
two largest beneficiaries.

Plaintiff, Robert Elburn, brought a derivative action in 2016
alleging the Board breached its fiduciary duties by approving the
2015 Awards.  The Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint and
the Delaware Chancery Court granted the motion.  The Delaware
Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Shortly before trial, the parties reached a settlement.  Under the
Settlement, the EIP awards to Cummings and Cama were rescinded and
the awards to the non-executive members of the Board were
substantially reduced.

In April 2019, two months before the Settlement was presented to
the Court for approval, Investors Bancorp filed its Proxy Statement
for the Company's 2019 Annual Stockholders Meeting during which,
among other business, the stockholders were to vote on the
reelection of four current members of the Board.  The Proxy
informed the stockholders that the Board intended to consider the
issuance of new awards to Cummings and Cama under the previously
approved EIP.  True to its disclosure, a month later, the Company's
Compensation Committee recommended, and the Board approved,
Replacement Awards for Cummings and Cama that were similar in scope
to the awards that were rescinded in the Settlement.

The Court approved the Settlement in June 2019, and the Replacement
Awards were granted on July 22, 2019.  Elburn filed his complaint
in the action two months later.  

The Plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on the Board and
alleges any such demand would have been futile.  He filed his
Verified Stockholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint on Sept.
26, 2019.  Count I alleges a derivative breach of fiduciary duty
claim against each of the Defendants for improperly issuing or
accepting the Replacement Awards; Count II alleges a derivative
unjust enrichment claim against each of the Defendants; and Count
III alleges a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim brought on
behalf of a purported class of Investors Bancorp stockholders
against each of the Defendants for approving and issuing materially
misleading disclosures before the 2019 Annual Meeting.

The Plaintiff seeks an order rescinding the Replacement Awards;
rescinding the 2019 stockholder vote on the incumbent Board slate;
and directing that a new vote on the elections of Albanese, Cama,
Garibaldi and Ward be held following amended disclosures regarding
the Replacement Awards.

The Complaint repeats the themes of excessive compensation Elburn
advanced in the 2016 Action.  This time, however, Elburn alleges
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing the
Replacement Awards in a quid pro quo arrangement between Cummings
and Cama, on the one hand, and the nonemployee Board members on the
other.  Elburn alleges the arrangement was part of the legerdemain
that allowed the Defendants in the 2016 Action to settle the claims
against them by appearing to agree to substantial concessions when,
in fact, Cummings and Cama gave up very little.

The theory, as pled in the Complaint, is that Cummings and Cama
agreed to forfeit all of their share of the 2015 Awards in the
Settlement so that the nonemployee directors could pocket more of
their own awards, but only after the nonemployee directors secretly
committed to issue the Replacement Awards after the Settlement was
consummated.  The Replacement Awards, therefore, were not the
product of an exercise of impartial business judgment by the Board,
but rather the spoils of a devious plan to nullify the effects of
the Settlement and harm the Company's stockholders yet again.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint on
Oct. 10, 2019.  The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint
under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 for failure to
state viable claims and failure to plead demand futility with
particularity, respectively.  Since Rule 23.1 sets the higher
pleading bar, the Defendants' showcase argument is that the
Complaint fails to satisfy the heightened pleading standards
embedded in that rule.

The Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment with respect to
Count III (the disclosure claim) on Dec. 16, 2019.  The matter was
submitted for decision on Feb. 7, 2020.

When briefing Rule 23.1 motions, parties often dwell on the rather
hackneyed question of whether the court should review the demand
futility allegations under Aronson or Rales.  Not so in the case.
Instead, the parties debate the more fundamental question of what
is required to plead a fact "with particularity" under Rule 23.1.
As elemental as the question might seem, courts have had little
occasion to articulate an answer.  Indeed, it appears our courts
interpret the "particularized facts" rule much as National Football
League officials interpret the league's so-called "catch" rule.
NFL officials say they know a "catch" when they see a "catch."  And
it appears the judges simply know "particularized facts" when they
see "particularized facts."

The Defendants maintain the Court should construe the "with
particularity" language in Rule 23.1 just as it construes the same
language in Rule 9(b).  That is, it should require the Plaintiff to
support his demand futility allegations with the so-called
"newspaper facts" -- who, what, when, where and how -- just as the
Court requires of the Plaintiffs who attempt to plead fraud.

The Plaintiff counters that the Court has never required that
degree of particularity in the Rule 23.1 context, and for good
reason.  According to the Plaintiff, unlike a plaintiff alleging
fraud, who was likely a witness to (if not the recipient of) the
fraudulent overture, the derivative stockholder plaintiff rarely,
if ever, is witness to, or has direct knowledge of, the breaches of
fiduciary duty he alleges in his complaint.  To require the
derivative plaintiff to support his pleading of demand futility
with "newspaper facts," the Plaintiff says, would be to impose a
nigh impossible task.  

Judge Slights holds that contrary to the Defendants'
characterization, nothing in the Court's Rule 9(b), or the cases
interpreting the rule, say that newspaper facts must be pled in
every fraud case, come what may.  Instead, courts have interpreted
the "with particularity" standard as requiring only that a
plaintiff allege the circumstances of the fraud with detail
sufficient to apprise the defendant of the basis for the claim.
The Judge sees no reason to depart from, or enhance, that standard
when applying the "with particularity" language in Rule 23.1.
While newspaper facts often will be necessary to meet this standard
in the fraud context, the lack of this "specificity" when pleading
either fraud or demand futility is not, de jure, "fatal" to the
claim.

The Plaintiff alleges that an explicit quid pro quo agreement was
reached between Cummings, Cama and the nonemployee directors at
some point during Settlement negotiations but prior to the approval
of the Replacement Awards.  While he has not identified the
specific discussions that comprised the agreement, he has described
the agreement with detail sufficient to apprise the defendant of
the basis for the claim.  Thus, the alleged breach of fiduciary
duty that flows from the quid pro quo has been pled with sufficient
particularity to raise a reasonable doubt that the Board could act
impartially in response to a litigation demand.  The Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint must be denied.


The Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count III
of the Complaint must also be denied.  The Judge is satisfied the
question of materiality relating to the failure to supplement is
more nuanced than the Plaintiff makes out.  While the Board had
completed its "process" and approved the Replacement Awards before
the Annual Meeting, the Replacement Awards were still conditioned
on the Court's approval of the Settlement, and therefore not final
as of the time of the stockholder vote.

Moreover, the stockholders had already approved the EIP from which
the Replacement Awards were to be drawn.  The approval suggests, at
least, that the stockholders understood and approved of the EIP,
the manner in which awards under the EIP would be made and the
purpose of such awards.  Thus, while the stockholder approval of
the EIP did not leave the Board unaccountable for the awards it
chose to make under that plan, as the Supreme Court has made clear,
the fact of the stockholder approval makes the materiality inquiry
more challenging than the Plaintiff's summary judgment argument
allows.  Finally, the Judge notes that the cases the Plaintiff
cites where the Court has ordered new director elections involved
far more serious malfeasance than the disclosure violations the
Plaintiff has alleged.  For these reasons, it the Judge's view,
"desirable to inquire more thoroughly into" the facts relating to
the materiality of the failure to supplement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/1KgXgq from Leagle.com.

David A. Jenkins, Esquire -- daj@skjlaw.com -- Neal C. Belgam
Esquire -- ncb@skjlaw.com -- and Jennifer M. Rutter Esquire,of
Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Steven J.
Purcell, Esquire,Douglas E. Julie, Esquire,Robert H. Lefkowitz
Esquire,and Kaitlyn T. Devenyns Esquire,of Purcell Julie &
Lefkowitz LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert
Elburn.

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire -- knachbar@mnat.com -- Megan Ward
Cascio, Esquire -- mcascio@mnat.com -- Zi-Xiang Shen Esquire,and
Miranda N. Gilbert Esquire,of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants Robert C. Albanese,
Dennis M. Bone, Doreen R. Byrnes, Domenick A. Cama, Peter H.
Carlin, William V. Cosgrove, Kevin Cummings, James J. Garibaldi,
Michele N. Siekerka, Paul N. Stathoulopoulos and James H. Ward
III.

Susan M. Hannigan, -- hannigan@rlf.com -- Esquire of Richards,
Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Nominal
Defendant Investors Bancorp, Inc.


J2 GLOBAL: Faces Garcia Suit Over Inflated Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY GARCIA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J2 GLOBAL, INC., VIVEK SHAH, NEHEMIA
ZUCKER, and R. SCOTT TURICCHI, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06096
(C.D. Cal., July 8, 2020) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded J2 Global securities between
October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants, individually and in
concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false
statements from 2015-2020 they filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.

Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 in
that they: 1) employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;
2) made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; or 3) engaged in acts, practices and a course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon plaintiff and
others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of J2
Global securities during the Class Period.

As a result of the foregoing, the market price of J2 Global
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In
ignorance of the falsity of Defendants' statements, Plaintiff and
the other members of the Class relied on the statements described
above and/or the integrity of the market price of J2 Global
securities during the Class Period in purchasing J2 Global
securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result of
Defendants’ false and misleading statements.

Throughout the Class Period, the Individual Defendants exercised
their power and authority to cause J2 Global to engage in the
wrongful acts complained of herein. The Individual Defendants
therefore, were "controlling persons" of J2 Global within the
meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this capacity,
they participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which
artificially inflated the market price of J2 Global securities.

J2 Global Inc. is a California-headquartered company that purports
to provide Internet services worldwide. The Company operates
through three segments: Fax and Martech; Voice, Backup, Security,
and Consumer Privacy and Protection; and Digital Media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

JANI-KING INT'L: Mujo Appeals Judgment in Labor Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Simon Mujo and Indrit Muharremi filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order and Judgment in the lawsuit titled Mujo v.
Jani-King International, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-1990, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Jani-King has taken and continues to take unlawful
deductions from the compensation paid to the Plaintiffs in
violation of Section 31-71 e of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

The Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order on Jan. 9, 2019,
granting the Plaintiffs' motion with respect to class certification
of "all individuals who have performed cleaning work for Jani-King
in Connecticut since December 5, 2010."

The Plaintiffs argue that class action is superior to individual
cases because common practices affect the class members and some
individuals may only have a small recovery that limits their
ability to vindicate their rights on an individual basis; and a
class action would eliminate the risk that the common question of
law would be decided differently in each lawsuit. The Defendants
respond by arguing that resolution of the class issues is not
susceptible to common evidence nor do the facts lend themselves to
class-wide proof. Rather, according to the Defendants,
individualized factual considerations are better suited to satisfy
any claims.

The District Court disagrees with the Defendants, holding that the
class action is the superior method for adjudication of the
controversy, because (1) class members may fear reprisal and would
not be inclined to pursue individual claims; (2) the cost of
individual litigation is prohibitive, and (3) a class action would
eliminate the risk that the question of law common to the class
will be decided differently in each lawsuit. Current class members
may also still work for Jani-King, raising the possibility of
retaliation for the filing of individual claims. Moreover, the
individual claims are too small to bring absent the class action;
they are the small claims that are "the very core of the class
action mechanism." Finally, a class would eliminate the risk that
individual lawsuits would have different outcomes for common
questions of law and fact that predominate the class members. The
District Court, therefore, holds that the Plaintiffs meet rule
23(b)(3)'s superiority.

The appellate case is captioned as Mujo v. Jani-King International,
Inc., Case No. 20-111, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Simon Mujo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; and Indrit Muharremi, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Jani-King International, Inc., Jani-King,
Inc., and Jani-King, Inc., are represented by:

          Peter J. Murphy, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
          1 Constitution Plaza
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 251-5950
          E-mail: pjmurphy@goodwin.com

               - and -

          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8138
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com


JAY'S LANDSCAPING: McCammon Disallowed as Party in Fitchhorn Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA FITCHHORN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAY'S
LANDSCAPING AND CUSTOM LAWN SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Act. No. 1:19-cv-92-TFM-N (S.D. Ala.), Judge Terry F. Moorer
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, granted the Defendants' request to disallow the
addition of Rickey McCammon as a party Plaintiff to the action.

On April 17, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a document on behalf of
Rickey McCammon entitled "Notice of Filing Consent to Join
Collective Action," attached to which is a "FLSA Consent Form" that
is signed by Mr. McCammon and dated Jan. 29, 2019.  Subsequently,
the Defendants filed their Motion to Disallow Joinder of New
Plaintiff or Alternative Motion for Amendment of the Scheduling
Order.  The Defendants request the Court to strike or otherwise
disallow the addition of Rickey McCammon as a party Plaintiff to
the action or, in the alternative, to substantially amend the
scheduling order to provide sufficient time to address Mr.
McCammon's claims.

Judge Moorer finds that Mr. McCammon's notice does not comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 because it is neither styled as a motion nor
states the grounds for his intervention.  Additionally, the
Plaintiff failed to file a motion to conditionally certify class or
facilitate class notice to authorize a Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b),
which would be the only other vehicle to add McCammon as a
Plaintiff.

The Eleventh Circuit has established a two-tiered procedure for
determining whether to certify an opt-in class pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The Court previously noted in its
Preliminary Scheduling Order for FLSA Cases that the deadline for
amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties will also apply to
motions for conditional certification of the collective action.
The Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order provided a deadline of Feb. 14,
2020, for amending pleadings and joinder of parties.  No
explanation as to the late filing is provided nor is it a proper
motion.

Finally, there is no explanation as to the delay in time from Jan.
29, 2019, the date the "FLSA Consent Form" was signed, to date,
April 20, 2020 -- 15 months later -- especially as the complaint
was filed on Feb. 26, 2019.  As such, the "Notice of Filing Consent
to Join Collective action" is inadequate to add Mr. McCammon to the
FLSA collective action.  Therefore, the Judge declines to add him
as a party based upon the current filing.

As a result, Judge Moorer granted the Defendants' motion to the
extent the Court disallows the addition of Rickey McCammon as a
Plaintiff based upon the current notice.  The Judge otherwise
denied as moot the Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/MWBLf7 from Leagle.com.


KAPPO MASA: Mendez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, Invalid Tip Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, IVAN HERRERA MENDEZ and VALENTIN VIVAR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 976 MADISON
RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a KAPPO MASA; TAKAYAMA MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a BAR
MASA; TAKAYAMA, INC. d/b/a MASA; ARTBLOCK LLC d/b/a KAPPO MASA;
MASAYOSHI TAKAYAMA; and LAWRENCE GAGOSIAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05273 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated restaurant workers the proper minimum wage and the proper
overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular
rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek due to invalid tip
credit allowance in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide
proper wage statements and wage notices to the Plaintiffs and Class
members.

976 Madison Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Kappo Masa, is a restaurant
operator located at 980 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.

Takayama Management LLC, d/b/a Bar Masa, is a restaurant operator
located at Suite 401, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York.

Takayama, Inc., d/b/a Masa, is a restaurant operator located at 301
W 57th Street, Suite 15F, New York, New York.

Artblock LLC, d/b/a Kappo Masa, is a restaurant operator located at
28 Liberty Street, New York, New York. [BN]

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

KARIZMA LOUNGE: Conteras Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHALIE JOHANA CONTERAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARIZMA LOUNGE CORP. and MOHAMMED
BASHIR, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05167 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020)
is a collective and class action complaint brought against
Defendants pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York
Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a waitress from July 21,
2016 until July 28, 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours a week throughout her employment with Defendants, and his
main source of compensation came from tips because Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff any extra monies for her overtime hours.

The complaint asserts that Defendant:

     -- failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked at the
statutory minimum wage;

     -- failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for his work
in excess of 40 hours per week;

     -- misappropriated Plaintiff's tips;

     -- failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours payments; and

     -- failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice and pay
stubs.

Moreover, Defendants constantly belittle and bully female employees
if they made a mistake at work.

Mohammed Bashir owns Karizma Lounge Corp. and has the authority to
hire and fire employees, supervise their work schedules, set their
rates of pay, and maintain payroll records.

Karizma Lounge Corp. is a hookah-themed lounge. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 571-0700
          Fax: (212) 505-2001
          Email: https://www.fishertaubenfeld.com


KICHO CORP: Class in Chen Class Suit Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZHONGLE CHEN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KICHO CORPORATION d/b/a
Kicho Japanese Fusion, LIAN HUA CORP. d/b/a Kicho Japanese Fusion,
and JIN CHUN CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 7413 (PMH) (LMS)
(S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of a collective action.

Plaintiff Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
commenced the action alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against
Defendants Kicho Corp., doing business as Kicho Japanese Fusion,
Lian Hua Corp., doing business as Kicho Japanese Fusion, and Jin
Chun Chen.  As to the FLSA, the Plaintiff alleges that he and all
others similarly situated were not paid overtime wages for any
hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek, and therefore they are
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants Kicho Corp. and Lian Corp. are separate corporations
which each do business under the name Kicho Japanese Fusion, a
restaurant located in Bedford Hills, New York.  The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Kicho Corp. holds the liquor license for
Kicho Japanese Fusion and Defendant Lian Corp. holds the license to
operate a food service establishment for Kicho Japanese Fusion and
the bank account used to pay Kicho Japanese Fusion's employees.  He
alleges that there was never any written sale of assets, sale of
stock, sale of privilege to operate Kicho Japanese Fusion,
assignment of lease, sublease, or other written agreement between
Defendant Kicho Corp. and Defendant Lian Corp. nor was there any
payment of money from Defendant Lian Corp. to Defendant Kicho Corp.
Defenant Jin Chun is the sole owner of Defendants Kicho Corp. and
Lian Corp. and the manager of Kicho Japanese Fusion.  The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Kicho Corp. and Lian Corp. are alter egos
of Defendant Jin Chun.

On April 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was hired as a sushi chef at Kicho
Japanese Fusion.  In addition to his duties as a sushi chef, the
Plaintiff served as a driver shuttling fellow restaurant employees
back and forth from Flushing, New York, to Bedford Hills, New York.
He asserts that all the Defendants' employees were paid in cash.

In his Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he was
not paid overtime pay for his overtime hours, was not informed of
his hourly rate, was not informed of deductions from his wages or
credits toward the minimum wage, was not given a wage statement
reflecting the necessary information and written in his native
Chinese, was not paid at least the New York minimum wage rate, and
was not paid the New York spread-of-hours premium for shifts
lasting over 10 hours.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
willfully and intentionally committed these FLSA and NYLL
violations.  He raises seven state law claims under the NYLL on
behalf of himself (and a Rule 23 class which has not been pursued)
and one FLSA claim for the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages on behalf of the FLSA Collective.

The Plaintiff now moves the Court to grant conditional
certification of a collective action on behalf of all current and
former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed by the
Defendants at any time from Aug. 15, 2015, to the present, and to
approve the proposed notice of the action to be provided to those
current and former employees.

Magistrate Judge Smith granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective action certification.
The Judge granted conditional collective action certification for
all non-managerial, non-exempt employees, who worked as cook or
wait staff at Kicho Japanese Fusion on or after Aug. 15, 2015,
finding that the Plaintiff has made the factual showing required to
infer that these employees were subject to a common policy or plan
that violated the law.

The Judge directed the Plaintiff to revise the notice and consent
form, consistent with the Decision and Order, to confer with the
Defendants in order to agree on a final version of each form, and
to submit final versions (as well as any translations) for the
Court's approval no later than 14 days after the entry of the
order.  The Defendants are directed to provide the Plaintiff's
counsel with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, social media
handles, and dates of employment for all potential plaintiffs by
the same date.

The Judge directed the Defendants to post the notice and consent
forms, in English, Chinese, and Spanish, in conspicuous locations
at Kicho Japanese Fusion, located at 352 Bedford Rd., Bedford
Hills, NY 10507.  Such notice is to remain posted throughout the
opt-in period.  The Plaintiff must file the returned consent forms
under seal within five days of receipt.  The Court will not toll
the statute of limitations at this time.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 17, 2020 Decision &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Cm4JLY from Leagle.com.


KING COUNTY, WA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Moore Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eva Moore and Brooke Shaw filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in the lawsuit titled Eva Moore, et al. v. Mitzi
Johanknecht, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01123-TSZ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

Mitzi Johanknecht is sued in her official capacity as King County
Sheriff.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
class action challenging the constitutionality of a Washington
statute that allows tenants to be evicted from their homes without
a court hearing. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief against the Sheriff of King County, whose office enforces
the challenged statute by executing the eviction orders.

Because the Plaintiffs' action challenges the constitutionality of
a state statute, the District Court invited the State of Washington
to intervene to defend the statute.  Before the State entered an
appearance, though, the District Court granted the Sheriff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c).

The appellate case is captioned as Eva Moore, et al. v. Mitzi
Johanknecht, et al., Case No. 20-35028, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants EVA MOORE and BROOKE SHAW, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: eadams@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@tmdlegal.com

               - and -

          Rory Benjamin O'Sullivan, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
          HUB 306, Box 352236
          Seattle, WA 98195
          Telephone: (206) 356-9852
          E-mail: roryo@kcba.org

Defendant-Appellee MITZI JOHANKNECHT, in her official capacity as
King County Sheriff, is represented by:

          David J. Hackett, Esq.
          KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          500 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 477-9483
          E-mail: david.hackett@kingcounty.gov


KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 30
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ:
KGJI) between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kingold
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kingold class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1891.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) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently
secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor
lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3)
as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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 31,
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-1891.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.

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
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


KINGOLD JEWELRY: Tysor Balks at 24% Decline in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH OREN TYSOR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., ZHIHONG
JIA, and BIN LIU, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03050-JMA-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Kingold securities
between March 15, 2018, and June 28, 2020, inclusive, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants disseminate statements
during the Class Period that were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans;
(ii) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be
delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (iii) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Additionally, on June 29, 2020, before the market opened, Caixin
Global published an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of
$2 Billion of Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among
other things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually
gilded copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as
a result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanhai Gold
Exchange.

On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over
24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Plaintiff acquired Kingold securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Kingold Jewelry, Inc. purports to design, manufacture, and sell
24-karat gold jewelry and Chinese ornaments in the People's
Republic of China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 30
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE: KL)
between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kirkland
Lake Gold investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kirkland Lake Gold class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.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) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks,
reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) as a result of the
known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold
Corporation, the Company's projections relating to its risks,
reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and
misleading; (3) the Company's financial statements and projections
were not fairly presented in conformity with International
Financial Reporting Standards; and (4) 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. 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 28,
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-1892.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.

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
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


KPMG: May Face Class Action Claims Over Miller Energy Audit Failure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that KPMG will
likely have to defend class allegations in a federal Tennessee
court that its audit failures helped Miller Energy Resources Inc.
overstate the value of certain oil and gas assets on financial
statements in violation of federal securities laws.

Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin recommended on June 29 that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee grant
would-be class plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of representatives and counsel.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that KPMG issued audit
reports containing unqualified opinions on Miller Energy's
financial statements and disregarded significant gaps in internal
controls. [GN]



L'OREAL USA: Amended Summary Judgment in Carter Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA CARTER, ELLA VALRIE, and DORA BLACKMON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Act. No. 2:16-cv-508-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge
Terry F. Moorer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, Northern Division, (1) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Nov. 29, 2018
Declaration of Barbara Mitchell; (2) granted the Defendants'
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) denied the Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Class Certification and denied as moot their
Amended Motion to Appoint Class Counsel.

Carter filed the action on Sept. 30, 2016, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated individuals, raising various claims against the
Defendants.  Cases brought by Blackmon and Valrie were eventually
were consolidated with Carter's.  In the second amended complaint
filed on Jan. 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs assert various claims against
Defendants in relation to the Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual
Relaxer Kit, a hair-relaxer kit marketed primarily to African
American women and sold nationally through various retailers under
the Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare brand.

The relaxer kit has five components-scalp protector, relaxer base,
neutralizing shampoo, conditioner, and oil moisturizer -- which
consumers are instructed to apply in order and in a single session
to achieve the desired result.  The Plaintiffs assert that the
product is promoted as an easy no-mix, no-lye relaxer kit that
ensures an easier relaxing process for unified results and superior
respect for hair fiber integrity, and the line of Amla Legend
products, of which the relaxer kit is a part, and the amla oil for
which they are named, are variously promoted as a secret ritual for
hair rejuvenation with intense moisture that will rejuvenate every
strand, leaving you with thicker-looking, healthier hair, and with
unique properties that prevent breakage, restore shine,
manageability and smoothness.  The Plaintiffs allege that, contrary
to those assertions, the relaxer kit causes significant hair loss
and skin and scalp irritation, including burns and blistering, due
to an inherent design or manufacturing defect.

The Plaintiffs aver that, despite the "no-lye" representations on
the relaxer-kit packaging, the relaxer kit actually contained
sodium hydroxide and the instructions for applying the product, and
for pre-testing the product on a strand of hair are inadequate.
Plaintiffs assert that the product contains caustic and/or
dangerous ingredients that can lead to the injuries stated and is
unfit for its intended use.  Further, the Plaintiffs assert the
Defendants failed to disclose material information to consumers
regarding the dangers of the product and, instead, made material
misrepresentations as to the characteristics, ingredients, safety,
and value of the product.  Finally, the Plaintiffs state that they
would not have purchased the relaxer kit if the Defendants had
adequately disclosed the dangers associated with it.

Accordingly, in their operative Second Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiffs asserted six claims against the Defendants: (1)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II); (2) breach
of express warranty (Count III); (3) breach of implied warranty
(Count IV); (4) violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("ADTPA") (Count V); (5) fraud (Count VI); and (6) negligent
design and failure to warn (Count VII).  The Plaintiffs seek
damages and equitable remedies on behalf of themselves and the
putative class of consumers who bought the relaxer kit.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion
to appoint class counsel on Dec. 7, 2018.  That same day, the
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal or
partial dismissal of all the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs as
well as all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and
punitive damages.  Beginning on Dec. 7, 2018, the parties filed a
succession of motions seeking to exclude expert witness reports and
testimony, and other motions related to expert witnesses.  The
parties had the opportunity for responses and replies, a hearing
was held, and the Court ruled.  Following the Court's omnibus order
excluding portions of expert reports and testimony, the parties
were instructed to file amended motions for class certification,
appointment of the class counsel, and summary judgment, making any
necessary changes in light of the Court's Order.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed the instant amended motion for
class certification and amended motion to appoint class counsel,
which superseded their prior motions for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.  The Defendants responded to the
class certification motion on Sept. 20, 2019, and the Plaintiffs
replied on Sept. 27, 2019.

On Sept. 3, 2019, the Defendants filed an amended motion for
summary judgment that incorporated by reference the prior motion
for summary judgment.  Those combined motions for summary judgment
were granted as to Count II, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; Count III, breach of express warranty; Count IV,
breach of implied warranty; and Count V, violation of the ADTPA.
Doc. 223. Defendants were instructed to re-file their motion for
summary judgment on the remaining claims -- Count VI, for fraud,
and Count VII, for negligent design and failure to warn -- in a
single, comprehensive document.

Accordingly, the Defendants filed the instant amended motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 21, 2019.  The Plaintiffs responded on
Nov. 13, 2019, and the Defendants replied on Nov. 20, 2019.  The
Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to strike in conjunction with
their response.  The Defendants responded on Nov. 20, 2019, and the
Plaintiffs replied on Nov. 27, 2019.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike from the
record (i) a Nov. 29, 2018 declaration by Barbara Mitchell, manager
of L'Oreal's Texture & Styling Laboratory, and (ii) 67 pages of
manufacturing records filed in conjunction with Mitchell's
declaration.  The Plaintiffs argue that Mitchell's declaration
should be struck because it was filed more than a month after
discovery closed, and thus, they were unable to cross-examine
Mitchell regarding its contents.  As to the manufacturing records,
they argue they should be excluded as violative of Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(a)(1)(A) and 34(b)(2)(E) because they were not produced in a
"reasonably usable form."

Judge Moorer holds that the parties had ample time for discovery
and, again, the Plaintiffs had an opportunity to depose Mitchell
during the discovery period and declined to do so.  Moreover, there
is no indication in the record that they sought leave to depose
Mitchell after becoming aware of the declaration in 2018, or that
the Plaintiffs took issue with the declaration at all until their
response to the Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment was
filed many months later on Sept. 9, 2019.  To the extent the
Plaintiffs argue that Mitchell's statement constitutes a change in
her opinion from earlier testimony, it is not an opinion.  It
merely provides additional information.  Accordingly, the motion to
strike Mitchell's declaration is due to be denied.

Next, the Court finds that regardless of any other deficiencies
alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have submitted
manufacturing records in French with no translation.  He doesn't
speak French.  The records are meaningless as support for the
Defendants' motion.  Although Mitchell references the documents in
her declaration, she does not purport to translate the documents
directly.  Thus, the documents will not be considered by the Court.
The Court notes that, to the extent the documents are included to
support the Defendants' assertion that no sodium hydroxide was
included in the relaxer kits at issue, they are also unnecessary,
as there is uncontroverted evidentiary support for the assertion
elsewhere in the record.  Thus, the motion to strike is granted as
to the manufacturing records.

Turning to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the
Defendants argue that summary judgment is warranted because the
Plaintiffs have abandoned the remaining fraud and negligence claims
from their operative complaint and, instead, have alleged unpled
claims that Defendants violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
("FDCA"), the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act ("FPLA"), or related
regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

To the extent the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have
abandoned their remaining claims in favor of asserting claims under
the FDCA or FPLA, the Court disagrees.  While making no findings at
this point on the merits of the Plaintiffs' argument, the Court
determines that the Plaintiffs' reliance on these federal statutes
in their opposition to summary judgment is not an attempt to
abandon their remaining claims in favor of unpled causes of action,
but rather, an attempt to bolster their claims by invoking federal
standards.

The Plaintiffs allege in the operative complaint that the
Defendants made material representations and omissions regarding
the relaxer kit in the product packaging and the marketing and
advertising materials promoting the product.   

The Court holds that the Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to
demonstrate that Blackmon and Valrie relied on any of the
advertised benefits at issue.  Taking the facts in the light most
beneficial to the Plaintiffs, there is evidence that Carter relied
on representations about amla oil and, by extension, its benefits.
However, even assuming the Plaintiffs have demonstrated false
claims that Carter relied on in making her purchase, the Plaintiffs
do not specify how these particular claims, if false, proximately
caused the damages Carter alleges.  Nowhere in the record do they
state a link between the touted benefits of amla oil and injuries
such as scalp irritation, burns, or hair loss.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' fraud claims fail as a matter of law.

In their operative complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
product is defective because, contrary to the representations in
marketing materials and on the packaging, it contains "Lye and
other ingredients that are caustic and/or allergens" that can cause
scalp burning, irritation, and hair loss.

The Court holds that although Plaintiff Carter testified that she
read all the instructions prior to use, she also testified to
misusing the product in multiple respects.  Nevertheless, the
Plaintiffs have not provided evidence to support their argument
that the Defendants failed to warn them of the potential for the
injuries they sustained, while the Defendants have provided
substantial evidence that consumers were warned of the product's
risks and the potential for the precise injuries alleged.  Thus,
the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate at least one necessary element
for negligent failure to warn.  Accordingly, their negligent design
and failure to warn claims are due to be dismissed.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification appears moot: the
remaining claims are due to be dismissed on the merits, leaving no
claims for a putative class to pursue.  Indeed, Alabama district
courts have denied motions for class certification on that basis.
The claim brought in the operative complaint is negligent design
and failure to warn.  Although Alabama recognizes such a claim both
as a common law claim and a statutory claim brought under the
AEMLD, other states take different approaches.  The Plaintiffs have
not addressed these differences or how they could be accommodated.
Thus, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be
denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Moorer (i) granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike.  It is granted as to the
manufacturing records, which are stricken.  It is denied as to
Barbara Mitchell's declaration.  The Judge granted the Defendants'
amended motion for summary judgment.  The Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Judge denied as
moot the Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of class counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/2J6ciG from
Leagle.com.


LAWRENCE KIA: Humphrey Farrington Files Consumer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Alcock, writing for KSHB, reports that a metro law firm has
filed a class action lawsuit against Lawrence Kia.

The suit, filed by the Independence firm Humphrey, Farrington &
McClain, comes after multiple 41 Action News I-Team reports of
customer complaints.

The lawsuit is primarily based on violation claims of Kansas
consumer protection laws.

Specifically, those customers complained their monthly incomes were
inflated on their loan applications for their vehicles.

The lead, and so far only named, plaintiff in the case is former
University of Kansas football player Codey Cole.

Cole first spoke to the I-Team in March about his experience buying
a car at Lawrence Kia.

"They gave me a lot of papers to sign. They rushed through it. They
didn't try to explain it to me, explain what was going on," Cole
said.

Other Kia customers who bought vehicles have told the I-Team of
similar experiences of signing documents they simply didn't catch
were falsified.

"We felt it was incumbent upon us to get filed so that people would
know there was someplace to go to get some relief," said Ken
McClain, a partner with the firm filing the lawsuit.

McClain said he's heard from about a dozen Lawrence Kia customers
so far.

He also said the complaints his firm has dated back to 2015 and
include customers who've had their vehicles repossessed.

McClain said his firm is reviewing each individual case.

In particular, one potential issue is some customers may have
signed arbitration agreements as part of the documents presented to
them.

Those agreements could be a stumbling block to filing suit.

"It's a tremendous mess caused by this over-aggressive sales
technique that was being employed by Kia. It's dishonest and it
ought to be stopped. It was designed to pick the pocket of all
these individuals of monies they should not have expended," McClain
said.

Although he's not specifically named, Herb Vance's case is used as
an example in the complaint filed in Douglas County District Court
on June 29.

The retiree told the I-Team in March his monthly income was $2,000,
but his loan application submitted by Lawrence Kia to his lender
said Vance's monthly income was $9,961.

Vance's lender is Santander Consumer, the nation's largest
sub-prime auto financing company.

In May, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt announced a
settlement requiring Santander to pay $2.9 million to Kansas
consumers.

The settlement came after a five-year investigation by 34 state
attorneys general.

And now with Vance, a Santander loan has come under question
again.

"We're investigating very aggressively the role that the banks play
in regards to this scheme," McClain said.

The I-Team reached out to Santander representatives through
multiple emails and phone calls over the last couple of weeks
without getting a comment.

Following I-Team reports, Wells Fargo suspended taking loan
applications from Lawrence Kia and is investigating its loans with
the dealership.

Additionally, the Kansas Attorney General, Bank Commissioner and
the Douglas County District Attorney's offices are all
investigating Lawrence Kia.

The lawsuit names J.J.R., INC. doing business as Lawrence Kia as
the lead defendant.

The owner-management team of James "Pat" Morrissy, Chintaka
Rajapaksha and Kevin Morrissy are all also named individually as
defendants.

McClain said the men were named individually because sometimes
owners take money out of "thinly capitalized" corporations in order
to hide it.

The I-Team reached out to Lawrence Kia's attorneys for comment on
the lawsuit.

As of June 29, there'd been no response. [GN]


LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Edwards Appeals RICO Suit Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Edwards, Robert Jackson, James Brooks, and Kyser
Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled William Edwards, et al. v. Leaders in Community
Alternatives, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04609-WHA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case.

The putative class action is brought over claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs
have moved for class certification.

The County of Alameda contracted with Defendant Leaders in
Community Alternatives, Inc., to provide an electronic-monitoring
program, including GPS and alcohol monitoring, for criminal
defendants on pre-trial release or home detention.  The Plaintiffs
allege that they all paid LCA amounts they could not afford because
LCA threatened to violate them so that they would return to jail if
they failed to pay LCA's fee.

Based on this, the Plaintiffs assert a RICO claim based on
predicate acts of extortion under state and federal law. They
sought to certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     All individuals who have been or will be put on LCA's
     Electronic Monitoring program by the Alameda County Court
     system from July 31, 2014, until this litigation is
     complete, who were threatened with jail by LCA or any of its
     employees, agents, or representatives.

The appellate case is captioned as William Edwards, et al. v.
Leaders in Community Alternatives, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15070,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM EDWARDS, ROBERT JACKSON, JAMES
BROOKS, and KYSER WILSON, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Marissa Hatton, Esq.
          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 838-6709

               - and -

          Kevin Mitchell, Esq.
          885 Bryant St.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 581-0885

Defendant-Appellee LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., is
represented by:

          Susan Eileen Coleman, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com


LEAPFORWARD FINANCIAL: Landy Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Leapforward Financial, Bat, Inc., The
Litigation Practice Group PC, Daniel S. March, Brian Reale and Does
1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00962 (C.D. Cal., May 26,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Leapforward is a debt consulting company. Bat, Inc. is a debt
relief service while The Litigation Practice Group is a debt legal
service company. They called Landy's cellular telephone number in
an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services using an
"automatic telephone dialing system." Landy incurs a charge for
incoming calls and his number is on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             twheeler@toddflaw.com


LEGALLY MINE: Cal. Northern Dist. Reinstates Eliasieh Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KASRA ELIASIEH, Plaintiff, v. LEGALLY MINE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03622-JSC, No. 19-cv-05977-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted
the Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the case and for leave to amend
the complaint, and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's request for
sanctions and ancillary relief.

Eliasieh commenced the state law putative class action against
Legally Mine arising from the Plaintiff's purchase of an asset
protection plan.  The Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint
against Defendant on June 18, 2018.  He brought 14 claims under the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California common law.  The
Defendant failed to timely file a responsive pleading, and after
the clerk entered default, the Plaintiff moved for default judgment
on Oct. 12, 2018.  It moved to set aside default that same day, and
the Court subsequently granted its motion and set aside the
default.

The Defendant then filed a motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss, or in the alternative, stay the action, which the Court
granted and dismissed the action without prejudice to reinstatement
should further proceedings be necessary.  The catalyst for this
motion is what transpired since the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff filed his demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA") -- the entity designated by the
parties' arbitration agreement -- on July 11, 2019 and served a
copy of the demand on the Defendant the same day.  On Aug. 6, 2019,
AAA sent a letter to all the parties stating that it had determined
that the arbitration arises out of a consumer agreement and, as
such, the Consumer Arbitration Rules ('Consumer Rules') apply.  

AAA asked the Defendant to register its consumer arbitration
agreement on AAA's "Consumer Clause Registry" and submit it for
review to determine material compliance with the due process
standards of the Consumer Due Process Protocol and the Consumer
Rules.  In addition, before moving forward with the administration,
AAA asked the Defendant to waive the venue provision requiring
arbitration to be exclusively conducted in Utah, waive another
provision related to stripping the arbitrator of any power or
discretion to award costs or attorneys' fees, and agree to have the
matter and any future consumer arbitrations filed under the
agreement administered under the Consumer Rules and in compliance
with its Due Process Protocol.  AAA stated that the two provisions
needed to be waived because they violated AAA's Consumer Due
Process Protocol principles.  Lastly, the letter directed the
Defendant to pay its portion of the filing fee, arbitration
agreement registration fee, and arbitrator's compensation.

On Aug. 22, 2019, AAA sent a second letter noting that it had not
received the administrative fees and arbitrator compensation.
Further, AAA wrote that the Defendant had failed to comply with
AAA's request to waive the two provisions, and to have it and all
consumer arbitrations heard in compliance with the AAA Due Process
Consumer Protocol.  The letter warned that AAA may close the case
and refuse to administer any arbitration involving the Defendant,
and requested that the Defendant remove the AAA name from its
arbitration clause.

With its third letter on Sept. 10, 2019, AAA terminated the
arbitration.  The letter informed all parties that because AAA had
not received the required fees from Legally Mine, it must decline
to administer the case and had closed its file.  AAA also stated
that because the Defendant's non-payment constitutes a failure to
adhere to its policies regarding consumer claims, it may decline to
administer future consumer arbitrations involving Legally Mine.
Similar to its Aug. 22, 2019 letter, AAA also requested that the
Defendant remove the AAA name from its consumer arbitration clause
so that there is no confusion to the public regarding its
decision.

Two weeks later, the Plaintiff filed a new action alleging that the
matter once again needed to proceed in the district court because
AAA had declined to exercise jurisdiction due to the Defendant's
refusal to comply with AAA's procedures.  The Court subsequently
related the new case to the previously dismissed case and scheduled
a status conference.  At the Nov. 21, 2019 status conference, the
Court reopened the earlier-filed action and gave Defendant until
Dec. 12, 2019 to resolve the issues with the arbitration
proceeding.  The Court also set a briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff to file a motion for relief with respect to the
arbitration proceedings and/or the Court's order compelling
arbitration.  The Plaintiff thereafter filed the underlying motion
to lift the stay and reinstate the case, for sanctions, and to
amend the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the Court should exercise jurisdiction
over the case for three reasons: (1) the Defendant's conduct
breached its obligation to arbitrate with the Plaintiff, and that
breach excuses him from having to arbitrate; (2) the Defendant's
conduct constitutes a default in the arbitration and it has now
lost its standing to avoid federal court litigation; and (3) the
Defendant has waived its right to arbitration.

Magistrate Judge Corley finds that there was no confusion as to
what Defendant had to do -- AAA had asked it to pay the fees and
waive the two conditions, and if it disagreed with AAA's decision
of which rules applied, to raise those concerns once arbitration
was initiated.  The Defendant did none of these.  Accordingly,
because the Defendant's nonpayment of fees and noncompliance with
AAA's procedures resulted in termination of arbitration
proceedings, the Defendant is in material breach of the arbitration
agreement and cannot compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims.


As to the Defendant's request for ancillary relief, in light of its
recent corrective conduct, the Court finds that it is not
appropriate at this stage.  As of Jan. 28, 2020, the Defendant has
now registered its consumer arbitration clause with AAA and it no
longer contains the two problematic provisions that AAA had
requested the Defendant to waive.  Presumably, the reasons behind
AAA's warning that it may decline to arbitrate proceedings
involving the Defendant along with its request for it to remove its
name from the arbitration clause have been rectified.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any
indication that it is using similar tactics with other potential
litigants to avoid arbitration of claims.  Given the Defendant's
registry of the consumer clause, the Court in its discretion
declines to impose the ancillary relief sought.

Finally, the Court finds that the balance of factors supports
granting the Plaintiff leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2).  First, the Defendant has not shown, nor is
there any indication that amending the complaint would prejudice
it.  Second, there is no evidence of bad faith.  Third, there is no
evidence of undue delay.  Finally, a proposed amendment is futile
only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the
pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or
defense.  The Defendant has not met its burden of showing
futility.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Corley granted the
Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the case and for leave to amend the
complaint, and denied the Plaintiff's request for sanctions and
ancillary relief.  

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


LIBRE TECHNOLOGY: $425K Settlement in Hudson Gets Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EBONY HUDSON, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBRE TECHNOLOGY INC.,
doing business as Student Loan Service, Docupop, and Student Loan
Service, US; ANTONY MURIGU; JASON BLACKBURN; and BRIAN BLACKBURN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-1371-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted Hudson's renewed unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement
in the wage-and-hour dispute.

On June 21, 2018, Plaintiff Ebony Hudson brought the putative Rule
23 class action/FLSA collective action against Defendants Libre
Technology, Anthony Murigu (its owner), Jason Blackburn (its COO),
and Brian Blackburn (Director of Operations) for violations of
California laws and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Before the Court is Plaintiff Ebony Hudson's renewed unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action
settlement in a wage and hour dispute.  After a review of the
briefing and supporting documentation, on April 21, 2020, the Court
directed Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing and
documentation to address a number of deficiencies and discrepancies
noted by the Court.  A copy of the April 21 order is available at
https://is.gd/wnH5pf from Leagle.com.  On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff,
after meeting and conferring with Defendants, filed a supplemental
brief with supporting documentation in support of her renewed
motion.

Plaintiff had previously filed a motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement, which the Court granted in part and denied
in part on November 13, 2019.  In that order, the Court
preliminarily granted Plaintiff's request to (1) preliminarily
certify the Rule 23 class, (2) be named Class Representative, (3)
and appoint Trenton R. Kashima and Kevin J. Stroops as class
counsel.  The Court also sua sponte conditionally certified the
FLSA collective.  However, the Court denied preliminary approval of
the settlement due to Plaintiff's failure to include a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") opt-in procedure as well as including
provisions in the Class Notice concerning an opt-in procedure for
the FLSA collective action settlement.  In response, Plaintiff has
refiled the instant renewed unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement and collective action
settlement as well as the Court ordered supplemental briefing.

                  Proposed Modified Settlement

Based on the Court's prior order, the Settlement Agreement was
amended to specify a separate FLSA Sub-Class, as previously
conditionally certified by the Court, to include all persons who
are members of the Rule 23 Class and who were employed by the
Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee at any time from
June 21, 2015 to the date of Preliminary Approval and who opt-in to
the FLSA Sub-Class as provided by this Settlement Agreement and the
Class Notice.

While the compensation under the settlement remains unchanged, a
portion of the Gross Settlement Amount is segmented to compensate
for the FLSA Sub-Class for their FLSA Release.  The Settlement
Class will receive $425,000, inclusive of all payments to
Settlement Class Members, the Class Counsel Fees and expenses,
incentive award to the Plaintiff, the settlement administration
costs, and PAGA payments to the LWDA.

The Plaintiff estimates the following allocation of the Gross
Settlement Amount: (i) $7,0001 to Phoenix Settlement
Administrators, the proposed Settlement Administrator; (ii) $6,000
to the Plaintiff as an incentive award compensating her for her
service as the Class Representative; and (iii) a payment of up to
$127,500 for attorneys' fees and $15,000 for litigation cost.  The
parties also agreed $21,250 or 5% of the settlement proceeds which
will be allocated to PAGA penalties, $15,937.50 (or 75%) of which
will be paid to the California Labor Workforce and Development
Agency ("LWDA") to settle claims and remedies under Labor Code,
sections 2699 et seq., and the remaining amount $5,312.50 (25%)
will be allocated pro rata to the participating Class Members.  No
portion of the settlement funds will revert to the Class.  Instead,
any unclaimed settlement funds will escheat to the State, in the
same manner as any unclaimed wages, until it is claimed.

The Plaintiff estimates that the portion of the settlement to be
shared by the Settlement Class will be $240,562.50.  Additionally,
$13,000 of the Settlement funds will be allocated to the Settlement
of the FLSA claims.  The Settlement Class will share the
opportunity to receive $253,562.50 in compensation.  The Net
Settlement Amount will be apportioned and paid out entirely, and
automatically, to all the Settlement Class Members.

A participating Class Member's share of the Settlement will be
calculated as follows:  First, the estimated Net Settlement Amount
will be determined by subtracting the estimated Class Counsel Fees
and Expenses Payment, the Class Representative Payments, the
Settlement Administration Costs, FLSA Settlement Amount, and PAGA
Payment due to the LWDA.  Second, the estimated Net Settlement
Amount will be divided by the total number of workweeks for all
potential Settlement Class Members to calculate the Workweek Value
(i.e., the amount to be allocated for each workweek).  Third, each
Settlement Class Member's Settlement Share will be determined by
multiplying the Class Member's total number of weeks worked during
the Class Period by the Workweek Value.

The FLSA Settlement Amount will be distributed in a similar "per
workweek" manner for the FLSA Sub-Class.  A participating Class
Member will receive $2,347.80 (or $47.92 per workweek), on average,
under the Settlement, assuming he/she submits a FLSA claim.
However, regardless of their decision to opt-in to the FLSA Sub
Class, the average Settlement Class Member will automatically
receive a check for $2,227.43 (or $45.46 per workweek).  The amount
due to each Settlement Class Member under the Settlement, less
taxes and withholdings, will be provided by check.

In exchange, the Settlement Class will release the Defendants from
all claims.  Excluded from the Released Claims are any claims
arising under the FLSA except those FLSA Sub-Class Members, who
opted to receive FLSA Settlement Share, will be deemed to have
released all claims under FLSA.

                       Revised Class Notice

The Revised Class Notice will be accompanied by the Class Member
Information Sheet which will be including the Class Member's first
and last name, last known address, and the estimated amount of the
Class Member's Settlement Share, as well as a FLSA Opt-In Form and
Class Action Opt-Out Form.  The Revised Class Notice will inform
Class Members of the benefits offered under the Settlement, as well
as their right to opt-out or object to the Settlement, and the
option to opt-in to the FLSA Sub-Class.  Class Members shall have
forty-five (45) days from the initial mailing of the Class Notice
Packet to opt-out, object to the Settlement and join the FLSA
Sub-Class.  Class Members can submit a FLSA Opt-In Form
electronically at www.libreFLSAsettlement.com or by mail.  No later
than seven days after the deadline for submission of the FLSA
Opt-In Form, requests to be excluded, and/or objections, the
Settlement Administrator shall provide Defendants with notice of
all exclusions, objections, and FLSA Opt-Ins.

                              Order

Upon review, the Court finds that (1) Plaintiff and Class Counsel
have adequately represented the class, (2) the Settlement was
negotiated at arm's length, (3) the relief provided to the class is
adequate, and (4) the proposed settlement treats class members
equitably relative to each other.  In sum, the Court concludes that
the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

Accordingly, the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed
class action settlement.

The Court appointed Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the
Settlement Administrator and preliminarily approved the allocated
Settlement Administrator Payment.  The Settlement Administrator
will prepare final versions of the Revised Class Notice.

The Court concludes that the Revised Class Notice as well as the
procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement for providing
notice to the Class Members, will provide the best notice
practicable under the facts and circumstances of the case.  The
Court thus finds that the notice requirements for class and
collective actions are satisfied.

All proceedings and all litigation of the Action, other than those
pertaining to the administration of the Settlement, are stayed
pending the Final Approval Hearing.

The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on Aug. 7, 2020 at
1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4ab8eq from Leagle.com.


LOWE'S HOME: Williams Suit Challenges Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Williams, individually and on behalf of all others situated
v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company; Case No. 5:20-cv-01356 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2020), is
brought to redress the unfair business practices employed by the
Defendant in connection with its sale of the herbicide Roundup.

The Defendant's retail stores and Web site sold various
formulations of Roundup directly to consumers despite the
Defendant's knowledge Roundup can cause cancer, according to the
complaint. The Defendant is indeed aware that California has
classified glyphosate--the active ingredient in Roundup--as a
chemical known to cause cancer, such as Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
("NHL"). The Defendant is also aware glyphosate is a Class 2A
herbicide, meaning the World Health Organization's International
Agency for Research on Cancer has determined it is probably
carcinogenic to humans. The Defendant has also known Roundup and
other glyphosate-based herbicides have been banned by many
countries, regions, and municipalities throughout the world because
it is dangerous to human health.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is further aware that,
within the past two years, three California juries found that
Roundup likely caused certain individuals to develop NHL and have
awarded nearly $100 million in compensatory damages and over $2
billion in punitive damages collectively. Additionally, the
Defendant is aware of the tens of thousands personal injury cases
brought by individuals, who have alleged Roundup(R) exposure caused
their cancer. Despite the Defendant's knowledge of Roundup's
potential carcinogenicity, the Defendant has and continues to sell
Roundup without providing consumers with any additional information
on its Web site, store shelves or at the point of sale about the
products' potential health risks, the Plaintiff alleges.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under the
current administration has stated glyphosate is not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans, the Defendant, at the very least, should
inform consumers there is a vigorous scientific dispute over its
potential carcinogenicity, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendants'
conduct--continuing to sell a line of weed killer products despite
knowing they may be carcinogenic and without informing consumers
about the potential health risks--constitutes an unfair business
practice under the Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff insists.

The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with any information
regarding the carcinogenic nature of Roundup, says the complaint.
The Defendant could have, but failed to provide such information
by, for example, displaying it on the shelves where Roundup was
sold (or, for some consumers, on the product pages online). Had the
Plaintiff known of the carcinogenic properties of Roundup and its
links to cancer, she says she would not have purchased it.

The Plaintiff purchased two bottles of Roundup Extended Control
Weed & Grass Killer Plus Weed Preventer II, one bottle of Roundup
Ready-To Use Weed and Grass Killer III with Pump 'N Go 2 Sprayer,
and one bottle of Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer III
during the Class Period.

LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, is a chain of American hardware stores
and warehouses headquartered in Mooresville, North Carolina. The
Defendant is engaged in the marketing, sale, and distribution of a
product line of the herbicide Roundup.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 396-9600
          Fax: (310) 396-9635
          Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800

               - and -

          Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          99 6th Street SW
          Winter Haven, FL 33880
          Phone: (863) 656-6672
          Facsimile: (863) 301-4500


MACY'S WEST: Vazquez Sues Over Unlawful Wages
---------------------------------------------
KARLA VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC., corporation; and
DOES through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV367943 (Calif.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 8, 2020) is a representative action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant Macy's West Stores,
Inc., and DOES through 20, inclusive, on behalf of the State of
California and other aggrieved employees who were employed by
Defendants as non-exempt employees throughout California, pursuant
to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
codified at Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. ("PAGA").

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things, failing to: (a) authorize or
permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof;
(b) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (c) pay all
wages due upon separation of employment.

Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties, attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses pursuant to PAGA, and California Code of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for Defendants in
California during the relevant time periods as alleged herein.

Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

MALLINCKRODT PHARMA: Methadone Patients File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hedmark, writing for The Runner, reports that the B.C.
government switched all Methadone patients to a cheaper and less
effective alternative called Methadose in 2014. According to an
article by the Globe and Mail, the new formulation was 10 times
stronger, meaning patients only needed to take a tenth of the
amount they had previously taken. An estimated 18,000 people were
switched from the old formula to the new drug without notice or
consent. This caused thousands of deaths in B.C.

The lead plaintiff, Laura Shaver, is an editorial board member of
the Vancouver-based Crackdown podcast, President of the British
Columbia Association of People on Methadone, and a board member for
the Vancouver Area Network Drug Users. The podcast's host, Garth
Mullins--and almost everyone else on the editorial board--is a
current drug user and activist.

Methadone is a liquid drink that is taken daily by ex-opiate users
to avoid the withdrawal symptoms that come with getting and staying
clean. The drink must be taken at a pharmacy every day when it's
first prescribed.

Mullins talks about this in the second episode of Crackdown,
"Change Intolerance". Once the user is stabilized for a period of
time they take home "carries"--a prescription lasting between a few
days to a few weeks.

"Ask anyone who takes methadone and they'll tell you that it is a
slog. All the rules and the daily pharmacy visits are why we call
it 'liquid handcuffs.' It can make you feel like you're flatlining
through life. Or constipated. Or sweaty," says Mullins.

"But still, methadone saved my life. It's all I do now. And
methadone has also saved the lives of thousands of people here in
British Columbia and around the world. That's why what happened in
2014 is so fucked up."

In episode 17, titled "Class Action", Mullins goes over the damages
done to Methadone patients since the B.C. government decided to
switch to a cheaper drug called Methadose in 2014.

Shaver went back to using injectable street drugs within a week of
the medication switch.

"It was the middle of the night, I think, February 3, I woke up
feeling like my legs would, were moving and couldn't sleep and I
felt like . . . twitches. By the sixth of February . . . my body
really felt it," she said on the podcast. "Like, it was bad and I
started to use heroin right then, right away, because . . . I can't
do withdrawal. It doesn't work for me."

Shaver has overdosed eight times since pharmacies made the switch
to Methadose.

"The people that caused this--the College of Pharmacists,
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and the Province--I want them to look
at me and see," she said. "There were eight separate times that I
kind of died, you know, and that was because I was now no longer
stable on a medication."

Chereece Keewatin was also a part of the Crackdown editorial board
and was a president of the BCAPOM. She passed away on Feb. 20, 2019
from complications related to the switch to Methadose.

"That five years of being dope sick everyday put a generation of
aging on her," says Mullins in episode 17.

After the death of a beloved colleague and friend, the Crackdown
team and BCAPOM released a list of demands:

"(1) We demand access to the old methadone formulation immediately.
Give us medication that works for us, whether that is methadone,
Metadol-D, Suboxone, slow release oral morphine, injectable
Dilaudid, or prescription heroin. (2) We demand to have a say in
policy decisions about our lives. Nothing about us without us. (3)
We demand an apology from Mallinckrodt, the BC Ministry of Health,
and the BC College of Pharmacists. (4) We demand a formal
investigation to determine why Methadose(R) failed."

Although not all of these demands have been met yet, the team is
seeking reparations and to empower patients to be able to choose a
medication that suits them. [GN]


MASIMO CORP: PHI Appeals Class Certification Denial to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Physicians Healthsource Inc., and Radha Geismann M.D.
P.C., filed an appeal from the District Court's November 21, 2019
order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit
titled Physicians Healthsource, Inc., et al. v. Masimo Corporation,
et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00001-JVS-ADS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The Plaintiffs want the Appeals Court to determine whether the
District Court "applie[d] the wrong legal rule" or erred in its
"application of the law to the facts," True Health I, 836 F.3d at
928:

   1. in finding PHI an inadequate class representative;

   2. in finding Geismann an inadequate class representative;

   3. in finding Anderson + Wanca and Montgomery Jonson
      inadequate class counsel; and

   4. in declining to appoint Geragos & Geragos as class counsel,
      where there is no allegation of any wrongdoing against that
      firm, where that firm had no involvement in Allscripts, and
      where the district court's decision left an otherwise
      properly certified class with strong claims on the merits
      against Masimo without any representation at all.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 2,
2014, this putative class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations.  The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Physicians Healthsource, Inc.,
et al. v. Masimo Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80159, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, and RADHA GEISMANN, M.D. P.C., are
represented by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Respondents MASIMO CORPORATION, DBA Delaware Masimo
Corporation, and MASIMO AMERICAS INC. are represented by:

          Stephen C. Jensen, Esq.
          Benjamin Katzenellenbogen, Esq.
          Stephen W. Larson, Esq.
          Joseph R. Re, Esq.
          Lisa Luongo, Esq.
          Perry Oldham, Esq.
          KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
          2040 Main Street
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: 949-760-0404
          E-mail: steve.jensen@knobbe.com
                  ben.katzenellenbogen@knobbe.com
                  stephen.larson@knobbe.com
                  joe.re@knobbe.com
                  Lisa.Luongo@knobbe.com
                  Perry.Oldham@knobbe.com

               - and -

          Adam Powell, Esq.
          KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR LLP
          2465 Easy Bayshore Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: 650-752-1100
          E-mail: adam.powell@knobbe.com

               - and -

          Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: 212-808-7800
          E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com


MASON COUNTY, WA: Sued Over Hood Canal Mining Operation
-------------------------------------------------------
MasonWebTV.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed on
June 29 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma over a surface mining
operation on the north shore of Hood Canal.

The suit, filed by a dozen property owners in the vicinity of the
operation owned by Grump Ventures LLC, names Mason County, Randy
Neatherlin (as an individual and in his capacity as Mason County
Commissioner), David Windom (as an individual and in his capacity
as Director of Mason County Community Services), Grump Ventures'
principal Russell Scott and others as defendants.

The lawsuit centers around whether Grump Ventures' surface mine can
extend from the original 1.87 acres to the adjacent 66.5 acres as
allowed by Form SM-6 which exempts the mine from the requirements
of zoning ordinances. Most of the acreage in question is Designated
Forest Land and adjacent to parcels zoned residential.

According to the 15-page complaint, as Director of Community
Services, David Windom has final decision-making authority on Form
SM-6 matters and signed the document in question on June 30, 2017.
The complaint also says notice of the Form SM-6 approval was not
given until 2018 when the County issued a "mitigated determination
of nonsignificance" pursuant to Washington's State Environmental
Policy Act ("SEPA").

The suit alleges that Mason County and the named individuals
disregarded the recommendation from planning staff not to extend
mining operations, pressured staff for a signature on the Form
SM-6, and hid key items relating to Grump's application including a
1963 aerial photo and staff memorandum in order to "cover up their
unlawful and unconstitutional act . . ."

In their complaint, the plaintiffs say they were deprived of
"rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
federal laws." And "deprived of property rights without due process
of law." The complaint also says, "Defendants actions were
arbitrary, irrational, invidious and tainted by improper motive and
violated plaintiffs' substantive due process rights."

By approving the Form SM-6, the lawsuit also states, the County
"gifted a property right to Grump," and "would introduce a massive
industrial surface mine into a peaceful residential area" depriving
plaintiffs of "the use and enjoyment of their property." Plaintiffs
would also be subject to "significant health threats from air
pollution" and loud noise and vibration from excavating.

The suit is asking that the court to "Vacate and set aside the Form
SM-6." The complaint doesn't include a dollar amount but does ask
to pay the plaintiffs "the damages they incur as a result of the
defendants' unconstitutional conduct" as well as litigation costs
and attorneys' fees. [GN]


MATTERPORT: Faces Class Action Over Lead Program
------------------------------------------------
Jim Dalrymple II, writing for Inman, reports that Matterport is
facing a class action lawsuit over its lead program.

John Stemmelin says he invested tens of thousands of dollars trying
to build a 3D scanning business, but Matterport's promised leads
never materialized. [GN]





MDL 2775: Caporale v. Smith & Nephew Moved to District of Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR)
HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2775, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled,
CAPORALE v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-01263, from
the Northern District of Illinois to the District of Maryland and,
with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable
Catherine C. Blake for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff Gabriel J. Caporale moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the Caporale
action to the District of Maryland for inclusion in MDL No. 2775.
Defendant Smith & Nephew, Inc., opposes the motion.

In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that Caporale should
not be transferred until the transferor court has decided the
pending motion to remand Caporale to state court.  As a general
matter, the pendency of jurisdictional objections is not sufficient
reason to delay or deny transfer.  Plaintiff can present his remand
motion to the transferee court.

Plaintiff also contends that transfer is not appropriate because he
asserts claims against a distributor of Smith & Nephew products —
Neubauer Perkins, Inc. The presence of additional facts, theories,
and parties, however, is not significant when the actions arise
from a common factual core.  Caporale will require the same
discovery of the BHR system, the R3 metal liner, and Smith &
Nephew's conduct as the actions in the MDL.  That plaintiff's
claims may require additional discovery does not bar transfer.

Plaintiff further argues that he will suffer delay and prejudice if
Caporale is transferred to the MDL.  Transfer of an action is
appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience or delay.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge
Caldwell finds that the action involves common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2775, and that transfer
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation,
the Judge held that the District of Maryland was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning
the design, manufacture, marketing, or performance of Smith &
Nephew's BHR system.  The actions in this MDL focus on
complications arising from the use of a cobalt-chromium alloy in
the manufacture of the BHR components.  The Panel also has held
that full hip arthroplasties involving the R3 metal liner — a BHR
component — fall within the scope of the MDL.  Plaintiff in
Caporale alleges that he suffered complications arising from the
metal-on-metal nature of the BHR component (the R3 metal liner)
used in his hip replacement procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/SUV0xU


MDL 2848: Court Remands Gentile v. Merck to Southern Dist. of Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2848, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order remanding GENTILE V. MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
2:20-20000(S.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 2:19-04174) from the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to the Southern District of Ohio.

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., and Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
("Merck") move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally remanding the action (Gentile) to the Southern
District of Ohio, its transferor court.  Plaintiff opposes the
motion to vacate and supports remand.

After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel finds that
remand of this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 is warranted.
As an initial matter, "[i]n considering the question of remand, the
Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge's
determination that remand of a particular action at a particular
time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all,
supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings."

In his suggestion of remand, the transferee judge, the Honorable
Harvey Bartle III, observed that "[t]his MDL now consists of over
1, 300 product liability cases," which he contrasted with the
putative class action claims in Gentile.  He determined that
"Gentile is outside the purview of MDL 2848," and thus suggested
remand, explaining:

"In essence, plaintiff claims that she and the class members were
duped into obtaining Zostavax vaccines in Ohio as a result of false
and deceptive marketing by Merck instating that Zostavax was
effective for long-term prevention against shingles.
Significantly, there are no allegations in the complaint in Gentile
that plaintiff or any putative class member has suffered any
illness or injury, physical or mental, from taking or being
vaccinated with Zostavax.  Simply stated, this is not a products
liability case."

His focus on the absence of personal injury allegations comports
with the Panel's determination in the initial transfer order that
centralization of this litigation was warranted based on "common
factual questions arising out of allegations that Zostavax, a live
vaccine for the prevention of shingles, caused plaintiffs to
develop shingles or other injuries triggered by exposure to the
live, attenuated varicella zoster virus contained in the vaccine."
In other words, the common allegation of personal injuries arising
from exposure to the live virus component of Zostavax is at the
crux of the actions in the MDL.

In opposing remand, defendants assert that (1) Gentile shares
common factual questions with the actions in the MDL as to the
"efficacy" of Zostavax, highlighting numerous factual allegations
in the MDL complaints concerning Zostavax's efficacy; (2)Gentile
thus involves common discovery on core issues such as the
marketing, design, and efficacy of Zostavax; and (3) centralization
of personal injury actions with economic loss class actions
involving the same product is well-supported by precedent and
appropriate here because of overlapping discovery, Daubert issues,
and the transferee judge's familiarity with the subject matter of
this litigation.  Undoubtedly, Gentile presents some factual
overlap with the actions in the MDL, and centralization of product
liability and consumer class action claims in the same MDL often is
appropriate.  However, the record before the Panel indicates that,
nearly two years into this particular MDL, there have been no class
action claims aside from the recently transferred Gentile action.
Thus, although consumer class action claims often will be
appropriate for inclusion in a product liability MDL, "[e]ach
multidistrict litigation is unique, and transferee judges have
broad discretion to determine the course and scope of pretrial
proceedings." This is particularly so where, as here, the
transferee judge finds that a single putative class action is an
outlier among a large number of individual product liability
actions, and the MDL has reached an advanced stage of discovery.
The Panel finds it well within the discretion of the transferee
judge, who undoubtedly is most familiar with whether Gentile would
fit into the MDL pretrial proceedings, to determine that Gentile is
too different from the MDL actions for inclusion.  The Panel
declines to second-guess the transferee judge's considered
determination that Gentile does not belong in the MDL.

Merck also argues that remand is "premature" because the transferee
court suggested remand before conducting pretrial proceedings in
Gentile.  This argument is unpersuasive.  The Panel has remanded
actions within just a few months of transfer where the transferee
judge determined the actions were not within the scope of the MDL.

The Panel repeatedly has emphasized that "[w]hether Section 1407
remand is appropriate for an action in any particular multidistrict
docket is based upon the totality of circumstances involved in that
docket." Here, considering the totality of the circumstances, the
Panel concludes that the transferee court reasonably concluded that
remand of Gentile is warranted.

To the extent that coordination among the MDL actions and Gentile
is appropriate, the Panel encourages the parties to employ various
cooperative efforts which may minimize the risk of duplicative
discovery.  The parties, who are well-familiar with the common
pretrial proceedings, should be able to avail themselves of the
documents and depositions accumulated under Judge Bartle's
supervision of MDL No. 2848, and should direct the transferor court
to any relevant pretrial rulings.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Remand Order is
available at https://is.gd/9DzeRi


MDL 2859: Trujillo v. Zimmer Moved to Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZIMMER M/L TAPER HIP PROSTHESIS OR M/L TAPER
HIP PROSTHESIS WITH KINECTIV TECHNOLOGY AND VERSYS FEMORAL HEAD
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2859, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, TRUJILLO v. ZIMMER
US, INC., ET AL, C.A. No. 3:19-00056, from the District of Nevada
to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that
court, assigned it to the Honorable Paul A. Crotty for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the District of Nevada action (Trujillo) moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to the Southern District of New York for
inclusion in MDL No. 2859.  Defendants Zimmer US, Inc., Synvasive
Technology, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, and Biomet, Inc., oppose
the motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that the Trujillo action involves common questions of fact with
actions transferred to MDL No. 2859, and that transfer will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in the MDL
share factual issues concerning the Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis
(M/L Taper) or the Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv
Technology (Kinectiv) when either is paired with the VerSys Hip
System Femoral Head (VerSys Head).  These issues arise from
allegations "that the interaction (junction) between the titanium
alloy M/L Taper or Kinectiv and the cobalt-chromium alloy VerSys
Head can result in trunnionosis (wear of the femoral head-neck
interface), corrosion, and release of metal debris, which can lead
to the implanted patient suffering metallosis, adverse local tissue
reaction, loss of bone tissue (osteolysis), or other injury, and
requiring revision surgery." The Trujillo action implicates those
same issues.

In her motion to vacate, the Trujillo plaintiff argues that
transfer would inconvenience her and delay the progress of her
action.  These arguments are not persuasive.  The Panel considers
the convenience of the parties and witnesses as a whole in deciding
the issue of transfer.  Further, the record shows that the MDL is
steadily progressing under the transferee judge's active
management.

Plaintiff also argues that MDLs generally favor defendants, and
result in actions being settled for smaller amounts than if the
cases were litigated individually.  Section 1407 transfer, however,
is for pretrial purposes only, and does not force a plaintiff to
settle on terms she deems unfavorable.  If Trujillo is not
resolved, via settlement or otherwise, in the transferee court, it
will be remanded to the District of Nevada for trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/kqxUWo


MDL 2873: New Mexico's AFFFs PL Lawsuit Moved to South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00178, from the District of
New Mexico to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent
of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs the State of New Mexico, by and through the New Mexico
Attorney General Hector H. Balderas, and the New Mexico Environment
Department (collectively, the State) move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the New
Mexico action to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in
MDL No. 2873.  The federal defendants in the New Mexico action did
not respond to the State's motion and are deemed to acquiesce to
it.  Three common manufacturer defendants in the MDL -- Tyco Fire
Products, LP, Chemguard, Inc., and 3M Company -- oppose the motion
to vacate.

The State argues that transfer is inappropriate because it asserts
environmental remediation claims against the United States, rather
than product liability claims against manufacturers or distributors
of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs).  Even so, the New Mexico
action shares common factual questions with the actions pending in
MDL No. 2873.  Like many of those actions, the State alleges that
groundwater near military bases was contaminated through the use of
AFFFs to extinguish aviation fuel fires.  Several actions involving
claims against the United States relating to the use of AFFFs at
Air Force bases have been transferred to or filed in the MDL.
These actions will involve the same or similar discovery relating
to the military's use of AFFFs, as well as the United States'
defenses to liability.  And, while most of the actions in the MDL
involve product liability claims against AFFF manufacturers, a
number of actions involve environmental claims brought by states,
water authorities, or other governmental entities.

Additionally, one of the two Air Force bases named in the State's
complaint is directly at issue in the MDL.  At least four actions
pending in the MDL allege that the Air Force's use of AFFFs at
Cannon Air Force Base contaminated nearby water supplies.  Two of
these actions involve claims against the United States.  The New
Mexico action is likely to share common factual questions and
discovery with these actions.  Centralization will allow
coordinated discovery among all these actions to proceed in a
streamlined and efficient manner.

The State emphasizes that various defenses pertinent to the AFFF
manufacturers, such as the government contractor defense, are not
at issue in the New Mexico action.  The Panel previously rejected
the argument that actions that do not implicate the government
contractor defense are inappropriate for transfer to MDL No. 2873.
In any event, transfer under Section 1407 does not require a
complete identity of factual and legal issues when the action, as
does the New Mexico action, arises from a common factual core.

The State also argues that it will be prejudiced by transfer.  This
argument is not convincing.  Pretrial discovery relevant to the two
Air Force bases at issue in the New Mexico action can take place in
New Mexico.  It is unlikely that any case-specific witnesses will
be required to travel to South Carolina.  Further, transfer to the
MDL will allow for coordination of this discovery with the other
actions in the MDL that assert claims relating to Cannon Air Force
Base.  And, the State's counsel already represents at least one
other plaintiff in the MDL (the State of Vermont).  Transfer thus
is unlikely to place significantly greater costs on the State.
Regardless, even if transfer does pose some inconvenience to the
State, "we look to the overall convenience of the parties and
witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in
isolation."

The pending motions for preliminary injunction and dismissal are
not an impediment to transfer.  These motions may well require
resolution of factual and legal questions present in other actions
pending in the MDL.  Transfer thus will reduce the risk of
inconsistent pretrial rulings.  Moreover, a review of the docket
gives no indication that a ruling by the transferor court is
imminent.  As the Panel stated when it created this MDL, to the
extent the State seeks "unique or time-sensitive injunctive relief
pertaining to its water supplies, [it] can and should raise such
concerns with the transferee court."

Finally, the State contends that transfer under Section 1407 is
inappropriate because it would interfere with its responsibility
for protecting local public health and safety and thus would offend
its state sovereignty.  This argument is curious, given that the
State filed its action in federal court, asserted a federal cause
of action, and names exclusively federal government defendants.
Having done so, the State will not be heard to argue that only
certain federal procedural rules and statutes are applicable to it.
Furthermore, the plain language of Section 1407 applies to all
civil actions.  Had Congress wished to carve out RCRA complaints by
states, it could have done so.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, the Judge
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF
products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial
locations caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local groundwater and
contaminated drinking water supplies.  The actions in the MDL share
factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the
toxicity of PFOA and PFOS and the effects of these substances on
human health; and these substances' chemical properties and
propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/DfmlER


MDL 2913: Breathe DC and Lankford Suits Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring two actions styled: BREATHE DC v.
JUUL LABS, INC., C.A. No. 1:20-00619 (District of District of
Columbia); and LANKFORD v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
4:20-00005 (Eastern District of Tennessee), to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

NJOY, LLC, defendant in an Eastern District of Tennessee action
(Lankford) and Breathe DC, plaintiff in a District of District of
Columbia action (Breathe DC), separately move under Panel Rule 7.1
to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring their
respective actions to the Northern District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 2913.  The Lankford plaintiff opposes the
motion as to his action, and defendant JUUL Labs opposes the motion
as to Breathe DC.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that the Lankford and Breathe DC actions involve common questions
of fact with actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in
the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI
has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner
designed to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or
omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than
cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably
dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI
promotes nicotine addiction." The Lankford and Breathe DC actions
implicate many of those same questions.

In opposition to transfer of Lankford, NJOY argues that its
marketing practices are wholly different from those allegedly
engaged in by co-defendant JLI, and that it has never marketed its
products to children.  These arguments are unpersuasive.  In
seeking to differentiate Lankford, NJOY overlooks the fact that the
Lankford plaintiff alleges indivisible injury caused by his use of
both JLI and NJOY products.  

Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of
factual or legal issues, or a complete identity of parties.
Indeed, the Panel previously has transferred to this MDL other
actions involving additional e-cigarette maker defendants.

NJOY further argues that it would be inconvenienced by transfer.
This argument also is unavailing.  The Panel considers the
convenience of the parties and witnesses as a whole in deciding the
issue of transfer.  The transferee judge has the discretion to
employ separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial techniques to
address any issues specific to NJOY and other non-JLI defendants.

In its motion to vacate, Breathe DC argues that its action is
limited to the issue of whether reasonable consumers in the
District of Columbia would be misled by the labeling of JUUL pods
as either "5.0% nicotine strength" or "3.0% nicotine strength." But
a review of the Breathe DC complaint does not support plaintiff's
narrow characterization of its own pleading, and demonstrates that
the action implicates issues concerning not only JLI's marketing
but also the development and manufacture of JUUL products, as well
as JLI's knowledge.

Although plaintiff's allegations maybe less expansive than those of
some other plaintiffs, transfer under Section 1407 does not require
a complete identity or even a majority of common factual issues.

Breathe DC also argues that it is pursuing a private attorney
general action, rather than a personal injury action or class
action, that it is not seeking monetary relief, and that it likely
will needless discovery than plaintiffs in the MDL.  These
arguments are unconvincing.  The MDL already includes actions
brought by various municipalities and school districts seeking,
inter alia, injunctive relief.  Moreover, the Panel routinely
transfers actions seeking different forms of relief.  As with
Lankford, the transferee judge is free to use separate tracks or
other methods to address any discovery or other issues unique to
the Breathe DC action.

Finally, Breathe DC argues that vacatur is warranted because its
motion for remand to state court is pending before the transferor
court.  The Panel consistently has held, however, that the pendency
of jurisdictional objections does not pose an impediment to Section
1407 transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/CvtMnm


MDL 2936: 8 SMITTY'S/CAM2 Suits Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SMITTY'S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2936, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring eight
actions pending in eight districts to the Western District of
Missouri, and with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Stephen R. Bough for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Common defendants Smitty's Supply, Inc., and CAM2 International,
L.L.C., move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this
litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana or, alternatively,
the Southern District of Texas.  This litigation currently consists
of eight actions pending in eight districts, as listed on Schedule
A.

Plaintiffs in all actions oppose centralization.  In the event that
the actions are centralized over their objection, they suggest the
Western District of Missouri or, alternatively, the District of
Kansas.  Defendants Tractor Supply Company and Orscheln Farm and
Home, LLC, support centralization in the Southern District of
Texas.  Defendant Rural King supports centralization, taking no
position on the appropriate district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.  These putative class
actions share complex factual questions arising from nearly
identical allegations concerning the manufacture, labeling,
marketing, and performance of Smitty's 303 tractor hydraulic fluid
(THF) products, including those made for and sold by CAM2
International.  Plaintiffs in all actions allege that defendants
(1) deceptively marketed the products as meeting John Deere 303
specifications that allegedly became obsolete in the 1970s when an
essential ingredient -- sperm whale oil -- was banned from use; (2)
misrepresented the products' anti-wear and protective benefits; and
(3) used inferior ingredients such as used oils and diluted
additives that caused damage to plaintiffs' equipment.  All actions
further allege that plaintiffs suffered economic losses from buying
an allegedly worthless product or a product worth less than
plaintiffs paid.  Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with
respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In opposing centralization, plaintiffs principally argue that
informal coordination is a practicable and preferable alternative
to centralization.  They assert that informal coordination of
discovery across all actions already is in progress; the vast
majority of common document discovery is complete; and coordination
is readily practicable because plaintiffs in all actions are
represented by the same counsel, and defendants also are
represented by common counsel.  They further argue that
centralization likely would delay proceedings in Zornes, in which
class certification discovery is largely complete and a motion for
class certification is pending.  In response, defendants assert
that informal coordination has been ineffective, describing an
increasing number of substantive discovery disputes, and that
discovery in most actions remains at an early stage.

On balance, Judge Caldwell finds that centralization is preferable
to informal coordination in this litigation.  While the Judge
strongly encourages informal coordination, the record before the
Panel indicates that the development of numerous and significant
discovery disputes will be a significant obstacle to efficient
coordination in this litigation.  For example, defendants assert
that several depositions taken by plaintiffs' counsel in the
District of Kansas Zornes action are duplicative of those taken in
a recently resolved action (Hornbeck) involving the same subject
matter and counsel.  The parties also have been involved in a
protracted dispute over the deposition of an executive level
witness who likely will be common to all actions.  And the
litigation will involve significant expert discovery and Daubert
motions, as to which informal coordination likely will be
inadequate.  Additionally, there are eight actions pending in eight
different states.3All actions remain in discovery, including
Zornes.  Voluntary coordination across these dispersed districts,
especially given the complexity of the factual questions and the
number and nature of discovery disputes, appears problematic.

Judge Caldwell concludes that the Western District of Missouri is
an appropriate transferee forum.  It is centrally located and
easily accessible, making it a convenient forum for this nationwide
litigation.  The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, who presides over the
Graves action on the motion, is familiar with the issues in this
litigation.  He is an experienced jurist with the ability and
willingness to manage this litigation efficiently.  The Panel is
confident he will steer this matter on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/FzyFfN


MDL 2938: 11 Suits vs. Evenflo Co. Moved to Massachusetts Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2938, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring 11 actions pending in
eight districts to the District of Massachusetts and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Denise J.
Casper for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in three actions have filed two separate motions under
28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation.  Movants in two actions seek centralization in the
District of Massachusetts.  Movant in one action seeks
centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  Plaintiffs'
motions include eleven actions pending in eight districts.  The
Panel also has been notified of 17 potentially related actions
filed in eight districts.

All responding parties support centralization.  Plaintiffs in eight
actions and potential tag-along actions support centralization in
the District of Massachusetts.  Defendant Evenflo Company, Inc. and
plaintiffs in seven actions and potential tag-along actions support
centralization in the Southern District of Ohio.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Caldwell finds that the actions involve common questions of fact,
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.  These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that Evenflo misled
consumers to purchase its "Big Kid" booster seats by (1) claiming
the seats were "side impact tested" and exceeded governmental
standards, without revealing that Evenflo created its own test,
which showed that a child seated in its booster could be in danger
in a side impact crash; and (2) failing to inform consumers that
the seats were dangerous for children weighing less than 40 pounds.
Each of these overlapping class actions will 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 District of Massachusetts is an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation.  Ten cases are pending there before the
Honorable Denise J. Casper, an experienced transferee judge.  The
Panel is confident she will steer these cases on an efficient and
prudent course.  Additionally, the District of Massachusetts, where
Evenflo's senior management are located, is an easily accessible
district for this nationwide litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/3CV69C


MEDICAL CENTER: Averts Class Action Over Hospital Liens
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that the Georgia Supreme
Court nixed a putative class action claiming a Columbus hospital
committed fraud by placing liens seeking the full amount of medical
bills on patients, even though the actual negotiated amount billed
and paid may be substantially less.

The decision overturned a trial judge and divided Court of Appeals
panel in the closely watched case, the first of several similar
class actions that had been lined up against Georgia hospitals. The
unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Harold Melton, said the
claims of the proposed class members were too varied to warrant
class status, and should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

"We always felt like The Medical Center was doing what every
hospital across the state has been doing for years," said Hall
Booth Smith partner Paul Ivey Jr.

"It's unfortunate that it took us going all the way to the Supreme
Court to get an opinion settling the issue," said Ivey.

"It just validates that they're doing what they're supposed to do:
file a lien for treatment, let the tort case go through the system,
and when the dust settles the lien is negotiated," said Ivey.

Ivey said he was aware of at least 14 more pending suits that have
been on hold while the issue was resolved.

"It has touched every hospital system in Georgia: Wellstar,
Piedmont, MCCG--it's a major decision for all of them," said Ivey,
who handled the case with firm colleagues Robert Martin Jr. and
Lauren Dimitri, and Troutman Sanders partners Lindsey Mann and
William Withrow Jr.

The plaintiff's team includes Frank Lowrey IV, Michael Terry and
Michael Baumrind of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore and Charlie and
Austin Gower of Columbus' Charles A. Gower P.C.

"While we respect the decision of the court, we continue to believe
that the lien practices challenged in this litigation
disproportionately affect the most vulnerable Georgians, including
uninsured personal injury victims," said Charlie Gower via email.
"We are assessing how best to proceed."

As detailed in court filings, the case revolved around the
hospital's reliance on set prices for procedures according to its
"chargemaster" rate for billing patients.

While everyone is charged that rate on paper, they seldom pay the
full rate because third-party payers, including insurers, Medicare
and Medicaid, usually negotiate a reduced bill.

The named plaintiff, Danielle Bowden, was a passenger in an
Enterprise rental car involved in a wreck in 2011. She was taken to
the The Medical Center, which billed her $24,409 for her treatment
and filed a medical lien attaching to any recovery she might
receive as a result of her injuries.

In 2012, Enterprise offered Bowden its $25,000 policy limits to
settle any claims against it, filing an interpleader action and
paying that amount into the court registry.

Bowden filed a cross-claim challenging the lien as grossly
excessive and not reflective of the actual value of care she
received. The Medical Center subsequently offered to accept $8,333
to settle its claim, but Bowden refused.

Bowden's claims against the hospital included unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
racketeering and deceptive trade practices. An amended complaint
sought class status, adding claims by three other Medical Center
patients who had been uninsured, injured in auto accidents and
subject to hospital liens as class representatives.

Muscogee County Superior Court Judge Maureen Gottfried granted
class certification and denied the hospital's motion for summary
judgment. It appealed both rulings.

In 2018 a Court of Appeals panel splintered, with Presiding Judge
Yvette Miller writing the majority opinion affirming most of
Gottfried's orders but agreeing with the hospital that the
racketeering and deceptive trade practices claims should be
dismissed.

Miller wrote that there was enough commonality among the claims to
support class status because the "common question applicable to all
class members is whether the chargemaster rate, which universally
served as the basis for the lien amount, was reasonable."

Judge E. Trenton Brown concurred in the judgment only and Judge
Steve Goss partially dissented, saying class certification was not
appropriate.

In the June 29 opinion, Melton wrote that the appeals court had
itself conceded the proposed class included insured and insured
patients, those whose liens had been lifted, and those who had
settled their claims and never paid anything.

Such a class is "overbroad in several respects," Melton said, and
determining whether the chargemaster rate was appropriate for all
of them would require an array of questions and answers defeating
commonality.

"Moreover," he wrote, "even if the class were limited to uninsured
patients who had a lien filed at the chargemaster rate against any
potential tort recovery, commonality would still be lacking. Just
because an uninsured patient is billed at the chargemaster rate
does not necessarily mean the charge itself is unreasonable for
that specific patient."

Even if a jury could arrive at some formula for determining a
"reasonable charge," said Melton, determining what that charge is
"still varies from class member to class member and is not subject
to being resolved ‘in one stroke' for the entire class," wrote
Melton.

The opinion also said Gottfried and the Court of Appeals had erred
in denying The Medical Center's motion for summary judgment on the
claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and racketeering
"against hospitals that properly file liens based on standard
chargemaster rates that reflect true market considerations such as
hospital costs." [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Bolanos FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERENICE BOLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-01324-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), alleges that MCM
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff says that on Feb. 8, 2020, she received a collection
letter in Spanish that her Subject Debt was sold to MCM and that
MCM is a "debt collection company" and that MCM "will be collecting
on and servicing your account. She avers that she was confused by
the February 8, 2020 letter because no "offers" were provided
despite the fact that the letter included the phrase "no estamos
obligandos a renovar ninguna oferta realizada", which basically
translates to "we are not obligated to renew any offers provided."

The Plaintiff was worried and confused by MCM's practice of mailing
collection letters inside of envelopes embossed with the words
"INFORMACION IMPORTANTE CERRADA" and ATENCION "ATTENTION
REQUESTED." MCM's use of these words caused the Plaintiff to suffer
anxiety and distress when she read the contents of the letter where
marked in this manner, says the complaint.

MCM is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 997-0471
          E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


MITO'S USA: Barraza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FELIX A. BARRAZA, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. MITO'S USA LLC and CHAIBEN ELIAS KURY,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-61343-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2020)
arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful payroll practices and
procedures in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately May 14, 2017 to
June 30, 2020 as a cook.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately an
average of 45 hours per week but Defendant failed to properly
compensate Plaintiff at the rate of not less than one and one-half
times his regular rate for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per
week.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from
the date of hire.

Chaiben Elias Kury owns and has the operational control over Mito's
USA LLC.

Mito's USA LLC operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 503-5131
          Fax: (888) 270-5549
          Emails: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  yramirez@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com


MOSS NUTRITION: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, West Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MOSS NUTRITION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05178 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) is a civil rights action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the lawsuit contends.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Moss Nutrition Products, Inc. is a nutrition and supplements
company that owns and operates the website,
www.mossnutrition.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

MOTORISTS COMMERCIAL: King Cobra Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned KING COBRA GROUP, LLC, doing business as: COBRA
LOUNGE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons v. MOTORISTS COMMERCIAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
GD-20-06546, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 6, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01012-CB to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Co. operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers automobile, property, umbrella, theft,
life, workers' compensation, and liabilities insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1835 Market Street, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6600
          Fax: (215) 665-8201
          Email: chesser@hgsklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew A. Meyers, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          Burns White Center
          48 26th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 995-3281
          Fax: (412) 995-3300
          Email: mameyers@burnswhite.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeal of Reverse Mortgage Holders Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant of Law.com reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit has nixed a class action challenge to rates
charged for force-placed insurance coverage by a reverse mortgage
company.  Under the so-called filed-rate doctrine, ratepayers may
not bring suits to challenge insurance fees that have been
registered with state insurance regulators, the appeals court
said.

Although the plaintiff-borrowers claim that an alleged kickback
scheme involving their mortgage company violates the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, as well as the federal Truth in Lending Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the ruling
effectively shuts down present and future court challenges to
insurance rates if they were filed with the appropriate regulatory
agency.

In so ruling, the appeals court upheld the lower court's dismissal
of a suit lodged on behalf of holders of reverse mortgages with
Nationstar Mortgage of Delaware, doing business as Champion
Mortgage Co., who allowed their property insurance to lapse and
were required to pay for coverage obtained by the mortgage
company.

The plaintiffs claimed that a 2009 Third Circuit decision in Alston
v. Countrywide Financial distinguished challenges to a lender's
allegedly wrongful conduct from challenges to the reasonableness of
a rate that triggered the conduct. They contended that the court in
Alston found that the filed-rate doctrine did not apply to the
former.

But Chief Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, writing for the panel,
said the plaintiffs misread Alston.

The filed-rate doctrine did not apply in that case, which concerned
mortgage insurance, a type of policy that some mortgage borrowers
with a low down payment are required to buy. The plaintiffs in
Alston claimed that their mortgage company was getting a cut of the
insurance premiums, and claimed they were entitled to statutory
damages under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

"That focus on statutory damages allowed the Alston plaintiffs to
dodge the filed-rate doctrine," Smith wrote, joined by Circuit
Judges Michael Chagares and David Porter.

Alston holds that the filed-rate doctrine's reach can be
circumscribed by legislation that gives individuals a private right
of action, and the plaintiffs in that case weren't seeking damages
tied to the amount of an alleged overcharge, Smith wrote.

"In  contrast, these borrowers do seek damages tied to the amount
of an alleged overcharge: they seek damages caused by
‘unreasonably high force-placed insurance premiums.' . . . By
extension, they functionally challenge the reasonableness of rates
filed with state regulators," Smith wrote.

"Today, we reiterate that the filed-rate doctrine brooks no
distinction between, on one hand, challenging a filed rate as
unreasonable and, on the other hand, challenging an overcharge
fraudulently included in a filed rate," Smith said.

There is no fraud exception to the filed-rate doctrine, which seeks
to preserve the exclusive role of agencies in approving rates by
keeping courts out of the rate-making process, Smith added.

The plaintiffs contended on appeal that, even if the filed-rate
doctrine derails their claims under RICO and state laws, their TILA
claims should be spared from dismissal because that statute
provides remedies that can be awarded without the need to assess
the reasonableness of any filed rate. But they never made that
argument in the District Court, so they forfeited the point before
the Third Circuit, Smith wrote.

The Third Circuit upheld a decision by Senior U.S. District Judge
Anne Thompson, who found that the plaintiffs' claims were blocked
by the filed-rate doctrine.

The plaintiffs were represented by Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf in
Lakewood and the Moskowitz Law Firm of Coral Gables, Florida.

"The order gives us even more appreciation that we were able to
obtain final approval in 31 separate, nationwide force placed class
action settlements, making available almost $2.2 billion [] for 3.2
million homeowners, all across the country. We certainly knew this
appeal would be an uphill battle, but we thought we owed it to our
clients and all of the Nation[s]tar homeowners," Adam Moskowitz, of
the Moskowitz Law Firm, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an
email.

Nationstar was represented by Clyde & Co. Lawyers for Nationstar
didn't respond to requests for comment. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Dotson FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Luis Dotson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Luis Dotson v. Nationwide Credit Inc., et al., Case
No. 2-18-cv-16779, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., is a collection agency with its principal
place of address located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Nationwide Credit
regularly collects and attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts
allegedly owed to others, which were incurred primarily for
personal, family or household purposes.

The appellate case is captioned as Luis Dotson v. Nationwide Credit
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3695, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LUIS DOTSON, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason R. D'Agnenica, Esq.
          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Evan W. Lehrer, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: jdagnenica@kimlf.com
                  ykim@kimlf.com
                  elehrer@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Ronald I. LeVine, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD I. LEVINE, ESQ.
          210 River Street, Suite 11
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 489-7900
          Facsimile: (201) 489-1395
          E-mail: ron@ronlevinelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC. is represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: 908-237-1660
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NAVITELIA INDUSTRIES: Crena Sues Over Unsolicited Text & Email Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CRENA, Plaintiff v. NAVITELIA INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a
OXYBREATH PRO, and d/b/a DRESIDE, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-22744-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged illegal
practice of sending countless unsolicited, automated messages in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous unsolicited
text messages to his number ending in 0376 on or before April 15,
2020 from Defendant in an attempt to promote its products and
without Plaintiff's authorization. Despite Plaintiff's
un-subscription and request to stop sending him text messages,
Defendant sent Plaintiff another text messages at 2:07 a.m. that
woke Plaintiff up, and an email advertising its products on May 28,
2020.

The complaint asserts that Defendant's relentless texts messages to
Plaintiff's number without Plaintiff's authorization have invaded
his privacy and were an intense interference with his life and
business.

Navitelia Industries, Inc. does business worldwide through its
online stores at oxybreath.club and dreside.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo A. Maura, Esq.
          Luis F. Quesada Machado, Esq.
          AYALA LAW, P.A.
          1390 Brickell Ave., Ste 335
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: 305-570-2208
          Email: eayala@ayalalawpa.com

                - and –

          Jorge Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
          GARCIA MENOCAL, PASTORI & IRIAS LLP
          368 Minorca Ave
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Tel: 305-400-9652
          Email: jgm@gmilaw.com

                - and –

          Felipe Fulgencio, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW PLLC
          105 S Edison Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33636
          Tel: 813-463-0123
          Email: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Green-Robinson Filed in Gulino Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's judgment
entered on October 17, 2019, 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 of
Education, Case No. 19-3926, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Sharae Green-Robinson is represented by:

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

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

          Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
          INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2400
          E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Gyms Threaten Class Action Over Unfair Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------
WIVB reports that the state is keeping gyms closed and now the
owners of these businesses are considering a class-action lawsuit
against the governor.

Erica Dix is one of the owners of Anytime Fitness in Jamestown. She
says the governor is treating gyms unfairly compared to other
businesses.

"It's like he has his own personal agenda. Because some of the
things he's saying that gym owners have to do no other businesses
had to do, including Walmart and Wegmans and Home Depot that have
been open this entire time. His excuse right now is those air
conditioning units, all those stores have air conditioning and
there hasn't been any issue whatsoever."

The governor's office has not given any time table about when gyms
can re-open.

An administration spokesperson, Jack Sterne, released a statement
on June 23:

"New Yorkers sacrificed for months to bend the curve of this deadly
virus, and thanks to our data-driven, phased reopening we are
restarting our economy while maintaining this progress. While we
can not comment on a lawsuit that has not even been filed yet,
every decision we make is based on data and expert analysis, and we
are continuing to study how and when indoor gyms and fitness
centers can open safely. New Yorkers need to remember we are still
living in a global pandemic--and as states around the country are
showing, acting recklessly will only lead to a slower reopening for
everyone while putting more of our neighbors in harms way." [GN]


NEW YORK: Proposed Class Action Seeks Reopening of Gyms
-------------------------------------------------------
CBSNewYork reports that gyms, fitness centers, health clubs, and
yoga studios claim COVID-19 protocols are in place to keep both
members and employees safe.

Owners are fighting Albany for the right to immediately reopen.

But would you feel safe going back to your indoor gym? CBS2's
Jennifer McLogan talked to people on both sides of the issue on
June 30.

"Personally, I wouldn't have a problem going to a gym," one Long
Islander said.

Across the area, gym owners want to hear that and many are signing
on to a class action lawsuit demanding they be included in Phase 4
of New York's reopening plan.

"We've spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to fortify the
club and be COVID compliant," said Dennison Silvio of Sportset
Health & Fitness in Rockville Centre.

Sportset is among those with a comprehensive safety plan, including
advanced computerized temperature screenings, ultraviolet
sterilization, vaporized heat cleaning, and it removed most of the
treadmills and stair climbers.

"We have 12 pieces of cardio equipment up there six feet apart,"
Silvio said.

"What we are simply asking is the state, the governor, work with
the local counties, local townships, to allow these businesses to
reopen," Hempstead Town Supervisor Don Clavin said.

Medical experts worry about the indoor spread of coronavirus during
sweating, even with masks.

"If you're on a treadmill, an elliptical, a stationary bicycle or
breathing hard, you're expelling many more droplets, aerosols that
might be virus laden," CBS2's Dr. Max Gomez said.

"We all know what we're talking about with the big box gyms. Our
facility is strictly one-on-one personal training," said George
Mifsud of G2 Training in Syosset.

Personal trainers say they should be deemed essential. They can
train outdoors, too.

"Stress and anxiety and depression are at an all-time high right
now," said G2's Gregoria Myer.

Not everyone shares the same enthusiasm to see gyms reopen soon.

"So much breathing going on, I wouldn't go to a gym right now," one
person said.

"I think it would be too risky," another added.

And there's one more thing to worry about. Legal experts say if
your gym remains closed, you should be exempt from paying dues.
However, if it reopens and strictly follows local and state
guidelines, you are most probably bound by your contract.

For now, many fitness centers are allowing members to pause or
freeze their memberships.

A spokesman for Gov. Andrew Cuomo said government is "continuing to
study how and when indoor gyms and fitness centers can open safely.
New Yorkers need to remember we are still in a global pandemic."
[GN]


NINTENDO: President Apologizes for Joy-Con Drift Issue Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Wood, writing for GamesRadar+, reports that Nintendo
president Shuntaro Furukawa apologized for the ongoing issues
affecting Nintendo Switch Joy-Con controllers, the most notable
being those infamous drifting analogue sticks, in a recent
financial Q&A.

"Regarding the Joy-Con, we apologize for any trouble caused to our
customers," Furukawa said (translated by Kotaku) "We are continuing
to aim to improve our products, but as the Joy-Con is the subject
of a class-action lawsuit in the United States and this is still a
pending issue, we would like to refrain from responding about any
specific actions."

Furukawa never calls out Joy-Con drift by name, but there's little
doubt as to what "trouble" he's referring to. Especially since he
highlights the class action lawsuit regarding Joy-Con drift which
was filed against Nintendo in the US in July 2019, and later
expanded to include Nintendo Switch Lite issues.
Joy-Con drift is still very much a problem, and this is perhaps the
first time a Nintendo executive has officially apologized for it.

Joy-Con drift is such a ubiquitous problem that Nintendo updated
its Switch troubleshooting forum specifically to call it out. There
are a few home remedies for how to fix Joy-Con drift, but for many
users, recalibrating or resetting a controller merely delays their
inevitable RMA. And even after sending their controller in for
repairs, drift often returns within weeks or months. Newer
generations of Joy-Cons have yet to do away with the drift issue,
but it's certainly not too late for Nintendo to finally stamp it
out. [GN]


NORTH CAROLINA: 11 Butner FCC Inmates Withdraw Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
STL News reports that eleven inmates housed at the Federal
Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina ("FCC Butner")
voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP") officials seeking release from prison as a result
of the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to court documents, the federal inmates, who are
represented by several advocacy groups, filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction on behalf of themselves and a purported class of current
and future medically vulnerable inmates.  The inmates alleged
violations of their Eighth Amendment rights related to FCC Butner's
response to the COVID-19 crisis, and sought relief including mass
release or transfer of inmates from FCC Butner in order to
facilitate social distancing.  BOP officials filed substantial
responses detailing the significant steps BOP and FCC Butner have
taken to manage the crisis at FCC Butner.

On June 11, 2020, United States District Court Judge Louise W.
Flanagan denied the inmates' motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction, finding that the BOP officials
made reasonable efforts toward the goals of preventing unnecessary
illness and death and slowing the spread of the virus, that the
claims were not appropriate under a habeas petition, and even if
they were, the inmates failed to show a likelihood of success on
the merits or that equity and public interests favor a temporary
restraining order.  On Monday, the inmates filed a stipulation of
dismissal essentially withdrawing their remaining claims.

Robert J. Higdon, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
North Carolina commented: "Effectively managing prisons is a
complex and difficult job on any day, but especially so in the
midst of a global pandemic which affects so many people both inside
and outside of the prison system.  We are gratified that the court,
in its ruling denying the inmates' request for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction, recognized the
efforts that officials at FCC Butner have made to minimize the risk
of virus infection to the prisoners while doing their usual
excellent job at maintaining order and ensuring the safety of the
public in operating these critical facilities.  I fully support the
professional way in which that the FCC Butner officials continue to
maintain the safety and security of the individuals housed within
their institutions and the responsible manner in which they are
managing the COVID-19 crisis."

Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Bredenberg, Genna D.
Petre, Christina Kelley, Mallory Brooks Storus, and Assistant U.S.
Attorney Joshua Rogers defended the case on behalf of the BOP
officials.  [GN]


NUTANIX INC: Russell Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Denied Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Russell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutanix, Inc. and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV366943 (Cal. Super., June 8,
2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or
permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit
required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, unfair competition, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Nutanix is a cloud-computing company that sells software, cloud
services and software-defined storage where Russell was employed as
a Commercial Account Manager. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
             swong@aegislawfirm.com
             khaque@aegislawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
      Zachary Gershman, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APLC
      777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90021
      Telephone: (213) 358-7046
      Email: jon@lebelaw.com
             zachary@lebelaw.com


NVIDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Crypto GPU Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Haig, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that major
manufacturer of graphics processing units (GPUs) and computing
hardware Nvidia has filed a motion to dismiss a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleging that the firm misrepresented more
than $1 billion in sales during 2017 and 2018.

In addition to its popular 'GeForce' and 'GTX' products--favored by
both gamers and crypto miners--Nvidia launched a GPU specifically
designed for virtual currency mining dubbed 'Crypto SKU' in May
2017.

However, Nvidia reported only its Crypto SKU sales as having been
made to cryptocurrency miners, and investors claim this
misrepresented $1.126 billion in other sales as having been driven
by demand from the gaming market.

In the motion to dismiss, Nvidia asserts that statements issued by
its executives made it clear to investors at the time that it was
impossible to know the exact purpose for which customers were
purchasing the GPUs.

Nvidia rejects amended complaint from investors
Nvidia cites an August 16, 2018 earnings call in which the firm's
founder and chief executive Jensen Huang stated "whether they buy
it for mining or do they buy it for gaming, it's kind of hard to
say" in regards to the firm's GeForce GPU sales.

As such, Nvidia claims that its executives did not lie when they
described crypto sales as representing a "small" portion of its
revenue, as alleged in the amended lawsuit.

The firm also emphasizes that the original complaint was dismissed
due to the allegations relying "entirely" on a report produced by
Prysm Group--with the court rejecting the suit on the basis of the
plaintiffs' failure to plead in favor of the "assumptions and
analysis" laid out in the Prysm report.

Amended complaint relies on flawed data
Similarly, Nvidia asserts that the amended complaint fails by
relying on the findings from a 2018 report into the impact of
crypto mining on the firm's sales that was authored by consulting
firm Jon Peddie Research:

"The Jon Peddie estimate rests on a host of unidentified and
unexplained assumptions and inputs, which the [first amended
complaint] does not allege that Prysm investigated at all. This
renders Prysm's analysis even less reliable than before."

The firm also claims that the complaint selectively quotes its
executives to mischaracterize states made concerning its GPU sales,
and fails to address shortcoming previously identified by the
judge. [GN]


OAKLAND, MI: Measures to Improve Hygiene & Safety at Jail Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMAAL CAMERON, RICHARD BRIGGS, RAJ LEE, MICHAEL
CAMERON, and MATTHEW SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL BOUCHARD, CURTIS
D. CHILDS, and OAKLAND COUNTY, Defendants, Civil Case No. 20-10949
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order requiring the
Defendants to utilize the measures to improve hygiene and safety at
the Oakland County Jail.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint, raising
grave concerns about the conditions in the Oakland County Jail in
the face of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  The
Plaintiffs are Oakland County Jail pretrial or convicted detainees.
They seek to represent a class of all current and future Oakland
County Jail detainees, as well as the following subclasses:

  a. The First Subclass (Pre-trial Subclass) is defined as All
     current and future persons detained at the Oakland County
     Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have not
     yet been convicted of the offense for which they are
     currently held in the Jail.

  b. The Second Subclass (Post-conviction Subclass) is defined as
     All current and future persons detained at the Oakland County

     Jail during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic who have been

     sentenced to serve time in the Jail or who are otherwise in
     the Jail as the result of an offense for which they have
     already been convicted.

  c. The Third Subclass (Medically-Vulnerable Subclass) is defined

     as: All members of the Jail class who are also over the age
     of fifty or who, regardless of age, experience an underlying
     medical condition that places them at particular risk of
     serious illness or death from COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for TRO in which they
ask the Court to order (a) the release of members of the
Medically-Vulnerable Subclass pending briefing and argument, and
(b) the undertaking of certain measures to improve hygiene and
safety at the Jail.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' Complaint and pending motion, Judge
Parker is granting at this time the Plaintiffs' request for a TRO
requiring the Defendants to utilize the measures set forth below to
improve hygiene and safety at the Jail.  The Judge, however, is
without sufficient information to rule on the Plaintiffs' request
to release all members of the Medically-Vulnerable Subclass and is
scheduling a hearing to address that request.  

The Judge has considered the following factors in deciding whether
to issue the TRO: (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury absent a stay, (3) whether granting the stay
would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public
interest would be served by granting the stay.

For purposes of her decision, the Judge is accepting the
allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and its attachments as
true without briefing or evidentiary submissions by the Defendants.
The Judge is not making a finding of wrongdoing on the part of any
Defendant and no Defendant is deemed to have waived any defenses to
the action.  The Judge is acting without notice to the Defendants
because she finds that any delay will increase the risk of serious
physical harm to the Plaintiffs.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the
merits of their claim alleging that jail conditions violate their
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The Plaintiffs'
allegations reflect that Oakland County has not imposed even the
most basic safety measures recommended by health experts, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Michigan's Governor
to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in detention facilities.  She
cannot be disputed that COVID-19 poses a serious health risk to the
Plaintiffs and the putative class.

The Plaintiffs also are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an
injunction, as they face a heightened risk of contracting the
life-threatening virus simply as incarcerated individuals and even
more so without the imposition of these cautionary measures.
Entering an injunction requiring the Defendants to adopt the safety
precautions set forth below poses no harm to them other than
potentially increased costs and energy, which are insufficient to
justify a denial of the Plaintiffs' motion.  It is always in the
public interest to prevent the violation of a party's
constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Defendants will as soon as
practicable undertake, among other things, these minimum measures:

-- Ensure that each incarcerated person has free access to liquid

    soap, paper towel, disinfectant, 60% alcohol, showers and
    clean laundry;

-- Ensure that all Jail staff wear personal protective equipment;


-- Establish protocol through which an incarcerated person may
    self-report symptoms of COVID-19 infection and to evaluate
    those symptoms, including temperature monitoring;

-- Conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying known symptoms

    of COVID-19;

-- Provide adequate spacing of six feet or more between people
    incarcerated, to the maximum extent possible, so that social
    distancing can be accomplished;

-- Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19, with
    symptoms of COVID-19, or having been exposed to COVID-19
    receive adequate medical care and are properly quarantined;

-- Effectively communicate to all people incarcerated, including
    low-literacy and non-English-speaking people, sufficient
    information about COVID-19, measures taken to reduce the risk
    of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices to
    reasonably ensure that individuals are able to take
    precautions to prevent infection;

-- Train all staff regarding measures to identify inmates with
    COVID-19, measures to reduce transmission, and the Jail's
    policies and procedures during the crisis (including those
    measures contained in the Order);

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 17, 2020 Amended
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/lIe36L from
Leagle.com.


OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Faces Lindner Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE.
The case is styled as Steven J. Lindner, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE, Case No.
2:20-cv-08290 (D.N.J., July 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Occidental College is a private liberal arts college in Los
Angeles, California. Founded in as a coeducational college in 1887
by clergy and members of the Presbyterian Church, it became
non-sectarian in 1910. Occidental College is one of the oldest
liberal arts colleges on the West Coast of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Court Denies Stein's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RON STEIN AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01100-LY
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hightower entered an order:

   1. denying, without prejudice, the Plaintiff's opposed motion
      for conditional certification and notice to the putative
      class members; and

   2. giving Mr. Stein until August 25, 2020, to file an amended
      motion for conditional certification of collective action
      and for notice to putative class members addressing the
      deficiencies.

The Court held that Mr. Stein has failed to satisfy the Lusardi
analysis by demonstrating a reasonable basis for believing that a
class of "similarly situated" persons exists. Mr. Stein does not
explain how the goals, work guidelines, or work schedules for the
class of ISR-Enterprise employees required them to work more than
40 hours per week without compensation, or how management
encouraged them to work uncompensated overtime. His allegations are
simply too vague to reach a conclusion that the proposed class
members performed the same basic tasks as part of their employment
and were subject to the same pay decisions, policies, or practices.
Without more "identifiable facts," the Court cannot conclude that
the proposed class members are similarly situated, such that
hearing the cases together would promote judicial efficiency.

Office Depot is an American office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, United States. The company
has combined annual sales of approximately $11 billion, and employs
about 38,000 associates with businesses in the United States.[CC]


OHIO: Martin Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to Sixth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Martin filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit styled Robert Martin v. Jane Doe, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02188, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio at Toledo.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of
suit is stated as Prisoner: Civil Rights.

Lyneal Wainwright is the Deputy Warden at Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Martin v. Jane Doe, et
al., Case No. 20-3049, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT MARTIN, on behalf of others Similarly
situated, who is currently incarcerated at the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction, in Orient, Ohio, appears pro
se.[BN]


OHIO: S.C. Reverses Appeals Ct. Ruling in Medicaid Recouping Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Trevas, of the Ohio Supreme Court Office of Public Information,
in an article on The Highland Press, titled "class action improper
to challenge recouping Medicaid money from personal injury
lawsuits", wrote Ohio law now requires a Medicaid recipient to use
an administrative appeals process when claiming the state recouped
too much of the money a recipient received from a third-party
wrongdoer, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week.

A Supreme Court majority reversed an Eighth District Court of
Appeals decision that allowed the certification of a class-action
lawsuit by injured Medicaid recipients, who maintained the state's
Medicaid recovery law is unconstitutional.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Judith L. French stated
Ohio lawmakers established an administrative appeal process as the
"sole remedy" in disputes with the state regarding Medicaid
recovery from civil lawsuits.

The Court's decision directed the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court to determine if some of the potential members of the
class-action lawsuit could still maintain class-action status.
Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Sharon L. Kennedy,
Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Melody J. Stewart joined
the opinion. Justice Michael P. Donnelly concurred in judgment
only.

Michael A. Pivonka and Lisa Rijos were the named plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit filed to declare that a Medicaid reimbursement
law was unconstitutional. Medicaid was created by federal law in
1965 and is jointly funded by state and federal governments to
cover the medical costs of low-income and disabled individuals.

Pivonka was on Medicaid when he was injured by someone, and
Medicaid paid for Pivonka's medical bills. In 2012, Pivonka reached
a settlement with the wrongdoer who injured him. Citing the version
of R.C. 5101.58 in effect at the time, the Ohio Department of Job
and Family Services sent a demand letter to Pivonka notifying him
that under the "subrogation statute," the state could recoup the
amount of Medicaid funds it paid for his injuries. The department
collected $7,108 from his settlement with the wrongdoer.

Rijos was on Medicaid when someone injured her. A jury awarded her
damages in 2013 from the accident. The department collected $703 of
the verdict award paid by the wrongdoer.

In 2013, Pivonka and Rijos sought to certify a class comprised of
anyone who, under the subrogation statute, had to pay back Medicaid
funds to the department from April 6, 2007, to the present without
the requirement of a court order.

The department disputed the formation of the class, arguing R.C.
5101.58 was constitutional. The department also maintained the
updated version of the law after it was amended in 2015 required
those who disputed the repayment to use an administrative
procedure.

The trial court rejected the state's arguments and ruled that some
of the arguments could be raised after the class-action lawsuit
commenced. The state appealed the decision to the Eighth District,
which affirmed the trial court's decision.

The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the
case.

This opinion explains how the Medicaid law was adjusted after U.S.
Supreme Court decisions regarding Medicaid reimbursement laws
passed by other states. Medicaid requires each state to adopt a law
giving the state the right to recover certain costs paid by
Medicaid that should have been paid by other sources.

When a wrongdoer injures a Medicaid recipient, the wrongdoer may be
required to pay the medical costs for the injured recipients. When
the costs are not paid by the wrongdoer, Medicaid pays the medical
bills. Under the federal requirement, if the Medicaid recipient
files a personal lawsuit against the wrongdoer, a portion of any
settlement or award received by the recipient can be tapped by the
state to recover the Medicaid funds used to pay the medical costs.

Other states, including Arkansas, had Medicaid subrogation statutes
similar to Ohio's. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a
portion of the Arkansas subrogation law. Although no court declared
Ohio's R.C. 5101.58 invalid, state lawmakers amended the law in
2007 to avoid having the same issue as Arkansas.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of North
Carolina's Medicaid subrogation law, which also was similar to the
revised Ohio law. Ohio changed the law in 2013, and again in 2015.
The 2015 version contained provisions of the subrogation law that
gave the state the automatic right to recover medical costs from
personal-injury lawsuits without getting a court order first.

The law presumed the state was entitled to half the amount of any
award after attorney fees, legal expenses and other litigation
costs were paid. The 2015 version added a provision that allowed
the Medicaid recipient to challenge the presumption through an
administrative proceeding operated by the department. If the
recipient disputed the department's final decision about how much
it could recover, the person could appeal the department's decision
to the common pleas court.

"The administrative process is, by its own terms, the 'sole remedy'
available to those individuals," the opinion stated.

Pivonka and Rijos argued they and the class members should not be
required to follow the administrative procedure because the process
allowing the state to recoup the money without a court order is
unconstitutional and the department was not entitled to recoup any
money.

The Court stated the class members cannot circumvent the
administrative process by raising a constitutional challenge in
common pleas court. Rather, the constitutional challenge can be
raised after the recipient goes through the department's appeals
process. Then, the appeal reaches the common pleas court, the
opinion concluded.

Because part of the changing Medicaid law did not apply to those
who repaid money between April 6 and Sept. 28, 2007, the Supreme
Court directed the trial court to determine whether those
recipients could maintain an action in the common pleas court. [GN]

PACIFIC PREMIER: Fahmia Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Fahmia, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., Pacific
Premier Bank and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,, Case No.
20-cv-00965 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), seeks compensation for
processing PPP loans, for services rendered on behalf of recipients
of loans under the CARES Act, for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and for violation of the California Business &
Professions Code.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.

Fahmia, Inc. is an accounting practice from Torrance, California.
It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of
its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Lenders
upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was
denied these fees after the loans were released, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
      Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
      18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
             mmv@mccunewright.com
             tqn@mccunewright.com


PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Settlement in Hoverson Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HOVERSON, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAN-O-GOLD BAKING COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-817 (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  The Court directed the consummation of its terms and
provisions.  The Settlement Agreement is binding on the Defendant
and the Named Plaintiff, as well as all the class members who have
not filed timely exclusions.

The Class Counsel is awarded costs and attorneys' fees in the total
amount of $144,150.63.  The enhancement payment of $3,000 to the
Named Plaintiff is approved.

The Lawsuit and the Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed on the
merits with prejudice, and barring and permanently enjoining, to
the fullest extent of applicable law, the Named Plaintiff and all
the class members (aside from those filing timely and valid
requests for exclusion) from pursuing any claims that were released
against the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/r3tjfH from Leagle.com.


PARADIES SHOPS: Bailey Seeks to Certify Employees FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KEMONI BAILEY, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. THE PARADIES SHOPS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02610-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective defined as:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees,
      including hourly managers, of Defendant who were scheduled
      to work 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks during
      the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and
      continuing through the final disposition of this case";

   2. implementing the Plaintiff's proposed procedure, including
      a 90-day opt-in period, whereby Court-approved notice of
      FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to the
      members of the class as requested; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the full names, dates of employment, locations worked, job
      titles, last known home addresses, phone numbers, and
      personal email addresses of all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time from three
      years preceding the filing of this Motion through the
      present.

This case involves the Defendant's meal deduction policy. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant deducts thirty minutes from
its hourly, non-exempt employees’ daily hours worked for meal
breaks that are either never taken or that are interrupted with
work duties. The Plaintiff also alleges that this policy deprives
the Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees of their hard-earned
overtime pay.

Paradies Shops offers retail and concessionaire services. The
Company operates stores and establishments located in airports and
hotels offering from traditional newsstand to specialized gift
shops.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

PARAGON COIN: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2017 ICO
---------------------------------------------------------
Debra Borchardt, writing for Green Market Report, reports that
Paragon Coin had big plans to become a cannabis bitcoin company and
in a 2017 ICO (initial coin offering) the company raised $70
million. Fast forward to today and the company is facing a class
action suit claiming that Paragon violated federal securities
laws.

United States District Court Judge Jeffrey White granted the
plaintiffs' motion-in-part on federal claims. Yet, he also denied
applications for state-level allegations that were filed by several
non-California-based investors.

Paragon Coin originally faced a lawsuit filed against the brand and
its owners Jessica VerSteeg and her husband Egor Lavrov for
allegedly violating Securities law with regards to the Paragon
Initial Coin Offering (ICO).

The lawsuit stated that approximately between August 15, 2017,
through October 16, 2017, the defendants raised at least $70
million in digital cryptocurrencies by offering and selling
unregistered securities in direct violation of the Securities Act.
It also stated that on November 2, 2017, Paragon ICO investors
received an email updating them that during the Paragon ICO "crowd
sale" they had collected 533 BTC and 8,092 ETH— worth
approximately $7.3 million and $10.2 million, respectively, as of
January 12, 2018. Unfortunately, these amounts did not include any
of the cryptocurrencies they collected during the Paragon ICO
"presale."

Capital For Real Estate

At the time, the plaintiff was upset that some of the money raised
was being used to acquire real estate even though it was stated
that it would be a goal. In Paragon's white paper it said, "[t]he
lion's share of the token crowdsale [sic] proceeds will be spent on
real-estate acquisition." The plaintiff expected that its
investment would increase in value and now wants to be repaid what
was invested. So, how much did Davy invest?

Plaintiff invested in the Paragon ICO on September 21, 2017,
September 23, 2017, September 28, 2017, September 30, 2017, October
3, 2017, and October 15, 2017, by transmitting 0.04095 BTC, 0.03975
BTC, 0.57855 ETH, 0.0231 BTC, 0.03495 BTC, and 0.04579484 BTC,
respectively, to Defendants.

Paragon Settles in 2018
Paragon did settle in 2018 when the SEC said that Paragon raised
approximately $12 million worth of digital assets to develop and
implement its business plan to add blockchain technology to the
cannabis industry and work toward legalization of cannabis. The SEC
statement wrote that Paragon did not register its ICO pursuant to
the federal securities laws, nor did it qualify for an exemption to
the registration requirements.

Paragon's Headaches Continue
Even though Paragon settled with the SEC, the investors are still
upset as they apparently haven't received anything.  However, Judge
White notes that the lawsuit alludes to the company selling the
tokens over the Internet. The judge added, "Plaintiffs concede
there may be class members in all 50 states and concede that laws
governing the state law claims at issue differ among jurisdictions
in such a way that a true conflict exists."

Cannabis Law Report said that, "While the suit argues that
ParagonCoin claimed to have issued PRG from its headquarters in
California, Judge White noted that "the ICO giving rise to
plaintiffs' claims and purchases of PRG tokens were conducted over
the internet."

"Plaintiffs concede there may be class members in all 50 states and
concede that laws governing the state law claim at issue differ
among jurisdictions in such a way that a true conflict exists," the
judge added. [GN]


PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Request for Class Action Dismissal OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2020, Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication Corporation
Ltd. ("Bezeq"), a 26.34% subsidiary of B Communications Ltd. (the
"Company"), reported to the Israel Securities Authority (the "ISA")
and Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (the "TASE") concerning the final
dismissal by the Israeli Supreme Court of a request for a class
action suit against Bezeq's subsidiary, Pelephone Communications
Ltd., on June 24, 2020. [GN]

PERRIGO CO: Appeals Decision in Roofer's Suit
---------------------------------------------
Defendants Judy Brown, Joseph C. Papa and Perrigo Company PLC filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled ROOFER'S
PENSION FUND, et al. v. PAPA, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-02805, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2,
2020, Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied the Defendants' petition
for leave to appeal challenging the certification of the tender
offer class in the consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
Company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).  The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders
for the period from April 21, 2015, through May 11, 2016,
inclusive.

The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange
Act Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b) and 14(e) against both the
Defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015, through
November 13, 2015. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015, through May 11, 2016.

The appellate case is captioned as Perrigo Institutional Investor,
et al. v. Joseph Papa, et al., Case No. 19-8047, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent PERRIGO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR GROUP,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is
represented by:

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 973-597-2500
          E-mail: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents PERRIGO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR GROUP,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and
ROOFERS PENSION FUND, On behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Michael T.G. Long, Esq.
          SEDGWICK
          101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-597-2500
          E-mail: mlong@lowenstein.com

Plaintiff-Respondent ROOFERS PENSION FUND, On behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael B. Himmel, I, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          One Lowenstein Drive
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-597-6172
          E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant-Petitioner JOSEPH C. PAPA is represented by:

          Goutam U. Jois, Esq.
          Marshall R. King, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: 212-351-4000
          E-mail: mking@gibsondunn.com

Defendant-Petitioner PERRIGO CO PLC is represented by:

          Alan S. Naar, Esq.
          GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP
          P.O. Box 5600
          Metro Corporate Campus One, Suite 4
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: 732-476-2530
          E-mail: anaar@greenbaumlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner JUDY BROWN is represented by:

          Brian T. Frawley, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-558-4000
          E-mail: frawleyb@sullcrom.com

Defendants-Respondents LAURIE BRLAS GARY M. COHEN, JACQUALYN A.
FOUSE, MICHAEL R. JANDERNOA, GERALD K. KUNKLE, JR., HERMAN MORRIS,
JR., and DONAL O'CONNOR are represented by:

          Jane J. Felton, Esq.
          Jonathan W. Wolfe, Esq.
          SKOLOFF & WOLFE, P.C.
          293 Eisenhower Pkwy.
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 992-0900
          E-mail: jfelton@skoloffwolfe.com

Defendant-Respondent MARC COUCKE is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Brady, Esq.
          WILMERHALE
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-295-6261
          E-mail: kenneth.brady@wilmerhale.com

Respondent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:

          Nathan Brenner, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 3700
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: 202-509-2649

               - and -

          Elizabeth Gudis, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          601 D Street, N.W.
          Patrick Henry Building
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: 202-598-8808


PILGRIMS PRIDE: UFCW Sues Over Decline in Market Value of Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A,
the Trustees of Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A – Pension
Fund, the Trustees of Retirement Plan for Officers, Business
Representatives and Office Employees of Local 464A, the Trustees of
Local 464A Finast Full Time Employees Pension Plan, the Trustees of
Local 464A Welfare and Pension Building Inc., and the Trustees of
New York-New Jersey Amalgamated Pension Plan for ACME Employees,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, JAYSON J. PENN, WILLIAM W. LOVETTE,
and FABIO SANDRI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01966 (D. Colo., July 6, 2020),
is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Pilgrim's Pride common stock
between February 9, 2017, and June 3, 2020, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
damages suffered due to the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock.

Throughout the Class Period, in annual reports and earnings calls,
the Defendants touted the Company's competitive strengths,
advantages, and market positioning, which the Defendants claimed
had been achieved through legitimate business strategies, such as a
broad product portfolio and disciplined capital allocation.

On June 3, 2020, however, investors learned the truth about the
source of the Company's competitive advantages when the United
States Department of Justice announced criminal charges (the
"Indictment") against two Pilgrim's Pride high level executives
(including its current Chief Executive Officer) and two other
executives in the chicken industry, alleging that they and other
unnamed co-conspirators had participated in an illegal antitrust
conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as
2012 and continuing through at least early 2017. On this news, the
price of Pilgrim's Pride common stock declined $2.58 per share, or
approximately 12.4%, from a close of $20.87 per share on June 2,
2020, to close at $18.29 per share on June 3, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts, about the Company's business and
operations. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its executives had
participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices and
rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and continuing through at
least early 2017; (2) the Company received competitive advantages,
which persisted during the Class Period, from its anticompetitive
conduct; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have suffered
significant damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Pilgrim's Pride common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Pilgrim's Pride, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Greeley,
Colorado, is one of the largest chicken producers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel S. Neckers, Esq.
          Nora Ali, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 244-1966
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          Email: neckers@wtotrial.com
                 ali@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          Karissa J. Sauder
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          Email: namjed@ktmc.com
                 dcheck@ktmc.com
                 rdegnan@ktmc.com
                 ksauder@ktmc.com


PITTSBURGH, PA: Faces Class Suit Over Police Response to Protests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that several
participants in anti-racism protests earlier in June have sued
Pittsburgh and numerous city officials over excessive police
tactics, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, to break
up the otherwise peaceful demonstrations.

The lawsuit is likely the first case to be filed in Pennsylvania
over the widespread protests, which often led to high-profile
police crackdowns, including in Philadelphia where the mayor and
police commissioner recently apologized for using tear gas on
protesters who were marching on a restricted-access highway.

The proposed class action, captioned Rulli v. City of Pittsburgh,
was filed on June 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. The complaint focuses on protests that
occurred earlier in June, and broadly alleges that police's excess
tactics violated their rights and led to significant injuries.

"On June 1, 2020, people from Pittsburgh and surrounding
communities assembled in the East Liberty neighborhood of the city
of Pittsburgh to add their voices to these nationwide protests and
seek change locally," the 42-page complaint said. "The Pittsburgh
Bureau of Police responded by escalating a peaceful protest into a
scene of pandemonium, panic, violence and bloodshed."

The eight plaintiffs in Rulli include a 13-year-old who was injured
by the gas and temporarily separated from his parents, a trained
international human rights observer who was detained overnight, and
a man who had to have numerous stitches to his wrist after being
dragged while handcuffed in zip ties.

The suit alleges the city officials, including Mayor Bill Peduto,
violated the First and 14th amendments, as well as the Fourth
Amendment's protections against excessive force and unlawful
arrest.

Peduto's press office did not immediately return a call seeking
comment.

Attorney Quinn Cozzens of the Abolitionist Law Center, who, along
with Margaret Coleman of The Law Offices of Timothy P. O'Brien, is
lead plaintiffs counsel, said it made sense to file the lawsuit as
a collective action, given the number of people who may have been
injured at the June 1 protest. (According to the complaint, there
should be at least 100 eligible class members.)

"Because of the sheer number of people who were there and the
similarity in what their experiences were …. we felt that the
class action was the most appropriate because of the scope of the
violence and brutality the police unleashed here," Cozzens said.

The lawsuit focuses on events that occurred at about 6:30 p.m. near
the intersections of Centre and Negley avenues. According to the
complaint, protesters were marching peacefully, about two hours
before a citywide curfew was set to take effect.

The complaint, which included links to numerous videos and
photographs of the police clashes alluded to, said police formed a
line and began telling protesters to disburse. Although protesters
did not disburse, they did not do anything to provoke the police
either, the complaint said. However, police allegedly began
shooting tear gas, rubber bullets and smoke bombs at the
protesters, allegedly injuring many.

The complaint said many protesters became trapped between
approaching police lines and thick clouds of tear gas. Officers
also began firing indiscriminately into the clouds of tear gas and
smoke, the complaint said. According to the complaint, the decision
to use tear gas and to detain the protesters increased their
chances of contracting COVID-19.

Although 22 people were eventually arrested and brought to the
Allegheny County jail, all of the charges against protesters that
day were dropped.

The complaint also said police used disparate force on the
protesters when compared to another protest that happened downtown
in spring where numerous people came to voice frustrations over
Gov. Tom Wolf's decision to order a statewide shutdown in an effort
to stem the spread of COVID-19. The complaint mentioned that many
of those protesters openly carried guns, but they were not met with
police violence.

"The unarmed and peaceful June 1, 2020, protesters posed less of a
threat of 'substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or
alarm' to the residents of the city of Pittsburgh than the heavily
armed April 20 protesters," the complaint said.

Defense counsel has not yet entered an appearance in the case.
[GN]


PJ CHEESE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Pollard Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BENJAMIIN POLLARD, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PJ CHEESE, INC. d/b/a
"Papa John's Pizza", Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00175 (E.D. Tenn.,
June 26, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged flawed automobile
reimbursement policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Delivery Driver from
approximately May 2016 to January 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendant required its delivery drivers
to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured
automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. Although
Defendant reimburses delivery drivers on a pre-delivery basis, but
Defendant's pre-delivery reimbursement policy equates to below the
IRS business mileage reimbursement rate that is less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses such
as gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance
services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses during their
delivery duties, thereby failing to compensate them of the federal
minimum wage.

PJ Cheese, Inc. owns and operates numerous Papa John's Pizza
franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          Website: https://foresterhaynie.com/jay-forester/


PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Appeals Ruling in Bandril Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Plastikon Industries, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Arlene Bandril v. Plastikon
Industries, Inc., Case No. 20-80015, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

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

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 22,
2019, the Defendants filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case
No. RG19038227), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on November 12, 2019. The clerk of court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07439. The case is assigned to Richard Seeborg.

Plastikon Industries Inc. manufactures plastics products. The
Company offers injection molding, mold design and build, part
decoration and assembly, contract manufacturing, thermoforming, and
rotational molding services. Plastikon Industries serves medical,
automotive, and electronics industries.

The appellate case is captioned as Arlene Bandril v. Plastikon
Industries, Inc., Case No. 20-80015, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ARLENE BANDRIL, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com

Defendant-Petitioner PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Don Willenburg, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 463-8600
          E-mail: dwillenburg@grsm.com


PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC. and WILLIAM YOUNG,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00667-O (N.D. Tex., June
26, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Technician at Defendants'
plastic production and processing facility from approximately 2014
through March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked five 12-hour
shifts every week or about 60 hours every week during his
employment with Defendant. However, Defendant did not compensate
Plaintiff at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
of the hours worked over 40 hours per week, thereby failing to pay
him overtime pursuant to the FLSA.

William Young is the owner, president and CEO of Plastik Packaging,
Inc.

Plastipak Packaging, Inc. manufactures and recycles rigid plastic
containers for major brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Ste 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          Emails: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresthaynie.com

                - and –

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, TX 75093
          Tel: (972) 403-3330
          Email: jillwlfirm@gmail.com


PLAYAGS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 30 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
PlayAGS, Inc. ("PlayAGS" or "the Company") (NYSE:AGS) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between  August 2,
2018 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 24, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. PlayAGS was experiencing severe
challenges in its Oklahoma business. These challenges were likely
to negatively impact the Company's recurring revenue. The Company
was also experiencing trouble with its interactive business
segment, such as delays in securing regulatory approvals. These
challenges were likely to result in the Company recording a
goodwill impairment. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about PlayAGS,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Jones Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY LYNN JONES,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-01083, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Norfolk) on June 30, 2020.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00349-AWA-DEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.

The lawsuit seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Portfolio Recovery provides debt recovery and collection services.
The Company specializes in contingency collections for national
credit card issuers, consumer lenders, telecommunications
providers, retail credit stores, healthcare, utilities, and
commercial accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq.
          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cliff@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Peter Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darin Shreves, Esq.
          Ogletree Deakins, Esq.
          PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 410-2219
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: darin.shreves@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Patrick Francis Hulla, Esq.
          Yasmin A. Mohammad, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com
                  yasmin.mohammad@ogletree.com


POST CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, PETER TUCKER, Plaintiff, v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03993-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Tucker brings the putative class action alleging that the
branding and packaging of the Defendant's "Honey Bunches of Oats"
cereal falsely and deceptively conveyed that honey was a primary or
significant sweetener, when in fact, refined substances were the
primary sweeteners.  The operative complaint alleges three causes
of action for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"); California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

The Defendant manufactures and markets varieties of breakfast
cereals known as "Honey Bunches of Oats."  These cereals are sold
to the public in rectangular boxes containing 13 ounces or more of
cereal and individual serving "to go" cups containing 2.25 ounces
of cereal.  The front of each package is materially identical.  The
package depicts a large yellow-orange circle simulating a radiating
sun, emblazoned with the words "HONEY BUNCHES OF OATS" and showing
a wooden honey dipper dripping honey, and towards the bottom of the
package is the outline of a bee trailing a broken line indicating
flight.

The Plaintiff alleges the branding and packaging of the cereal
convey to consumers that honey is a primary or significant
sweetener, as compared to sugar and other refined substances that
are perceived as unhealthy.  In support of the claim, he points to
an August 2019 survey of more than 400 consumers, in which 68% of
respondents believed honey was the cereal's primary sweetener and
79.5% believed honey was one of the cereal's three main ingredients
based on the front packaging.  He alleges that in fact, the product
is sweetened using various combinations of white sugar, brown
sugar, corn syrup, malted barley syrup, molasses, and honey, with
honey consistently being the least or second-least prominent
sweetener.

The Plaintiff most recently purchased Honey Bunches of Oats on Jan.
16, 2019.  He alleges that he purchased and consumed the cereal
based on the branding and packaging, which led him to believe the
cereal was primarily or exclusively sweetened with honey and that
honey was one of the top three ingredients in the cereal.  He
alleges that he would consider purchasing the cereal again if the
labeling were accurate.

The Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the action on July 11,
2019.  On Aug. 16, 2019, the Court entered a joint stipulation to
stay the case pending a decision on a motion to dismiss filed in
Lima v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-12100-ADB (D.
Mass.), which the parties agreed would resolve some or all of the
claims in this case, or, at a minimum, would be instructive and
helpful to resolving the similar factual and legal claims in the
case.  The Lima court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On
Sept. 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
case.  

The Defendant moves to dismiss all three claims on the grounds
that: (i) the branding and packaging at issue comply with the
Federal Drug Administration ("FDA")'s flavor labeling and
misbranding regulations, and thus, the Plaintiff's claims are
preempted; (ii) no reasonable consumer would understand the Honey
Bunches of Oats packaging to make a representation about the amount
of honey in the cereal; and (iii) the Plaintiff lacks standing to
seek injunctive relief because he does not plausibly allege that he
will be deceived in the future.  The Defendant also argues that
even if the Court finds the Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief
under the CLRA, his FAL and UCL claims fail because he has an
adequate remedy at law.

At this juncture, Judge Rogers cannot find, as a matter of law,
that honey is the "primary recognizable flavor" in the Defendant's
cereals, such that the labeling at issue is permitted under section
101.22(i) and the Plaintiff's claims are preempted.  Nor can the
Judge conclude, based on the Plaintiff's allegations alone, that
honey is a sweetener in the cereals.  Whether honey is a "primary
recognizable flavor, sweetener, or both is a factual determination
not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.   Also, at
the pleading stage, the Judge cannot second guess the truth of the
Plaintiff's allegation that he purchased the Pefendant's cereal
because of the promise of honey as a sweetener.  Thus, the
Plaintiff's claims are not preempted under section 101.22(i).

Next, the Plaintiffs allege that the brand name "Honey Bunches of
Oats" and the images on the cereal's packaging deceptively convey
that honey is a primary or significant sweetener in the cereal.
There is no dispute that the cereal contains some honey, and in
that sense, certain aspects of the packaging could be considered
accurate.  In applying the reasonable consumer standard, however,
the packaging must be considered in context.  

The Court holds that although the package does not make any
objective representations about the amount of honey in the cereal,
a reasonable consumer could see the prominent honey-related words
and imagery and be deceived into thinking the cereal contained
relatively less refined sugar and more honey.  If so misled, the
reasonable consumer is not expected to pick up the product and
examine the fine print on the ingredient list.  Finally, while the
consumer survey described in the amended complaint cannot, on its
own, satisfy the reasonable consumer test, it provides further
support for the Plaintiff's position.  At this stage of the
proceedings, the Court must accept the Plaintiff's allegations as
true and must not engage in the weighing of the evidence.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims on the
ground that no reasonable consumer would understand the Honey
Bunches of Oats packaging to make a representation about the amount
of honey in the cereal is denied.

The Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that he was deceived by
the front of the Honey Bunches of Oats packaging and that he may
purchase the cereal again in the future if the label is accurate.
Absent injunctive relief, the Plaintiff would not know whether
honey is in fact a significant sweetener in the Defendant's product
based on the front of the cereal box.  Nor is the onus on the
Plaintiff to consult the ingredient list to try to discern this
fact.  The Plaintiff's inability to rely on the honey-related words
and images prominently featured on the front and top of the cereal
box constitutes an ongoing injury for which the Plaintiff may seek
injunctive relief.  As such, the Defendant's request to dismiss the
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied.

Finally, the Court considers whether the Plaintiff's FAL and UCL
claims should be dismissed because the CLRA provides him with an
adequate remedy at law.  The Court holds that the Plaintiff's FAL
and UCL claims are not subject to dismissal on the ground that the
Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law under the CLRA.  With
respect to the UCL, the Court holds that Business & Professions
Code section 17205 expressly provides that remedies available for a
UCL violation are cumulative to each other and to the remedies or
penalties available under all other laws of this state.  As for
FAL, the availability of monetary damages does not preclude a claim
for equitable relief under the FAL based upon the same conduct.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Rogers denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  

Further, a case management conference will be set for July 20, 2019
at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland in
Courtroom 1.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/o4onYM from Leagle.com.


PRECISION 2000: Garcia-Robelo et al. Seek Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SERVANDO GARCIA-ROBELO, EDUARDO GARCIA-ZAVALA, GILBERTO
GARCIA-ZAVALA, HUGO PEREZZAVALA, and SALVADOR MARTINEZ-BARRERA,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. PRECISION 2000, INC., CASA PROPERTIES, LLC, GUIOMAR
OBREGON, individually, CARLOS FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, individually, and
MAURICIO LANCHEROS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02841-MLB-JKL (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2020) is an action brought
by the Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid wages and damages owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA
Section 201 et seq., and specifically the collective action
provision of Section 216(b), to remedy Defendants' violations of
the FLSA related to unlawful wage deductions for alleged housing
expenses.

Plaintiffs also bring claims for unlawful retaliation under Section
215(a)(3) of the FLSA, breach of contract and the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and race and national origin
discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Plaintiffs have
also filed charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
that are pending at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") for which Right to Sue Notices have not yet been issued.
Plaintiffs plan to amend the Complaint to assert Title VII claims
upon issuance of their Notices of Right to Sue.

According to the complaint, the Precision 2000 recruited and
contracted Plaintiffs from Mexico to temporarily relocate to
Georgia and work construction jobs under the H-2B temporary foreign
workers visa program. The named Plaintiffs left their homes and
families and spent considerable money and effort to come to the
United States to perform arduous work, which the Defendants
certified to the federal government that domestic U.S. workers were
not willing to do. During their recruitment abroad, Defendants
promised to pay Plaintiffs wages that complied with federal and
state law, and contracted with them to provide affordable housing
during their temporary stay in the United States. These promises
were false. Upon arrival, Defendants forced Plaintiffs to pay
exorbitant rent for substandard, overcrowded, and often sweltering
housing in buildings owned by Defendants. Plaintiffs' domestic
worker counterparts were not subjected to these abhorrent
conditions.

Plaintiffs complained to Precision 2000's management about the
housing conditions and excessive rental charges, which effectively
reduced their wages to subminimum rates, and asked to be allowed to
secure their own housing. Defendants refused, making clear that the
housing -- a side, profitmaking business for Defendants'
construction enterprise -- was a condition of the workers' jobs.
When Plaintiffs continued to complain, Defendants threatened the
workers with removal to Mexico, and ultimately fired them before
the expiration of their work contracts, in violation of federal
anti-retaliation laws and in breach of contract.

Precision 2000, Inc. is a Georgia-based civil infrastructure
construction company that contracts to work on projects involving
airport infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and related
projects, including work on runways, taxiways, walkways, roads, and
highways. Precision 2000 also does repairs on historical,
governmental, recreational, medical, and office buildings.

Casa Properties, LLC is an entity affiliated with Precision
2000.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Berlin, Esq.
          Benjamin Georgia, Esq.
          BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street NE Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 781-1100
          Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
          E-mail: rberlin@buckleybeal.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Richard Botts, Esq.
          Julie Pittman, Esq.
          CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE, INC.
          10 E. North Avenue, #9
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (855) 234-9699
          Facsimile: (443) 817-0806
          E-mail: ben@cdmigrante.org
                  julie@cdmigrante.org

PRECISION DRILLING: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Tyger FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rodney Tyger and Shawn Wadsworth filed an appeal from a
court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Rodney Tyger, et al. v.
Precision Drilling Corp, et al., Case No. 4-11-cv-01913, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Rodney Tyger, et al. v.
Precision Drilling Corp, et al., Case No. 20-1070, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RODNEY TYGER, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated; and SHAWN WADSWORTH, on behalf of himself and
those similary situated, are represented by:

          Nicholas D. George, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: ngeorge@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Appellees PRECISION DRILLING CORP, PRECISION DRILLING
OILFIELD SERVICES INC., and PRECISION DRILLING CO LP are
represented by:

           Michael C. Crow, Esq.
           NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
           1301 McKinney Street
           Fulbright Tower, Suite 5100
           Houston, TX 77010
           Telephone: (713) 651-5218
           E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com

                - and -

           Mark T. Phillis, Esq.
           LITTLER MENDELSON
           625 Liberty Avenue
           EQT Plaza, 26th Floor
           Pittsburgh, PA 15222
           Telephone: (412) 201-7636
           E-mail: mphillis@littler.com


PREFERRED APARTMENT: Ciccone Files Suit for Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Ciccone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Preferred Apartment Communities,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-61127 (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2020),
seeks statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit resulting from breach
of contract and unjust enrichment and for violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc. owns and operates private
student housing communities at or near colleges and universities
throughout Florida, including The Retreat at Orlando next to the
University of Central Florida, where Ciccone, leased an apartment
for her daughter who is enrolled for the Fall 2019 top Summer 2020
academic school year.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities throughout
Florida have closed. University campuses had to be vacated to
preserve the safety of the students including dormitories. Ciccone
executed Lease Agreements with the Preferred Apartment Communities
but did not receive the bargained-for-services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Peerce Howard, Esq.
      Heather H. Jones, Esq.
      Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
      4030 Henderson Boulevard
      Tampa, FL 33629
      Telephone: (813) 500-1500
      Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
      Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
             Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
             Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

             - and -

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      Raymond S. Franks, II, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      Email: JBarrett@baileyglasser.com
             RFranks@baileyglasser.com


PRO TEETH: Faces Class Action Over Dental Products with Charcoal
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the maker of
dental care products with charcoal in them can't prove they help
customers, a June 22 class action says.

Chelsea Roussel filed the case in Rhode Island federal court
against Pro Teeth Whitening Co. LTD, which manufactures a line of
dental products containing activated charcoal. Claims that the
products are safe on enamel, freshen breath and brightens
discoloration can't be verified, the suit says.

"Pro Teeth did not (and does not) possess the requisite evidence to
substantiate its claims concerning the benefits and safety of its
charcoal dentifrices, as such evidence did not exist at the times
it made its claims," the lawsuit says.

"Nor does it currently exist."

The lawsuit points to dental journal articles that found no
evidence charcoal helps mouths, with one worrying that it is a
"marketing gimmick."

Oklahoma City firm Federman & Sherwood is pursuing the case, along
with Hultquist Law of Providence. [GN]


PROASSURANCE CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded ProAssurance
Corporation (PRA).  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.

PRA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7748&wire=1

ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)

PRA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 26, 2019 -
May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7748&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
ProAssurance Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked
adequate underwriting process and risk management controls
necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C
segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large
national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding
the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii)
as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk
of financial loss and reserve charges.

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 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.

Contact:

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


RASH CURTIS: $89MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Perez Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IGNACIO PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, among other things, granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys'
fee, costs, and expenses and service award for Perez.

Plaintiff Perez commenced the putative class action against
Defendant Rash Curtis & Associates alleging that it called him and
the class members without consent, in violation of several laws.
The case arises from Rash Curtis' alleged violations of the (i)
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); (ii) Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); and (iii) the California
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On May 13, 2019, a jury verdict was entered that each member of the
classes will recover from the Defendant the amount of $500 per call
made in violation of the TCPA, for an aggregate award in favor of
the classes of $267,349,000.  While the sum is large, the math was
not, namely $500 for each of the calls identified in the evidence,
presented to the jury.

In response to the Court's order from the bench on May 13, 2019,
the parties filed proposed final judgments on May 15, 2019.  Perez
proposed a form of final judgment on the issues decided by the
jury, and did not include any then outstanding or remaining issues
to be decided.  Rash Curtis submitted a letter brief stating that
any judgment that could be entered at this point in time would only
be partial, not disposing of all claims, and thus not final.  As of
that date, Perez still maintained that the purported violations
were willful and knowing within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(3)(C), and Rash Curtis argued that the statutory damage
amount as applied here was unconstitutional.  Thus, Rash Curtis
requested that final judgment be held in abeyance while the parties
negotiate settlement before Magistrate Hixson.

On Sept. 9, 2019, Perez withdrew the claim that defendant violated
the TCPA "willfully or knowingly," and requested that the Court
enters final judgment in the form that was previously submitted.
That same day, the Court entered Perez's previously submitted
proposed final judgment as the final judgment in the case.

On Sept. 23, 2019, Perez filed the motion for attorneys' fees.  On
Oct. 7, 2019, Rash Curtis filed the motion to alter or amend, and
the motion to reconsider.  After receiving a letter brief from
plaintiff on Oct. 15, 2019, the Court stayed briefing on all
then-pending motions, and indicated that the briefing schedule
would be reset at the subsequent status conference to be set the
week of Oct. 21, 2019.  The Court reset the briefing for these
motions, and heard these motions, including a motion for approval
of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the class members, on Nov.
17, 2019.  At the hearing, the Court granted Perez's motion for
approval of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the class members.

On Jan. 21, 2020, Rash Curtis filed the motion to vacate which the
Court heard on Feb. 26, 2020.

Hearings on the motion were held on Nov. 18, 2019 and Feb. 26,
2020.

The parties' briefing identifies four issues, namely whether: (1)
Rash Curtis meets the standards for altering or amending the final
judgment; (2) the judgment should be amended to reflect that Rash
Curtis prevailed on the TCPA claim for willful and/or knowing
violations and on the request for injunctive relief; (3) the
judgment should be amended to reflect the claims on which Rash
Curtis prevailed at the summary judgment stage; and (4) the
judgment should be amended to state that any residue of the class
damages award which are not claimed by a member of the class is
released back to the Defendant.

Judge Rogers finds that Rash Curtis is appropriately advancing
arguments under Rules 59 and 60.  Rash Curtis argues that the Court
erred in entering the form of judgment proposed by the Plaintiff
and the class counsel in May 2019.  In other words, Rash Curtis is
arguing either that the motion is necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact, the motion is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice, and to correct mistakes resulting from using the
Plaintiff's proposed form of judgment.  As discussed at the Nov.
18, 2019 hearing, the Court admits that it erred in accepting the
proposed final judgment form from Perez, without awaiting or
permitting any response from Rash Curtis, despite the Court's
routine practice to the contrary.  The Court's admission, coupled
with Rash Curtis' arguments, plainly satisfies the standards
required by Rules 59 and 60.  Thus, Judge Rogers finds that the
motion is appropriately brought under Rules 59 and 60.

Perez's argument as to the willful and knowing claim do not
persuade.  As indicated on the record, the Court's acceptance of
Perez's proposed form of judgment was in error, and in no way
reflected the Court's granting of Perez's withdrawal of his willful
and knowing claim through amendment of the operative complaint.
Thus, the Judge dismisses with prejudice Count I for the willful
and knowing violation of the TCPA.

Regarding the withdrawal of the request for injunctive relief, Rash
Curtis' arguments do not persuade.  The request for injunctive
relief was not a separate claim in the operative complaint, but one
of several remedies requested by the Plaintiff and the class based
on the four claims.  Rash Curtis cites no authority demonstrating
the appropriateness of amending the judgment to include the
disposition of such a remedy.  

Accordingly, Judge Rogers: (1) grants Rash Curtis' request to amend
the judgment to reflect the dismissal with prejudice of Count I,
the willful and/or knowing violations of the TCPA claim;1 and (2)
denies Rash Curtis' request to amend the final judgment with regard
to Perez's request for injunctive relief.  Thus, the final judgment
will be amended to reflect that Count I, the knowing and/or willful
violation of the TCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Rash Curtis requests to amend the final judgment to reflect that it
succeeded at summary judgment on the claims brought under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 et. seq. and Cal. Civ. Code. Sections 1788.11(d) and
(e).  Perez opposes Rash Curtis' request to amend the judgment to
reflect Rash Curtis' success at summary judgment.

The Court holds that Perez's arguments do not persuade.  First,
Perez's cited authority is inapposite, where such authority
concerns the appealability of issues raised in the district court.
Second, Perez does not articulate any specific harm or compelling
reason against permitting the amendment, especially where it would
accurately reflect the disposition of issues and claims decided
earlier in the case.  Accordingly, Judge Rogers grants Rash Curtis'
request: the final judgment will be amended to reflect that Rash
Curtis succeeded at summary judgment on the claims brought under 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et. seq. and Cal. Civ. Code. Sections
1788.11(d) and (e).

Rash Curtis' request to amend the final judgment to include a
residue statement, which would contradict the common fund created
in the TCPA action.  Thus, in light of the foregoing, the Court
granted in part and denied in part Rash Curtis' motion to amend or
alter.

Turning to Rash Curtis' motion to overturn or reduce the damages
verdict, it raises three issues, namely whether: (1) the law of the
case" bars Rash Curtis from raising arguments about the
unconstitutionality of the TCPA as applied; (2) the award is
statutorily excessive; and (3) the award is unconstitutionally
excessive.

The Court concludes that (i) Rash Curtis' arguments as to the
constitutionality of the award are not barred by the "law of the
case" doctrine; (ii) the statutory language of the TCPA is
unambiguous and nothing in the language suggests that the damage
amount was meant to be read as "up to" $500 as Rash Curtis
suggests, and the motion to reconsider on the ground that the award
is statutorily excessive; and (iii) Rash Curtis again cites to the
same authority to argue that the award is unconstitutional as a
grossly excessive punishment, hence the award is unconstitutionally
excessive and the motion to reconsider is denied.

Rash Curtis' motion to vacate requests that the Court issues an
order setting aside the judgment and terminating the case in Rash
Curtis' favor; or, alternatively, issue an order granting a new
trial; or, alternatively, issue an order vacating the judgment and
granting further relief as deemed appropriate by the Court pursuant
to Rule 60 and the Court's inherent authority pursuant to Chambers
v. NASCO, Inc.

Among other things, the Court finds that the Defendant fails to
meet the demanding standard required under Rule 60.  Many of the
identified grounds have already been adjudicated by the Court in
prior orders, and the grounds in the motion to vacate are nothing
more than requests to reconsider, and without meeting any of the
standards required for reconsideration.  Rash Curtis fails to
demonstrate how materials submitted in posttrial briefing would
require the Court to vacate the verdict reached by the jury at
trial.  Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the Judge denies
Rash Curtis' motion to vacate.

Finally, in their motion for attorneys' fees, the class counsel
requests attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third (33.33%) of the
$267,349,000 class award, totaling approximately $89,116,333.33.
The Class counsel further seeks to recover expenses for nontaxable
expenses, in the amount of $277,416.28.  Finally, the class counsel
requests a service award for Perez in the amount of $50,000.

The Judge holds that upon objective consideration of the five
foregoing factors, he finds that the factors weigh in favor of an
upward departure from the 25% benchmark to the requested 33% rate.
Concluding that 33% is a reasonable percentage, and that the
lodestar crosscheck reveals a reasonable multiplier, the Judge
grants the class counsel's requests for attorneys' fees based on
one-third of the percentage of the judgment ($89,116,333.33).  The
Judge also grants the class counsel's requests for non-taxable
costs, in the amount of $277,416.28.

Finally, the Court finds that while Perez is entitled to a service
award, the amount requested is beyond the scope of what she finds
appropriate for Perez in these circumstances.  The Court recognizes
that Perez has been actively participating in the litigation for
several years, and has spent time and effort in the matter,
including being deposed and testifying at trial.  However, the
Court finds that Perez's showing on these facts does not
demonstrate that he is entitled to a service award in the amount of
$50,000. In light of the totality of circumstances, the Judge in
her discretion finds that a service award in amount of $25,000 --
an amount that is on the higher end for a service award in the
district -- is more appropriate.  Thus, the Court grants in part
and denies in part the request for a service award for Perez.

In sum, Judge Rogers:

   (1) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's  motion
      for an award of attorneys' fee;

   (2) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant' to alter
       judgment or amend the judgment in its favor;

   (3) denied the Defendant's motion to reduce, reconsider, amend,

       or vacate the judgment's unconstitutionally excessive
       damages; and

   (4) denied the Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment and
       for terminating sanctions based upon misconduct of counsel,

       or, in the alternative, for new trial, or further relief as

       determined by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/JR5pSD from Leagle.com.


RESPONSE MARKETING: Fabricant et al. Sue over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESPONSE MARKETING
GROUP, LLC, D/B/A SNAP FLIP; SCOTT YANCEY; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-05739 (D. Utah, June 26, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Response Marketing Group LLC provides marketing communications and
advertising solution services. The Company offers comprehensive
range of inbound and outbound call center services to create a
complete end to end solution. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RET PLANS: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Judgment in ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
June 22, 2020, the Second Circuit reinstated its judgment entered
pursuant to its initial opinion in an Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") class action after the Supreme Court
vacated the decision. Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of IBM, No.
17-3518 (2d Cir. June 22, 2020). The Supreme Court remanded the
action earlier this year in order for the Second Circuit to decide
whether to consider in the first instance certain arguments raised
for the first time before the Supreme Court. On remand, the Second
Circuit reviewed additional submissions from the parties as well as
amici and reinstated its original decision, holding that the
arguments raised in the supplemental briefs either were previously
considered or were not properly raised and thus forfeited.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit's prior opinion stands, holding
that plaintiffs adequately pled that employee stock option plan
("ESOP") fiduciaries violated their duty of prudence by not
disclosing, earlier, insider information they allegedly possessed
that, when subsequently disclosed, allegedly led to a stock price
drop.

As set forth in the Second Circuit's initial opinion, plaintiffs,
participants in an ESOP provided by a technology company (the
"Company"), alleged the plan fiduciaries violated their duty under
ERISA to manage the plan's assets prudently, because they knew but
failed to disclose that a certain division of the Company, and thus
the Company's stock, was allegedly overvalued. Plaintiffs further
alleged that, when the true value of the division was ultimately
revealed when the Company announced the sale of that division, the
Company's stock dropped. Plaintiffs brought suit in the Southern
District of New York, and the District Court dismissed both the
complaint and amended complaint in 2017 after holding that
plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a violation because a prudent
fiduciary could have concluded that disclosing this alleged
information previously would have done "more harm than good," based
on the Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014). In Fifth Third, the Supreme
Court determined that a duty‐of‐prudence claim may be brought
against ESOP plan fiduciaries who allegedly "behaved imprudently by
failing to act on the basis of nonpublic information that was
available to them because they were [corporate] insiders." The
Supreme Court noted that the duty of prudence cannot require an
ESOP fiduciary to violate the securities laws, including concerning
insider trading and corporate disclosure requirements. The Court
further indicated that to determine whether a plaintiff has
adequately pled that a fiduciary violated the duty of prudence, a
court must, among other elements, assess the alternatives available
to the fiduciary and consider if the complaint plausibly alleged
that a "prudent fiduciary in the defendant's position could not
have concluded [that those alternatives] would do more harm than
good to the fund by causing a drop in the stock price and a
concomitant drop in the value of the stock already held by the
fund."

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit, arguing
that, as to the "more harm than good" element, the standard applied
by the District Court was more stringent than that set forth in
Fifth Third. The Second Circuit examined this question but
ultimately found it unnecessary to determine whether the District
Court had applied a stricter standard, because the Second Circuit
found that plaintiffs plausibly pled a duty‐of‐prudence claim
even under this standard. The Second Circuit noted that, in
discussing the "more harm than good" analysis, the Supreme Court
appeared to set forth two arguably inconsistent tests: (1) "what an
average prudent fiduciary might have thought" regarding whether the
alternatives would do more harm than good; or (2) "whether any
prudent fiduciary could have considered the action to be more
harmful than helpful" (emphases added). The Second Circuit observed
that lower courts have been split as to how to interpret which of
the two tests "determine whether a plaintiff has plausibly alleged
that the actions a defendant took were imprudent in light of
available alternatives." However, the Second Circuit concluded that
it did not need to decide which of the two standards was correct,
because it found that plaintiffs plausibly pled a duty-of-prudence
claim even under the more restrictive formulation, based on
plaintiffs' allegations that: defendants allegedly knew that the
Company's stock was artificially inflated through accounting
violations; defendants allegedly "had the power to disclose the
truth"; a "reasonable business executive could plausibly foresee .
. . the disclosure of a longstanding corporate fraud would reflect
badly on the company"; the Company's stock allegedly traded in an
efficient market; and defendants allegedly knew that disclosure of
the truth regarding the division at issue was inevitable, because
the Company was likely to sell the business, at which point the
alleged overvaluation would be revealed to the public. Accordingly,
the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. That reversal and
remand -- vacated by the Supreme Court -- have now been reinstated.
[GN]


RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces Jones FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Merchants
Association, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Heather Jones, also
known as: Heather Dempsey, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Retail Merchants Association, Inc., John Doe
1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-01029-SOH (W.D. Ark., July 6, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Retail Merchants Association, Inc., is involved in the business of
collecting delinquent debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


RIMROCK ENGINEERING: Judge Okays $3.45MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billings Gazette reports that a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit filed by residents of three Billings subdivisions was
approved on June 30.

Yellowstone County District Judge Gregory Todd approved the $3.45
million settlement to be split by residents of the far West End
neighborhoods who claim their homes and their value have been
damaged by the negligence of engineers who worked on the
developments.

The subdivisions included Copper Ridge, Reflections at Copper Ridge
and Falcon Ridge, and the suit names Rimrock Engineering, Rawhide
Engineering, and Robert Kukes.

The case, however, is not closed, the plaintiff's lead attorney
John Heenan said on June 30.

"This money won't make them (homeowners) anywhere near whole," he
said. "We'll continue to investigate. Other people have
responsibility and we'll continue to pursue it."

As many as 661 homeowners remained in the class action suit, after
two homeowners opted out, according to court documents.

The judge found the settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate."
Claim forms will be sent to class members in late July or early
August, said Heenan.

The engineering firms failed to properly address concerns raised in
an earlier geotechnical engineering report for the subdivision that
identified "hydro-collapsible" soil in the area and called for
further investigation, according to the plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the agreement, money would be distributed among
663 homeowners according to a formula awarding more in cases where
homeowners can document property damage.

Everyone who lives in the subdivision is covered, under the idea
that even without damage to their home property values could sink
due to their proximity to the homes with collapsing foundations.

Seth Cunningham, an attorney for Rimrock Engineering, said earlier
in the case the proposed settlement was not an admission of
liability but that it would benefit everyone involved.

"The parties involved agreed that it was in their best interests to
move past this matter given the limited amount of insurance funds
available," Cunningham wrote. [GN]


RYDER SYSTEM: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)
("Ryder" or "the Company") and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ryder
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/r.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) failed to disclose that 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 by such a degree that the Company ultimately took a
$357 million depreciation charge in 2019 related to Ryder's
reduction of its residual values to align them with the amounts for
which they could realistically be sold; 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/r or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ryder you
have until July 20, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

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


RYDER SYSTEM: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Ryder System, Inc. ("Ryder" or the "Company")
(NYSE: R) of the July 20, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you invested in Ryder System stock or options between July 23,
2015 and February 13, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/R. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

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

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

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all those who purchased
Ryder common stock between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund v.
Ryder System, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-22109 was filed on May 20,
2020.

The complaint alleges that Defendants inflated Ryder's financial
results by systematically overstating the residual value of its
trucking fleet. While Ryder repeatedly increased the expected
residual values of its trucks, the actual amount Ryder was
receiving from sales of used trucks had started to decline
beginning in 2015. Nevertheless, the Company assured investors that
it had been "conservative" in establishing the residual values of
trucks in its fleet and "[w]e don't have a situation where we've
got a bunch of vehicles that are at high residual values [and] have
to be written down." As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations,
shares of Ryder's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

On July 30, 2019, the Company reported earnings before tax for the
second quarter of 2019 in its FMS business segment of $57.7 million
compared to $76.6 million the prior year period, driven by lower
used vehicle sales results which had declined from the prior year
as a result of higher valuation adjustments of $10.4 million on a
larger inventory and higher depreciation of $7.6 million due to
residual value changes. As a result, Ryder reduced its earnings per
share forecast for 2019 to a range of $4.80 to $5.10, as compared
to its prior forecasted range of $5.28 to $5.58. Although the
Company did not quantify the impact of used vehicle prices on its
2019 outlook, management indicated that the majority of the lowered
guidance reflected weaker tractor valuations.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $59.32 per share
on July 29, 2019 to $53.38 per share on July 30, 2019: a $5.94 or
10.01% drop.

On October 29, 2019, the Company disclosed to investors that
"management concluded that our residual value estimates likely
exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the
sale of power vehicles in our fleet." As a result, Ryder
significantly lowered the residual value estimates for all vehicles
and incurred $177 million in additional depreciation expense in the
third quarter of 2019.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell, over two trading
days, from $55.12 per share on October 28, 2019 to $48.44 per share
on October 30, 2019: a $6.68 or 12.12% drop.

Then, on February 13, 2020, during the trading day, Ryder reported
that, based on the significant reductions to the residual value of
its fleet, it had incurred a total of $357 million in additional
depreciation expense for 2019 plus a loss of approximately $58
million on the sale of used vehicles. The Company also announced
that, for 2020, it expected to incur another $275 million in
depreciation charges on its trucking fleet plus an additional $20
million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In response to these
disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 20% over two trading
days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell, over two trading
days, from $50.19 per share on February 12, 2020 to $40.12 per
share on February 14, 2020: a $10.07 or 20.07% drop.

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

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

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/58735 [GN]


S. RAYS INC: Website Unaccessible to Blind Users, West Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. S. RAYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05181
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) is a civil rights action brought by the
Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screenreading software to read website content using her
computer. 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.

Because Defendant's website, www.shadyrays.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

S. Rays, Inc. is a Kentucky-based sunglass and eyewear company that
owns and operates the website, www.shadyrays.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Misclassifies Drivers, Gatson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORLEANO GATSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00621 (D. N.M., June 26, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2017 to March 2018
as a driver transporting chemical tankers and neumatic tankers in
New Mexico.

According to the complaint, Defendant classified Plaintiff and the
class members as being exempt from overtime beginning in January
2018. Although Plaintiff and the class members normally worked more
than 40 hours in a week, they were not paid at the rate of time and
one-half of their hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40.

Plaintiff claims that he was not paid for all hours that he worked
because Defendant failed to include all of the time spent working
as compensable time such as the time spent performing the pre-trip
on the truck, driving to the sand facility, unloading of the truck
at the frac sites, and post-trip on the truck.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation operates an oil field services
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

                - and –

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          Email: rprieto@eeoc.net


SENIOR CARE: Court Certifies Caregivers Class in Moss FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANITA MOSS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SENIOR CARE CAROLINAS,
PLLC; INNOVATIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC; and MELISSA LYNCH,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00137-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., Filed March 04, 2020),
the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for collective action FLSA
      certification on behalf of:

      "all current and former employees of Defendants who work
      or have worked for Defendants as designated caregivers
      anytime during the three-year period preceding the filing
      of the Complaint in this action";

   2. granting case to proceed with respect to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C
      section 216(b).

   3. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel to serve as counsel for
      the collective; and

   4. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's counsel
      the last known names, addresses, dates of employment, and
      email addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs in a
      computer readable format of all putative collective who
      worked for Defendant at any time from March 4, 2017, to
      present within 14 days of this Order.

The Court finds Plaintiff clearly alleges in her amended complaint,
supplemental brief, and declaration that all dedicated care
official employees have the same job duties, are non-exempt hourly
workers, were required to work 24-four hour shifts, frequently
worked 40 hours or more in one work week, were subject to the same
policy of deducting sleep time from hours worked without a written
agreement, were not provided sleeping facilities, and were not
correctly paid overtime. The Plaintiff has therefore proffered
minimal evidence, as required by the lenient standard, to show that
she is similarly situated to the proposed collective. The
Defendant's arguments that the Plaintiff provided vague allegations
with meager factual support is unfounded based on the pleadings and
declaration. Further, the Defendant's argument that individualized
factual inquiries are necessary for some potential opt-in
plaintiffs due to differences in scheduling, their work location,
and required overtime is not enough to thwart conditional
certification at this stage. Thus, the Court will conditionally
certify the collective.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Senior Care provides assisted living homes that are located in
residential housing communities. Innovation Healthcare is a health
compliance and operational educational company.[CC]


SIRAH 1720 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Alegria Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MIGUEL ALEGRIA SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRAH 1720 LLC (D/B/A
MARKET FRESH SUPERMARKET); AHMED ABDO SALEM (AKA MOHAMED); and
SAMMY DOE, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02867 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Alegria was employed  by the Defendants as deli
worker.

Sirah 1720 LLC owns, operates, or controls a supermarket, at
Brooklyn, NY, under the name Market Fresh Supermarket. [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


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Pirani Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FIYYAZ PIRANI, Plaintiff, v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05857-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part and denied in part the the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.

The securities class action is brought by Lead Plaintiff Pirani
against Slack and the other named Defendants.  The Plaintiff
purchased 30,000 shares of Slack's Class A common stock at
$40/share on June 20, 2019, the first day of Slack's public
listing, and approximately another 220,000 shares at various prices
from June 21 to Sept. 9, 2019.  The Plaintiff brings the case on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Slack common stock pursuant to
and/or traceable to the Offering Materials.

Slack is a San Francisco-based software company that offers a
cloud-based collaboration and productivity platform for workspace
computing.  The other named Defendants include CEO Stewart
Butterfield, CFO Allen Shim, and CAO Brandon Zell; and Board of
Directors members Andrew Braccia, Edith Cooper, Sarah Friar, John
O'Farrell, Chamath Palihapitiya, and Graham Smith.

The complaint also names as Defendants three venture capital firms:
Accel, which appointed defendant Braccia to the Board; Andreessen
Horowitz, which appointed Defendant O'Farrell to the Board; and
Social+Capital, which appointed Defendant Palihapitiya to the board
("VC Defendants").  The VC Defendants collectively held more than
47% of the Company's voting power and included 3 members of the
Board at the time of the Offering.  They caused Slack to effectuate
the Offering.  They also caused Slack to indemnify them from any
liabilities arising from the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to obtain and maintain a
directors and officers insurance policy for them.  Upon Slack's
listing, the VC Defendants sold more than 12.5 million shares for
gross proceeds of more than $484 million.

Slack's Class A common stock shares began trading on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") on June 20, 2019 under the ticker symbol
"WORK."  Slack did not take the traditional route of an Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"), in which a company will offer a certain
amount of new and/or existing shares to the public to help raise
additional capital for company operations and expansion.  Instead,
Slack opted for a direct listing: no new shares were issued, but
insiders and early investors of the company were able to sell their
preexisting shares to the public.  Because these shares were not
subject to a lockup period as in an IPO, they were available for
sale immediately upon Slack's listing.

In preparation for the direct listing, Slack filed a Form S-1
resale shelf registration statement and a Form 424B4 prospectus
with the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC").  Slack, with
Defendants Butterfield and Shim, also hosted an 'investor day' in
New York City to generate investor interest on May 13, 2019.   The
contents of the Offering Materials applied to "up to 118,429,640"
shares offered for resale to the public.  The Offering Materials
noted that additional shares were available for resale and exempt
from registration pursuant to SEC Rule 1443: approximately
164,932,646 shares of common stock immediately after Slack's
registration.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the other class members suffered
losses to the value of their purchased shares as a result of
misstatements or omissions of material facts in the Offering
Materials.  These include statements regarding service outages and
Slack's Service Level Agreements ("SLAs") in the case of such
outages; competition from Microsoft Teams; scalability and
purported key benefits; and growth and growth strategy.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Materials touted various
"key benefits to users, teams, and organizations" and that Slack
built its technology infrastructure using a distributed and
scalable architecture on a global scale, and that these statements
implied that the Slack App was a market leader with unique
advantages over its competitors and that the Company possessed the
ability to scale up its services to reach more lucrative enterprise
customers.  Slack also stated that it had a differentiated
go-to-market strategy, comprised of a customer engagement model and
expansion within larger organizations, and implied this was
responsible for rapid growth high customer engagement and revenue
growth and decreasing net losses from 2017 through 2019.  But
Slack's growth was slowing down in several aspects, including its
key metric, daily active users.

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).  They argue that the Plaintiff cannot plead standing
under Section 11 because of the case law interpreting that statute
holding that a plaintiff's purchased shares must be traced to the
defective registration statement, which is impossible to do in the
case.  The Defendants further argue that Section 11 damages cannot
be established in the case of a direct listing, that the Plaintiff
lacks standing under the stricter privity requirement of Section
12, and that failure to state a claim under either Sections 11 or
12 necessarily obviates standing under Section 15.  Lastly, they
argue that the Plaintiff has failed to allege material
misstatements or omissions.

The Plaintiff argues that, because of the unique regulatory
framework of Slack's direct listing, the case presents a matter of
first impression that, if decided in the Defendants' favor, will
provide a blueprint for companies to evade liability under Section
11 for filing a misleading registration statement.  He contends
that by structuring the Offering such that registered and
unregistered shares became publicly tradeable at the same time,
theDefendants attempt to take unfair advantage of the judge-made
traceability requirement that arose out of cases involving
successive offerings in which the Plaintiffs must show that they
bought their shares in the specific offering at issue.

Judge Illston finds that the phrase "such security" in Section 11
warrants the broader reading: "acquiring a security of the same
nature as that issued pursuant to the registration statement."
Accordingly, the Judge denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss for
lack of Section 11 standing.

Next, Judge Illston denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss for
lack of damages under Section 11.  In the NYSE rule changes as well
as in the Slack Registration Statement, the unique direct listing
process is accommodated by analogy to the traditional IPO pricing
process.  The Defendants' reliance on an overly narrow reading of
Section 11's "price at which the security was offered to the
public" is thus unavailing.  Further, as the Plaintiff asserts in
his opposition, he may pursue a value-based theory of damages,
which is a fact-intensive inquiry that is not appropriate for
resolution at the pleadings stage.

Judge Illston also denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failing to state a claim under Section 12.  The Judge concludes
that the Plaintiff has alleged enough facts to support an active
solicitation theory against the Individual Defendants.  The
Plaintiff alleges that all of the Individual Defendants signed the
Offering Materials, that certain Defendants solicited sales at the
Investor Day, and that all of the Individual Defendants were
financially motivated to solicit sales.  The Judge finds that
Charles Schwab involved similar allegations and that he agrees that
the solicitation question is "a factual question which should
generally be left to the jury."

The Plaintiff alleges material misrepresentations or omissions in
several sets of statements concerning Slack's: (A) outages and
SLAs, (B) scalable architecture, (C) competition with Microsoft,
(D) key benefits, and (E) growth and growth strategy.

Since the ultimate question of whether adverse facts were
adequately disclosed is a mixed question to be decided by the trier
of fact" and there is room for reasonable disagreement, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff's challenge to statements regarding
outages and the SLAs is adequate for the pleading stage.

Next, the disclosures noted that Slack may be unable to maintain
service uptime for exactly the reason stated in the Sept. 4, 2019
call: "especially during peak usage times and as our user traffic
and number of integrations increase."  The Judge therefore grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground.

The Judge finds the allegedly misleading statements immaterial
because the competitive advantages of Microsoft were adequately
disclosed.  The Offering Materials expressly state, "Our primary
competitor is currently Microsoft Corporation," and that "we expect
competition to intensify in the future."  Although the pleadings
plausibly demonstrate that Slack was in fierce competition with
Microsoft before the direct listing, and that Slack had data on its
own metrics, Slack did not omit material information by failing to
include data or comparisons on Microsoft's metrics.  The Judge
therefore grants the Defendants' motion on this ground.

The Judge notes that most, if not all, of the statements quoted in
Paragraph 91 would appear to be inactionable puffery.  And, while
he has concluded that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
the risk disclosures omitted material information about the outages
and the SLAs, the Judge is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's
contention that Summary of Key Benefits is false or misleading
simply because it described, in very general terms, the company's
strengths.  She therefore grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
on this ground.

As with the "Key Benefits" section, the Plaintiff claims that
certain information was omitted, but as the Defendants note,
information about revenue growth, sales and marketing expenses, and
numbers of users was disclosed either in the Business Model section
or elsewhere in the Registration Statement.  To the extent the
Paintiff challenges statements in the "Growth Strategy" section, he
has not explained how these forward-looking statements are
actionable.  Finally, although the Judge has concluded that the
Plaintiff has stated a claim that the risk disclosures were
misleading by omitting information about the outages and unique
vulnerabilities posed by the SLAs, he is not persuaded that a
general summary of "What Sets Us Apart"16 or even a more specific
and factual description of "Our Business Model" is rendered
misleading by omitting unrelated information about risks.
Accordingly, she grants this aspect of the Defendants' motion.

Finally, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's pleading is
sufficient under the lenient standard of 8(a).  In addition to the
Plaintiff's allegations of the traditional indicia of control, he
also alleges that a direct listing primarily enables the resale of
existing shares by insiders and early investors such as the VC
Defendants.  The Plaintiff has alleged that the VC Defendants
"caused Slack to effectuate" the unusual listing in order to cash
out their shares.  The Judge concludes that it is plausible that a
factual record of control can be developed through discovery.
Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack
of Section 15 standing.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Illston granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4UGbEr from Leagle.com.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Lucas et al. Sue Over Spam Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAWAUN LUCAS; DAVID DOMINGUEZ HOOPER; METE TASIN; and REEJAUNTE
SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC.; and SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06059 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs for legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants
in sending automated text message advertisements to their cellular
telephones and the cellular telephones of numerous other
individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, all of the subject text messages sent
to Plaintiffs and the members of the putative Class constituted
"advertisements" or "telemarketing" messages within the meaning of
the TCPA and its implementing regulations because each such message
was aimed at promoting the commercial availability of Defendants'
products and services and ultimately selling such products and
services. Defendants offered such products and services for sale to
Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class for the purpose of
deriving commercial profit from the purchase of any such products
or services ultimately made by the consumers to whom the subject
text messages were directed.

Defendants actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this
case to Plaintiffs and all other putative Class members in an
automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and
software that received and stored telephone numbers and then
automatically dialed such numbers.

The automatic telephone dialing technology utilized by or on behalf
of Defendants to transmit the subject text messages to Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class was provided by Twilio, which
maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of
business in, and operated the technology implicated in this case
from (and thereby transmitted the subject text messages from), its
headquarters and principal place of business in California.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. and SmileDirectClub, LLC collectively own and
operate a "teledentistry" company that does business online and at
over 300 brick-and-mortar retail locations across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

               - and -  

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

SNAP INC: Appeals Certification Order in Erickson Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Snap Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's ruling granting class certification in the lawsuit styled
James Erickson, et al. v. Snap Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On November 20, 2019, after receiving briefing, the District Court
abandoned the issue-class possibility and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion in its entirety, certifying a class of "all purchasers of
Snap common stock between March 2, 2017 and August 10, 2017 . . .
whose shares were issued under Snap's IPO Registration Statement."

The appellate case is captioned as SNAP INC., et al., Petitioners
v. JAMES ERICKSON, et al., Case No. 19-80157, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Defendants want the Appeals Court to determine whether:

   1. the Plaintiffs' Securities Act class claims are time-barred
      under China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018),
      because they did not bring any claims or seek to serve as
      class representatives until after the District Court denied
      a motion for class certification and the Securities Act's
      one-year statute of limitations had expired;

   2. contrary to decisions of the Fifth Circuit and other
      district courts in this circuit, the "statistical tracing"
      theory satisfies Section 11's "traceability" requirement;
      and

   3. a federal class action filed when the defendant's stock was
      trading above the IPO price involves any recoverable
      damages and is "superior" to nearly identical, later-filed
      state-court class actions that do not share that fatal
      defect concerning damages.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Snap
securities, pursuant and traceable to Snap's alleged false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
and on the open market between March 2, 2017, and May 15, 2017,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act.

Snap Inc. is a camera company that provides technology and social
media services.[BN]

Lead Plaintiff Snap Shareholder Group is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jenny L. Paquette, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415.400.3009
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com
                  jpaquette@ktmc.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Michael W. McConnell, Esq.
          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: 650-849-3135
          E-mail: MMcConnell@wsgr.com
                  boris.feldman@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          George W. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389-5000
          E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com
                  george.hicks@kirkland.com


SONENDO INC: Fite Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GARRY MICHAEL FITE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. SONENDO,
INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00833-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Filed April 30,
2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification;

   2. approving the form and method of notice as proposed by
      Plaintiffs;

   3. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs'
      counsel, within 14 days of the Court's Order, a complete
      class list in readable electronic format that includes:
      (i) full name(s); (ii) job title(s); (iii) last known
      mailing address(es) and telephone number(s); (iv) last
      known email address(es); (v) dates of employment; and (vi)
      the last four digits of Social Security Number(s);

   4. directing dissemination of notice as proposed by the
      Plaintiffs; and

   5. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for potential
      opt-in plaintiffs between the date of the Complaint and
      the date the Plaintiffs' originally disseminate notice.

The Plaintiffs -- former Field Service Engineers employed by
Defendant -- filed their complaint against Sonendo alleging
Defendant misclassified them as exempt from overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failed to pay them
overtime.

Sonendo develops dental surgery equipment. The Company specializes
in novel technology for the cleaning of root canals. Sonendo
operates out of Laguna Hills, California.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Samuel Cleaver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. SAMUEL CLEAVER
          5670 Wilshire Blvd., 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (213) 568-4088
          Facsimile: (213) 568-4105
          E-mail: sam@gscleaverlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          James C. Keaney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
          E-mail: james.keaney@dolleylaw.com
                  kevin@dolleylaw.com

STAATS CONSTRUCTION: Workers Slam Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ramos Zambrano, Antonio Montes, Roberto Castillo, Gary
Hamilton, Rafael Ramos, Edgar Gudino, Jorge Gonzalez, Edmundo
Garfio and Alvaro Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Staats
Construction and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV16785 (Cal. Super., May 1, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

STAATS Construction is a public works contractor which conducts
business as a licensed construction contractor for general
construction, underground pipe-laying and repair including water,
sewer, and storm drains on publicly funded projects including but
not limited to municipal water districts and related agencies.
Plaintiffs worked as Pipefitters and Operators for STAATS. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      William E. Donahoo. Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
      440 West First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
             skokonas@donahoo.com
             camilleri@donahoo.com
             wdonahoo@donahoo.com


SUPER ECONOMIC: Faces Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
GENARO PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER ECONOMIC ONE WAY SUPERMARKET CORP. and
EDUARDO LEONARDO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03060 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 9, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated supermarket workers the required statutory minimum wages
and overtime premium pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deli man from
roughly 2012 through June 2020.

Super Economic One Way Supermarket Corp. is a supermarket business
with a principal place of business at 104-21 Glenwood Road,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         David Stein, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

TARGET CORP: Wage & Hour Class Action Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that Target Corp. lost its bid to keep a
distribution-center employee's proposed class action alleging
California wage violations from being remanded to state court,
despite its contention that the federal district court has
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because there's at
least $5 million at stake based on payroll, time-punch, and hours
worked data, as well as attorneys' fees. Target's
amount-in-controversy calculations unreasonably assumed a 32% rate
for attorneys' fees based on a similar consolidated wage and hour
class action against it in which that percentage in attorneys' fees
was awarded at settlement, the court said. [GN]




TD BANK: Heller Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY DBA TD BANK
USA, N.A., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-06063 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, seeking damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Beginning in or around January 2019, Defendant contacted Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6271, in an
attempt to collect a debt from Plaintiff. Defendant contacted or
attempted to contact Plaintiff from multiple telephone numbers
confirmed to be Defendant's number.

According to the complaint, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive call using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on
its cellular telephones pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A).
Defendant was attempting to collect on a debt that Plaintiff did
not owe and it is suspected they were calling the wrong debtor and
calling the wrong number.

TD Bank US Holding Company dba TD Bank USA, N.A operates as a
holding company. The Bank, through its subsidiaries, provides
consumer loans, commercial loans, mortgage loans, deposit products,
trust services, Internet banking, credit cards, insurance, and
investment management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TEVA CANADA: Faces Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Urszula Wojtyra, Esq. -- uwojtyra@smartbiggar.ca -- of Smart &
Biggar, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 3, 2020, a
proposed class action was commenced against over 50 generic drug
manufacturers. The claim alleges that the generic drug
manufacturers violated the Competition Act by conspiring to
allocate the market, fix prices and maintain the supply of generic
drugs from 2012 to present, and claims damages or compensation of
$2.75 billion. The action is brought on behalf of class members who
purchased generic drugs in the private sector, either through
private drug plans or paying cash. The claim alleges that the
defendants conspired to allocate the market for generic drugs by
agreeing whether to sell certain drugs, and by fixing the market
shares and prices of drugs. The claim references an ongoing
investigation in the United States into price fixing, bid rigging
and market allocation in the generic pharmaceutical industry, in
which certain manufacturers have entered guilty pleas.

The Statement of Claim is available at https://is.gd/RMnOkn [GN]



THYMES LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Thymes, LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Thymes, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05136
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020).

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

The Thymes, LLC, retails cosmetics and fragrance products. The
Company offers bar soaps, bath oil, creams, hand lotion and cream,
candles, and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIM HORTONS: Faces Class in Quebec Over App LocationTracking
------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Post reports that Tim Hortons is facing a class-action
lawsuit in Quebec over data collection issues in the company's
mobile ordering app, filed a day after four privacy watchdogs
announced a joint investigation into the company's overreach.

The court application filed by Montreal-based law firms LPC Advocat
Inc. and Consumer Law Group on June 30, cites reporting by the
Financial Post from earlier in June, which revealed the Tim Hortons
app was logging users' location in the background when the app
wasn't open. The app was streaming GPS location data to Radar Labs
Inc., an American company which analyzes location data to infer
where users live and work, and logs a person's visits to one of Tim
Hortons' competitors, such as Starbucks Corp. or McDonald's Corp.

Immediately after privacy commissioners for the federal government,
Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia announced their joint
investigation on June 29, Tim Hortons said in a statement that it
has discontinued its practice of tracking users' location when the
app is not open.

"It certainly seems to be an implicit admission on their part that
what they were doing was wrong," said Joey Zukran, a consumer
protection lawyer with LPC Advocat Inc., which specializes in
class-action litigation.

Zukran said the lead plaintiff is a Montreal resident who works in
the IT sector. He was a user of both the Tim Hortons and Burger
King apps, and since both of those chains are owned by parent
company Restaurant Brands International Inc., he was likely being
tracked twice.

"I would say he's a tech-savvy guy, from my conversations with him.
He was a customer of Tim Hortons, a customer of Burger King. He
uses the app often . . . learning everything that transpired came
as a big shock to him," Zukran said.

Zukran said that simply stopping the practice of background
location tracking isn't enough, because Tim Hortons' parent company
appears to have been tracking the lead plaintiff since last year,
and the damage is already done.

"Let's see what they do with the information. Are they going to
destroy it? Are they going to use it?" he said. "They've gained a
valuable database of information and behaviour patterns and
activities of individuals. So are they now just going to throw that
out, or are they going to profit from it? My guess is the latter."

Tim Hortons' chief corporate officer Duncan Fulton said in an
emailed statement the company did not have any comment on the
class-action lawsuit, and reiterated that it had discontinued
background location tracking, although the app may still record
user location when it's open.

"Since Tim Hortons launched our mobile app, our guests always had
the choice of whether they share location data with us, including
‘always' sharing location data -- an option offered by many
companies on their own apps," Fulton said.

Ostensibly, the lawsuit is asking for a $100 penalty, but the key
point, according to Consumer Law Group lawyer Jeff Orenstein, is
that they are asking the court to award punitive damages.

In many cases of privacy violations, it's difficult to sue because
litigants can't put a dollar figure on the harm they have suffered.
But the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes privacy a
protected right, and that simplifies the case, according to
Orenstein.

"A Quebec Charter violation gets you punitive damages where you can
show that the interference was with your protected rights," he
said.

"The punitive damages is the more simplistic route, but for that,
you really have to show that the defendants intended to interfere
with your privacy rights--which is what we allege in this case."

Orenstein said most privacy and data cases in Canada have been
focused on breaches where companies allowed private information to
be leaked or stolen by hackers.

But litigation around issues relating to data and privacy could
become more common, depending on how the courts respond in this
case and future cases.

"If the courts realize how important privacy is, and attribute
major dollar figures to it, then yes, this litigation will
continue," Orenstein said. "And it will be brought to the attention
of these companies which will have major business decisions to make
in the future--whether it's worth the risk . . . If the courts give
a slap on the wrist or nothing at all, then you're not going to see
that many cases." [GN]



TOM'S OF MAINE: Coburn Disputes "All Natural" Label on Toothpaste
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Coburn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tom's of Maine, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01036 (C.D. Cal., June 8,
2020), seeks redress for violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, unfair business practices, violations of false
advertising laws and fraud.

Tom's has sold and continues to sell and market "Tom's Toothpaste"
which it purports as "all natural" despite containing a
chemically-processed ingredient, xylitol and sodium lauryl sulfate,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
      Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
      DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 614-5830
      Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
      Email: aashish@desai-law.com
             adrianne@desai-law.com


TURNCO ENTERPRISES: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Daigle Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN DAIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TURNCO ENTERPRISES, LLC., and MEWBOURNE OIL
CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00652 (D. N.M., July 2, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged illegal pay practices in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Oilfield Worker.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Because they were misclassified by Defendant as independent
contractors, Defendant failed to pay them overtime of at least one
and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Turnco Enterprises, LLC is an oilfield services company operating
throughout the U.S.

Mewbourne Oil Company is an oil and gas producer in the Anadarko
and Permian Basins of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361) 452-1279
          Fax: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Baker McKenzie Discusses Drivers' Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Avraam, Esq., Jennifer Bernardo, Esq., and Shyama Talukdar,
Esq., of Baker McKenzie, in an article for Lexology, report that on
June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in
the highly publicized case of Heller v Uber Technologies Inc. The
case arises from a Toronto-based UberEATS driver's effort to bring
a $400-million class action against Uber, on behalf of Uber and
UberEATS drivers in Ontario. Mr. Heller alleged that Uber violated
the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by treating Uber and UberEATS
drivers as independent contractors and failing to provide them with
employment-related entitlements like minimum wage, vacation, and
overtime pay.

The issue before the Court was the validity of an arbitration
clause in a standard form service agreement. The agreement was
governed by the law of the Netherlands and required drivers to
litigate their disputes with Uber in the Netherlands. Uber required
all of its prospective drivers to enter into this agreement by
having them accept the terms through their app. The Court ruled in
favor of the drivers, finding that the arbitration clause was
unconscionable because its terms effectively made it effectively
impossible for the drivers to arbitrate their claims.

As a result of the decision, the class action can proceed to a
certification motion.

Key Takeaways

Employers with arbitration clauses in their employment contracts or
independent contractor agreements must revisit their agreements to
determine whether they continue to be valid in Canada. Based on the
Court's decision, employers should not have arbitration clauses
that require employees to pay substantial upfront fees to initiate
the process. Employers should also consider whether they should pay
the administration fees required for private arbitration, subject
to the company's right to a refund of those fees if it is
successful in arbitration. If employers choose to keep arbitration
clauses, they should ensure that in-person hearings remain local.

The Supreme Court did not address the Ontario Court of Appeal's
finding that the arbitration clause in the Uber service agreement
was also invalid because it contracted out of the ESA. This means
that the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision that an arbitration
agreement that prevents an employee from using the ESA's
enforcement mechanisms is unlawful, at least in Ontario. As a
result, employers must also review the arbitration clauses in their
employment contracts to ensure they do not contract out of the
enforcement mechanisms of the ESA. Since the Court of Appeal
allowed Mr. Heller to challenge the arbitration clause on the basis
of the ESA, even though Uber viewed him as an independent
contractor, employers should review the arbitration clauses in
their independent contractor agreements as well.

Employers who use standard form or boilerplate employment contracts
or individual independent contractor agreements, even without
arbitration clauses, must take particular note of the Supreme
Court's finding that the arbitration clause was unconscionable
because a) there was bargaining power inequity between the parties;
b) the arbitration clause was part of a standard form contract that
could not be negotiated; and c) the substantive terms of the clause
were harsh and unfair. The Court also commented that even
independent legal advice may not be a valid defence if someone
makes an unconscionability claim--such advice must be effective
advice.

The Court's findings and reasoning will result in more litigation
about whether the terms of employment contracts, particularly
clauses that limit post-termination entitlements, are valid.

Background

In early 2018, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the
Uber drivers' proposed class action in favour of arbitration in the
Netherlands under the service agreement.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision.
Based on the presumption that Uber employed the drivers, the Court
found that Uber's arbitration clause contracted out of Ontario's
ESA. The Court found that being forced to arbitrate a complaint
against Uber in the Netherlands deprives an employee of the benefit
of making a complaint to, and seeking an investigation by, the
Ministry of Labour under section 96(1) of the ESA. The Court
decided that this benefit was a guaranteed employment standard and
the parties could not waive this right. Separately, the Court held
that the arbitration clause was invalid because it was
unconscionable, in part because Uber drivers have no avenue for
resolving disputes in Ontario and are required to incur
approximately $15,000.00 USD to initiate an arbitration proceeding
in the Netherlands.

The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision

By a large majority, the Supreme Court accepted Mr. Heller's claim
that Uber's arbitration clause in Ontario was unconscionable
because there was an inequality of bargaining power between Uber
and its drivers, resulting in an "improvident bargain" for the
drivers. While courts are normally expected to defer to arbitrators
on the question of whether or not an arbitration clause is valid,
the majority of the Court found that courts can depart from this
general rule in limited circumstances, including where doing so may
raise accessibility issues. For example, if the cost of starting
arbitration is significant or if the contract includes a choice of
law clause that circumvents mandatory local policy, a court may
justified in deciding the validity issue on its own. The majority
of the Court declined to consider whether the agreement was also
invalid because Uber had contracted out of the ESA.

In concurring reasons, Justice Brown concluded that the arbitration
clause was invalid because it undermined the rule of law and was
contrary to public policy, not because it was unconscionable. In
Justice Brown's view, the majority of the Court vastly expanded the
scope of the doctrine of unconscionability, without providing any
meaningful guidance as to its application. Justice Brown warned
that charting such a course will serve only to compound the
uncertainty that already plagues the doctrine, and introduce
uncertainty to the enforcement of contracts generally.

In dissenting reasons, Justice Côté found that consensual
agreements should be binding, but also said Uber's agreement with
drivers should be amended and that Uber should advance the filing
fees to enable Uber drivers to initiate arbitration proceedings.
Justice Côté was the only justice to address the ESA issue,
finding that it was neither inconsistent with the ESA nor contrary
to public policy. [GN]


UBER: Judge Trims Drivers' Sick Leave Claim from Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge on June 30 trimmed
Uber drivers' sick leave claim from a putative class action
alleging the ride-hailing giant deprived drivers of benefits by
misclassifying them as independent contractors, but declined to
dismiss other claims and gave drivers a chance to bolster the sick
leave allegation. [GN]



UNITED STATES: ICE Unlawfully Jails Migrant Children, Judge Finds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu of the Washington Post reports that a federal judge
ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unlawfully
transferred thousands of unaccompanied children who turned 18 to
adult detention facilities without considering alternatives, in
violation of a 2013 law.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., said he
will order changes "in the near future" after a bench trial in a
class-action lawsuit brought in March 2018 on behalf of immigrant
teenagers by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC).

Contreras found that ICE does not train field offices to search for
or select less restrictive options than contractor or ICE prisons
and jails for minors aging out of refugee resettlement facilities,
and in fact guides officers to act contrary to a law protecting
trafficking victims.

As a result, the judge ruled, many officers choose not to review
minors' files, contact group homes or shelters, or respond to their
attorneys suggesting alternatives. Many of ICE's largest field
offices "nearly automatically" send minors to adult jails, even
when in extreme cases their parents in the United States or other
sponsors would take them, the judge wrote.

"These are not the decisionmaking processes that Congress required"
in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or
federal rulemaking law, Contreras wrote in a 180-page opinion. "By
failing to make decisions in the way Congress dictated, and based
on the factors Congress identified as relevant, ICE fails to
fulfill its obligations under the statute."

The Justice Department did not have a comment, spokeswoman Alexa
Vance said.

In a statement by plaintiffs, pro bono lead counsel Steve Patton of
Kirkland & Ellis said, "This is a great victory for thousands of
current and future unaccompanied immigrant children who turned 18
in government custody. We could not be happier with the court's
thorough and well-reasoned decision."

Co-counsel and NIJC senior attorney Gianna Borroto added that the
decision "affirms that unaccompanied immigrant children are a
uniquely vulnerable group that Congress sought to protect."

"As the court recognized, ICE's practice of systematically jailing
children on their 18th birthday violates these important
protections under the law," Borroto said.
AD

Attorneys in an 18-day bench trial before Contreras that ended Jan.
15 presented ICE's data showing that many field offices were
automatically sending 18-year-olds to contractor or ICE jails
without considering safer or more-appropriate options, according to
the judge's opinion.

The plaintiffs found the most decisive factor in whether
18-year-olds are released or jailed is which ICE field office makes
the decision, not any condition the law requires ICE to consider,
according to court filings. Miami, El Paso, Houston, Los Angeles,
Phoenix and New York reported higher than average detention rates.

ICE records indicate the agency detained 1,531 youth from January
2018 to late May 2019; about 100 18-year-olds were recently moved
into ICE custody, plaintiffs estimated.

The NIJC asked the court to consider appointing a third-party
monitor to oversee compliance and to order ICE to strengthen
training and supervision of field officers. The center also asked
the court to order ICE to report data in real time; deepen contacts
with sponsors, group homes and shelters; and direct field offices
to use alternatives such as releasing youth on their own
recognizance or on bond, under supervision or conditions including
electronic monitoring.

In April 2018, Contreras entered a preliminary injunction for the
case's two individual plaintiffs, both from Honduras. Wilmer Garcia
Ramirez came to the United States alone in 2017 when he was 17 to
escape forced labor. When he turned 18, ICE sent him to the Eloy
Detention Center in Arizona even though a family friend was willing
to sponsor him, the lawsuit asserted.

The other individual plaintiff, Sulma Hernandez Alfaro, came to the
United States alone in 2016 and was taken by ICE when she turned 18
in 2018 to Port Isabel Detention Center in Harlingen, Tex., even
though a shelter had agreed to accept her, the suit said.

After the court's order, Garcia Ramirez was sent to stay with an
uncle in Alabama and Hernandez Alfaro won asylum, the judge's
opinion stated.

The court in August 2018 granted class-action status to all
"age-outs" - former unaccompanied alien children who are detained
by ICE or who will be detained because they have turned 18 without
the agency considering alternative placements. ICE tried to
decertify the class last year, but its request was denied after it
revealed months later that it failed to track approximately 1,500
age-outs from April 2016 to May 2019, according to the NIJC.

The center said ICE data showed that the rate at which the agency
transferred unaccompanied 18-year-olds it accepted from the Office
of Refugee Resettlement into adult detention facilities dropped by
half within months of the court's class-action certification.
However, the group expressed concern that no data has been shared
in recent months, as the Trump administration has delayed Office of
Refugee Resettlement releases to ICE, citing the coronavirus
pandemic. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Monk Appeals Ruling in Veterans' Benefits Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claimants Conley F. Monk, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit styled CONLEY F. MONK, JR., TOM
COYNE, WILLIAM DOLPHIN, JIMMIE HUDSON, SAMUEL MERRICK, LYLE OBIE,
STANLEY STOKES, Claimants-Appellants v. ROBERT WILKIE, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee, Case No. 2020-1305, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involved an individual Vietnam veteran, who suffered from
service-connected illnesses and sought to certify a class of those
like him, who had been denied disability benefits. The Veterans
Courts through which such litigation must proceed held that they
lacked authority to certify a class.

The Federal Circuit court reversed the Veterans Court decision,
finding that such a court does indeed have the authority "to
certify a class for a class action and to maintain similar
aggregate resolution procedures," and remanded the case for further
proceedings in the lower court consistent with that finding.

Mr. Monk's action in seeking class treatment was based on further
allegations that the cases of members of the proposed class shared
questions of law and fact, including whether the VA delays in
rendering disability benefits claim decisions constituted a
violation of the veterans' due process rights. The Veterans Court
rejected the request for class treatment, and Mr. Monk appealed to
the Federal Circuit Court.

In this matter, the Petitioners argue that VA's delays in deciding
their appeals under the legacy system have been unreasonable and a
violation of due process rights.

The appellate case is captioned as CONLEY F. MONK, JR., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
RESPONDENT, Case No. 15-1280, in the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims.[BN]

Petitioners Conley F. Monk, Jr., Tom Coyne, William Dolphin, Jimmie
Hudson, Samuel Merrick, Lyle Obie, and Stanley Stokes are
represented by:

          Elisa Alcabes, Esq.
          Lynn K. Neuner, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: lneuner@stblaw.com
                  ealcabes@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Jade Ford, Law Student Intern
          Arjun Mody, Law Student Intern
          Madison Needham, Law Student Intern
          Jesse Tripathi, Law Student Intern
          Renee Burbank, Esq.
          Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
          VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC
          Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
          Yale Law School
          P.O. Box 209090
          New Haven, CT 06520-9090
          Telephone: (203) 432-4800
          E-mail: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org

Respondents Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et
al., are represented by:

          Brent A. Bowker, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
          810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20420
          Telephone: (202) 632-6909


VICTORIA BECKHAM: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. VICTORIA BECKHAM INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05140 (S.D.N.Y., July 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://us.victoriabeckham.com/,and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint.
Because the Defendants' Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the Web site violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's 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 his
computer.

The Defendant is a clothing and accessories company that owns and
operates the Web site, offering features, which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services, and which the Defendant
ensures the delivery of throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: Joseph@cml.legal


VITOL INC: BB&B, Rightmyer Suit Assets Gas Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
BB&B Business Group and Larry George Rightmyer II, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vitol
Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc., SK Trading International Co. Ltd.,
David Niemann and Brad Lucas, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03535,
(N.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), seek relief under state antitrust and
consumer protection laws including for violations of the Cartwright
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.

BB&B Business Group Larry George Rightmyer II purchased fuel at
retail in California during the said period. They claim that Vitol
and SK manipulated the spot market price for gasoline for profit.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 968-1852
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: wstreet@blockesq.com

             - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
      Ethan H. Kaminsky, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             dminerva@labaton.com
             rvandermeulen@labaton.com
             ekaminsky@labaton.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Pitts Sues Over Start/Stop Defect in Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and AUDI
AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00768 (E.D. Va., July 9, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent concealment,
breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection
Act, and the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful
business practice of advertising, marketing, and selling all
2017-2020 Audi models with defective Automatic Start/Stop systems.
The defect endangers drivers, passengers, and other persons and
property in the vicinity as the affected vehicles' engine, under
otherwise normal operating conditions, shuts down before the
vehicles come to a complete stop.

The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury as they purchased
their affected vehicles under the express and implied warranties
that they would operate safely throughout the useful life of such
vehicles.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturing
company headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.

Audi AG is a Germany-based company that designs, manufactures,
promotes, markets, and distributes Audi vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
         1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 548-7790
         Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
         E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

                 - and –

         Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
         Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
         209 Capitol Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 345-6555
         Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
         E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                 jboggs@baileyglasser.com

                 - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com

VOLUME SERVICES: Settlement in Raquedan Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLUME
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-01139-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their fourth
amended class action settlement.

The parties' proposed class action settlement underwent several
amendments since June 2019.  The Court previously granted
preliminary approval of the third amended class settlement on July
3, 2019 but vacated it due to the dramatic increase in the size of
the class.  In an October 2019 motion, the parties represented that
there were 11,740 class members.

In mid-April 2020, Centerplate filed a declaration that explained
the changes in the class size, and the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a
declaration that generally explained the increase in their requests
for attorney's fees.  On April 17, 2019, the parties also filed a
supplement to their joint motion for preliminary approval of the
fourth amended class action settlement. In that supplement, the
parties represented that the class size is 11,731.  The parties
also represented that the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act,
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law have zero damages value.

Having considered all the briefing, the arguments of the counsel,
the relevant law, the parties' changes to the various settlements
and the class notices, and the record in the case, Judge Koh
granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the fourth
amended class action settlement.

The Court preliminarily approved the Notice of Class Action
Settlement.  The Fourth Amended Class Notice and the parties'
proposed Opt-Out Form, are sufficient to inform Class Members of
the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the Settlement,
their rights to object to or comment on the Settlement, their right
to receive a Settlement Share or opt out from the Settlement, and
the processes for doing so, and the date and location of the final
approval hearing, and are therefore approved.

The following persons are certified as Class Members solely for the
purpose of entering a settlement in the matter:

    All employees and applicants in the United States who applied
    for a job, promotion or job change with Centerplate for which
    a background check, including a consumer report, was conducted

    at any time from Feb. 22, 2011, to March 31, 2019, excluding
    those individuals who already have resolved all the claims
    asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication,

    including, but not limited to, the settlement in Phlisida
    Gibbs v. Centerplate, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla., No.
    8-17-cv-2187-EAK-JSS.

The Class Members will receive a Settlement Share unless they
submit a valid and timely Opt-Out Form not later than 45 days after
the mailing of the Fourth Amended Class Notice.  Any Class Member
who wishes to object to the Settlement, including the Class
Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and for Class Representative
payments, has until 45 days after the mailing of the Fourth Amended
Class Notice to mail to the Settlement Administrator his or her
written objection, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the
Fourth Amended Class Notice.

Simpluris, Inc. has been appointed to act as the Settlement
Administrator; Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez has
been confirmed as the Class Representatives; and Shaun Setareh,
Thomas Segal, and Farrah Grant of Setareh Law Group are named as
the Class Counsel.

Centerplate is directed to provide to the Settlement Administrator
not later than 30 days after the date of the Order the Class
Members' Data as specified by the Settlement.

The Settlement Administrator is directed to mail the Fourth Amended
Class Notice and Opt-Out Form, translated in English and Spanish,
by first-class mail to the Class Members not later than 15 days
after receipt of the Class Members' Data.

A final approval hearing will be held on Sept. 17, 2020, at 1:30
p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mt6pHw from Leagle.com.


WIGWAM MILLS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wigwam Mills, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wigwam Mills, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05142 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020).

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

Wigwam Mills is a hosiery company based in Sheboygan,
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILL LEATHER: Blind Customers Can't Access Web Site, Cruz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WILL LEATHER GOODS, Case No. 1:20-cv-05143 (S.D.N.Y., July 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website, www.willleathergoods.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a leather goods company that owns and operates the
website, www.willleathergoods.com, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services which
Defendant ensures the delivery of throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: Joseph@cml.legal


[*] AMP Warns Class Actions May Lead to Job Losses, Co. Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Grieve, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the chief executive of wealth giant AMP has warned the growing
class action industry will lead to job losses, business failures
and higher costs to consumers if litigation funders are not reined
in with more regulation.

Francesco De Ferrari told a Senate economics committee on June 30
he was concerned about litigation funding in Australia, citing
research from Liberal Party associated think tank Menzies Research
Centre that found the amount received by plaintiffs had fallen by
one-fifth over the past four years.

"It's interesting to know that Australia, given its current set-up,
is the second most attractive class action litigation jurisdiction
in the world. The returns for the litigator funding are 17 times
the average returns on the ASX 200," Mr. De Ferrari said.

AMP is facing two class actions--one brought by shareholders
following revelations at the banking royal commission and the other
from consumers who claim they were excessively charged for
superannuation services. AMP is also facing two additional class
actions--one brought by outgoing aligned advisers who claim to be
saddled with debt following contract changes and the other by
customers who claim to be sold bad insurance products.

Mr. Ferrari said the rise in class actions had contributed to the
"escalating cost of doing business" in Australia and pushed
professional indemnity insurance premiums up as global reinsurers
did not want to take on the risk.

"Ultimately, that will result in a higher cost of doing business
which will result in job losses and higher costs being passed onto
consumers," he said.

Litigation funders are private companies that bankroll class
actions in exchange for a slice of the settlement. Proponents say
they take on the risk necessary to hold corporates to account but
critics argue opportunistic lawsuits are used to pressure companies
into accepting large settlements to minimise the impact on their
reputation.

Attorney-General Christian Porter launched a parliamentary inquiry
to examine all aspects of the class action system in May, citing
"enormous profits being made by litigation funders" as a key area
of the probe.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg soon after made it compulsory for
litigation funders to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence
in an effort to boost transparency and accountability for
companies.

Mr. De Ferrari welcomed the requirement for funders to be licensed.
"That would require them to act in the best interest of plaintiffs,
which [is] not true I believe with the set-up we have today."

AMP appeared before the committee to provide an update on changes
implemented following Kenneth Hayne's scathing royal commission
that revealed thousands of dead customers were continuing to be
charged fees.

Mr. De Ferrari said the solution to adviser misconduct was greater
use of technology and said AMP had boosted the frequency of aligned
adviser audits and was rolling out a mandatory technology platform
that enabled greater monitoring of operations.

"How do you supervise conduct risk on a workforce of 24,000
licensed advisers operating across Australia? It's a journey and
ultimately we'll get there with better technology."

Mr. De Ferrari also provided an update on customer remediation,
saying AMP had paid over roughly 62,000 clients a total of $241
million out of the total $800 million provision. [GN]


[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss COVID-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamis Barcott, Esq.--jbarcott@mofo.com--Penelope Preovolos,
Esq.--ppreovolos@mofo.com--and Claudia Vetesi,
Esq.--cvetesi@mofo.com--of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that several months into the widespread
business closures and event cancellations resulting from the COVID
19 pandemic, we have seen businesses adopt a range of strategies to
respond. Those strategies, in addition to the closures and
cancellations themselves, have sparked a surge in class action
litigation, much of it under California's consumer protection
statutes, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL).

This blog post explores strategies (short of full refunds) that
have been adopted by businesses to address cancellations and
closures, as well as class actions that have been filed in
response. We also examine potential defenses for this new breed of
class action litigation.

COVID-19 Mitigation and Risk Reduction Strategies and Class Action
Challenges

Transition to Online Services

The expansion of our online presence has become ubiquitous with our
post-COVID-19 experience. Rather than simply closing up shop, many
companies have transitioned their business models from in-person to
online almost overnight. This transition, however, has not been
without its own unique challenges, leading to numerous class action
suits across the state. Notable examples include:

Christina Diaz v. University of Southern California (Central
District of California, Judge Dolly Gee)
As universities have moved classes online, lawsuits have been filed
seeking reimbursement for room and board and reimbursement for the
lost benefits of an in-person education. On May 4th, a putative
class of students brought UCL claims against the University of
Southern California for allegedly continuing to hold students
liable for the full pre-shutdown tuition, despite not providing the
services the students had bargained for. In the wake of California
Governor Gavin Newsom's stay-at-home order, USC had transitioned
its entire university from its physical location in Downtown Los
Angeles to the videoconference platform Zoom. Despite USC offering
the same degrees and accreditation it had offered prior to
COVID-19, the putative student class argues that the loss of
physical facilities and amenities dilutes the value of their
education.

Erin Weiler v. CorePower Yoga, LLC (Central District of California,
Judge George Wu)
Multiple cases throughout the state have also targeted gyms, which
have struggled to adapt their business model to California's
stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines. On April
15th, a putative class brought UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims against
CorePower Yoga, a yoga studio in Los Angeles, for allegedly
continuing to charge monthly membership fees despite closing down
their studio indefinitely. In lieu of offering full refunds,
CorePower Yoga offered its monthly members free access to a special
collection of online classes that mimicked the classes offered at
their physical studio. Despite the availability of these online
classes, the putative class argues that this is not what they
bargained for when they initially signed up for CorePower and that
they can only be made whole by the receiving a full refund.

Credits for Future Events

Although we are unlikely to see live audiences at concerts,
conventions, and sporting events anytime soon, many companies are
looking to use the prospect of future events to their advantage.
Crediting consumers for future events can be a helpful solution for
entertainment businesses operating on thin margins, who may not
have the capabilities to provide immediate full refunds. Such
strategies have sparked class action challenges, however, including
the following:

Tess Nesis v. Do Lab, Inc. et al. (Central District of California,
Judge Dale Fischer)
On April 14th, a putative class brought UCL and CLRA claims against
Do Lab, the operator of the 2020 Lightning in a Bottle Music
Festival, for refusing to give refunds to those who purchased
weekend passes, despite cancelling the event. The COVID-19 pandemic
put Do Lab in an extremely precarious position. Not only was Do Lab
forced to cancel its festival just a few months before the festival
was set to take place, but it had also already spent most of the
money brought in through ticket sales on non-refundable deposits,
building materials, and staff. Unable to offer immediate refunds,
Do Lab offered ticket purchasers the option to either credit funds
towards future iterations of the Lightning in a Bottle Music
Festival, donate their 2020 ticket funds to Do Lab, or be placed in
a pool for a potential refund at an undisclosed time. Despite these
options, the putative class argues that Do Lab's promises are
illusory and an improper attempt to take money from its ticket
purchasers.

Discounts/Coupons for Future Events

For companies with access to a larger array of events, another
option is offering coupons that allow costumers greater flexibility
than credits towards a specific event. After mass event
cancellations in the wake of COVID-19, many ticket exchange and
resale companies began offering coupons for their websites,
sometimes offering coupons with even greater value than the
original ticket. Class actions have challenged that strategy,
however.

Alcaraz v. StubHub, Inc. (Northern District of California, Judge
Haywood Gilliam Jr.)
On April 14th, a putative class brought UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims
against Stubhub, Inc., one of the country's largest ticket exchange
and resale companies, for rescinding their promise to customers to
provide full refunds if an event was cancelled. Prior to COVID-19,
Stubhub's FanProtect Guarantee gave ticket purchasers the option of
either a full refund or a coupon for 120% of their original
purchase. However, due to the overwhelming number of refund
requests after the COVID-19 pandemic, Stubhub removed the full
refund option and began only processing coupons for event
cancellations. Despite being offered coupons that would make them
more than whole, plaintiffs argue that they would have never
purchased tickets in the first place without the guarantee of a
full refund for cancelled events.

Defenses and Strategic Considerations for COVID-19-Related Class
Actions Under California's Consumer Protection Laws

The UCL claims in these class actions have followed a fairly
predictable pattern. Utilizing the three-pronged test of the UCL,
plaintiffs first allege that the defendants violated the "fraud"
prong by falsely representing that consumers would only owe fees
when they had access to the defendant's physical facilities, or
that by purchasing a ticket they were entitled to a full refund if
the event were cancelled. Second, plaintiffs argue the defendants
violate the "unlawful" prong by violating the CLRA or FAL or some
other common law claim, such as breach of express warranty, fraud,
unjust enrichment, conversion, or breach of contract. Finally,
plaintiffs argue the defendants' practices violate the "unfair"
prong under the various "unfairness" tests applied by the courts.

Confronted by these claims, businesses should focus on the
following defenses and considerations:

Utilizing Existing Contractual Rights and Force Majeure
The first step for any company should be to review the text of any
applicable agreements, including but not limited to purchase and
membership agreements. Look for clauses that allocate the risk to
consumers or provide for delayed or different performance in case
of an event like the COVID-19 pandemic. Reliance on the plain text
of your contractual obligations may mitigate the perception of
unfairness. Additionally, many contracts include force majeure
clauses that relieve a party from its contractual duty when
performance has been prevented by a force beyond its control or
when the purpose of a contract has been frustrated. And, if your
contract is silent on the matter of force majeure, California law
implies such a clause under Cal. Civ. Code
Sec. 1511, where performance of an obligation is excused "when it
is prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by
the act of public enemies of the state or of the United States."

But bear in mind, as with any contractual dispute, the specific
contract language, the governing law, and specific facts will drive
the resolution of any dispute about performance. When reviewing
your contract's force majeure provisions, consider the following:

Is the COVID-19 pandemic a type of event that you or your
counterparty identified as a force majeure event?
Was the COVID-19 pandemic foreseeable at the time the contract was
signed?
Is performance impossible post-COVID-19 or merely expensive?
Does the force majeure provision require notice within a specific
period of time?
Does the force majeure provision apply only to certain obligations
of the contract?
Businesses also should review their underlying agreements for
choice of law or choice of forum provisions. California consumer
protection statutes are notably plaintiff-friendly, so a choice of
law provision that avoids California law and/or permits transfer of
the action may reduce exposure or even result in dismissal.

The Safe Harbor Defense
In 2000, the California Supreme Court established a UCL "safe
harbor" in Cel-Tech Communications, essentially holding that a
plaintiff cannot plead "unfairness" under the UCL where the
legislature specifically permits the challenged conduct. The
underlying theory is that courts may not impose their own notions
of what is fair or unfair where the legislature has spoken. While a
general proclamation of a pandemic probably will not suffice as a
statutory hook for a safe harbor claim, companies should determine
whether there is a basis for a safe harbor defense by reviewing the
statutes underlying plaintiff's claims for permitted conduct during
an event like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Underlying Defenses to "Borrowed" Law Under the Unlawful Prong of
the UCL
A principal defense to a UCL "unlawful" claim is to establish a
defense under the "borrowed" law. California courts consistently
hold that a defense to the borrowed law also applies to a UCL claim
based on that law.[ In many of the COVID-19-related class actions,
the borrowed law is the CLRA or FAL, but some cases have also been
based on other common law claims such as breach of contract, fraud,
or unjust enrichment. Defenses to these claims also apply to the
UCL "unlawful" claim.

Defenses to Class Certification
Ninth Circuit law provides strong arguments against the application
of California's consumer protection statutes to
non-resident Plaintiffs or a nationwide class. Mazza v. Honda. In
Mazza, the Ninth Circuit found that California's consumer
protection statutes differed so significantly from those of other
states that the interests of the foreign states precluded the
certification of a nationwide class. Although many courts defer
this issue to the class certification stage, some courts have been
prepared to grant motions to strike class allegations at the
pleading stage, including in cases where there is no California
plaintiff. Nationwide classes may also raise predominance issues
across states with drastically different stay-at-home orders and
social distancing guidelines.

Other Considerations Moving Forward into the Post-COVID-19
Landscape

Although the law regarding strategies short of full refunds in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic is just starting to develop,
businesses should also consider how consumers will respond and how
to manage that response. Thus, businesses should carefully craft
communications to their customers about a current decision to offer
(or continue to offer) something other than a full refund. Going
forward, companies should clearly disclose their cancellation
policies to their customer base in a manner customers will be sure
to see, in order to reduce exposure to future litigation. Finally,
businesses should consider ways to address these issues while
drafting future iterations of their membership and purchase
agreements, particularly with regard to force majeure and the
allocation of risk. [GN]


[*] Victoria Permits Contingency Fees in Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Marcus O'Brien and Nicole Wearne of Clyde & Co report that
plaintiff law firms are celebrating.  From 1 July 2020 class action
lawyers can apply to the Supreme Court of Victoria for permission
to charge costs using a contingency fee model.

In Australia, there has been a statutory prohibition preventing
lawyers from charging a contingency fee on damages obtained by a
successful party. An inherent conflict was recognised to exist
between the lawyer's own interests and those of the client, which
may affect the advice provided. However with the burgeoning
litigation funding industry in Australia, plaintiff firms have been
lobbying governments for law reform which enables increased access
to justice through law firms receiving their costs on a contingency
fee basis. Despite the Federal Parliament's current Joint Committee
Inquiry on Corporations and Financial Services into Litigation
Funding and Regulation of the Class Action Industry, the Victorian
Parliament has followed the advice of the Victorian Law Reform
Commission and pushed ahead with a contingency fee model.

Will Victoria become a preferred State for Class Action litigation?
Are plaintiff law firms on a level playing field with litigation
funders or do they now have a distinct commercial advantage? Will
the new s33ZDA provide the Victorian Supreme Court with a
procedural advantage over NSW and Federal Courts? Are contingency
fees the new CFO? This article examines some of the consequences
and likely implications of this significant and historical change
which permits Australian class action lawyers to charge contingency
fees.

The new law has been the subject of much comment over several
months with competing claims about whether it will improve access
to justice or whether it will lead to an outbreak of unmeritorious
class actions. The legislation comes into effect in Victoria at a
time when there is ongoing debate about the Federal Court's
authority to regulate common funding of class actions following the
decision last year by the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v
Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2019] HCA 45 in
which it held that procedurally s183 of the Civil Procedure Act
(NSW) and s33ZF of the Federal Court Act did not empower the NSW
Supreme Court or Federal Court respectively, to issue common fund
orders (CFO) in the early stages of class actions. The High Court
found that those sections are each directed to the exercise of the
power in the context of how an action should proceed in order to do
justice.

The Amendment

The Justice Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2020 (Vic)
amends the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Act) to make provisions about
costs in group proceedings. New section 33ZDA in relation to group
costs orders says:

"On application by the plaintiff in any group proceeding, the
Court, if satisfied that it is appropriate or necessary to ensure
that justice is done in the proceeding, may make an order -

(a) that the legal costs payable to the law practice representing
the plaintiff and group members be calculated as a percentage of
the amount of any award or settlement that may be recovered in the
proceeding, being the percentage set out in the order; and

(b) that liability for payment of the legal costs must be shared
among the plaintiff and all group members.

(2) If a group costs order is made -

(a) the law practice representing the plaintiff and group members
is liable to pay any costs payable to the defendant in the
proceeding; and

(b) the law practice representing the plaintiff and group members
must give any security for the costs of the defendant in the
proceeding that the Court may order the plaintiff to give.

(3) The Court, by order during the course of the proceeding, may
amend a group costs order, including, but not limited to, amendment
of any percentage ordered under subsection (1)(a)."

In summary, the Act allows the Court to make an order in group
proceedings (class actions) for plaintiff law firms to charge their
fees as a percentage of the amount recovered, rather than
calculating legal fees on scale or using the time-costing billing
model with a 25% uplift.

Practical impacts of the Act

Currently, many plaintiff law firms in Victoria pursue class
actions on a no-win, no-fee basis. If the action is successful they
charge their clients an uplift fee up to a cap of 25% on their
standard legal costs. In many class actions the plaintiff firms
enter into agreements with litigation funders to finance the costs
of the proceeding, including providing any security for costs
required and in most cases an indemnity for an adverse costs order
if the action is unsuccessful. So plaintiffs pay both an uplifted
fee to their solicitors and a funding fee to the litigation funder.
The consequence is that where a funder is involved, group members
often receive only around 50% of the settlement or judgment sum,
though that percentage is typically larger the bigger the claim and
judgment sum.

The key purpose of the new law is to increase the group members'
share of any proceeds from the class action. The quid pro quo for
allowing plaintiff's lawyers to charge a contingency fee is to
shift the financial risk to the plaintiff's lawyers.

The Act does not set a limit on the percentage of the recovered sum
that can be charged as a contingency fee. However the Court will
play a determinative role in controlling the percentage of the
contingency fee. Whilst the percentage will be set at the time the
group costs order is made, the Court can amend that percentage
during the course of the proceeding.

If a group costs order is made, liability for the defendant's costs
shifts from the lead plaintiffs to the plaintiff law firm. The
plaintiff law firm will have to fund the costs of pursuing the
proceeding and will have to pay the defendant's costs if the action
is unsuccessful.

To satisfy the Court that a group costs order should be made the
plaintiff law firm will have to satisfy the Court such an order is
"appropriate or necessary to ensure justice is done". The Court has
a complete discretion to determine whether a group costs order is
appropriate for a particular class action. Importantly, the Act
does not displace the broader prohibition against contingency fees.
It only applies to group proceedings.
An alternative CFO?

Significantly, whilst the impact of the Brewster decision is to
potentially curtail CFOs, the introduction of a statutory
contingency fee power in Victoria provides an alternative mechanism
for group proceedings to obtain certainty of funding at an early
stage of the litigation. The position is to be contrasted with the
Federal Court where the power to make a CFO or funding equalisation
order now appears to only be available towards the end of a
proceeding, when settlement is approved or judgment delivered. This
new power provides the Victorian Supreme Court with market
disrupting influence. It will inevitably cause plaintiff firms to
assess which jurisdiction enables them to obtain the best
commercial benefit.
Security for Costs

It is common in funded class actions for defendants to make an
application that the representative plaintiff provide security for
the defendant's costs. Whether or not an order for security for
costs is in the interests of justice will depend upon the
consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Where the class
action is being funded by group members or the solicitors are
working on a speculative basis, the Courts are inclined not to
order security. However where a litigation funder is involved an
application for security is more likely to be successful or
consented to. In a recent Victorian decision if was foreshadowed
that if there is a contingency fee arrangement in a class action
that will be a relevant consideration for the Court to take into
account in deciding whether to order security.1

The Act provides that the plaintiff law firm ". must give any
security for the costs of the defendant in the proceeding..." that
is ordered by the Court. So as part of the risk reward mechanism
the plaintiff law firm will have to provide security that is
acceptable to the defendants. For larger plaintiff firms they will
no doubt have arrangements in place with their banker to provide
appropriate guarantees. It will be interesting to see whether this
requirement will prevent smaller law firms from entering the fray.
One option is for plaintiff firms to purchase an After the Event
(ATE) insurance policy which they will disclose to the defendants
in response to an application for security.
Impact on Litigation Funders

The increase in class actions in Australia and the prevalence of
litigation funders has been blamed for inhibiting corporate
activity. The returns earned by litigation funders have been the
subject of political debate and from 22 August 2020 funders will
have to be licensed under the Corporations Act. Some commentators
have observed that the introduction of contingency fees provides an
alternative funding option to enable some class actions which would
not otherwise be funded, either because the sums involved do not
provide the returns required by funders or they do not fit the
litigation funding model.

This new reform only applies to Victoria and it will be business as
usual for litigation funders in other States. If the reform
significantly impacts their activities in Victoria, as a result of
plaintiff firms deciding to go it alone, then we may see funders
setting up their own law firms or entering into arrangements with
plaintiff firms to provide security for adverse costs in return for
a portion of the contingency fees. There is also a real likelihood
that other States or the Commonwealth will also introduce
contingency fee laws in order to provide equivalent access to
justice for their citizens.

The Court will scrutinise whether a particular action is deserving
of a contingency fee arrangement. In an article published by Vince
Morabito and Jarrah Ekstein in 2016, the learned authors reviewed
the many different types of class actions not brought by
shareholders or investors, but filed on behalf of vulnerable
claimants2. Many of those class actions involve smaller numbers of
class members, often involve personal injury loss and are less
attractive to funders than shareholder and investor claims. We
expect that the Court will be likely to approve contingency fees
for these types of claims which are plainly deserving, and which
require significant investment by the plaintiff firm. In contrast
where funders are prepared to provide financial assistance to
shareholders and investors, we predict that the introduction of a
contingency fee alternative is likely to place additional
commercial pressure on funders to reduce their rate of commission.
This is particularly so having regard to the statements made by
various judges that the current statutory regime does not enable
judges to vary the commission rate in funding agreements. In
competing class actions where one option is a contingency fee which
removes the costs risks from the plaintiff and a funding fee which
can result in a significant reduction of the take home settlement
to members, the attractiveness to the Court in preferring a
contingency fee funded class action is obvious where the prospects
are that better returns are likely to result for group members. The
plaintiff firms in seeking this reform have stated that the overall
benefit to members is a much greater share of the
settlement/judgment: 75% instead of 60%3.
What will happen next?

There has been significant media comment that contingency fees will
lead to a financial bonanza for plaintiff law firms. That is
unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, the Court has been given a
specific power to set, vary or reject the proposed contingency fee
arrangement. Recent Court decisions demonstrate that judges take an
active role in scrutinising fees and commission rates and we expect
that they will carefully review contingency fee rates relative to
any judgment or settlement to ensure that they are not excessive.
Ultimately the Court has to approve any settlement reached, and the
lawyers' costs will be a factor the Court can take into account in
assessing whether settlement is in the best interests of group
members.

Secondly, whilst we expect that plaintiff law firms will initially
seek a contingency fee which is similar to the current fees charged
by litigation funders, to reflect the risks they are accepting, it
is likely that there will be competition between law firms and
litigation funders for class actions. We have recently seen class
action "auctions" between funders who have competed with each other
on funding rates.

It has been argued that the contingency fee reform will allow
plaintiffs to pursue group claims that are currently considered as
too small or too risky by litigation funders or where no lead
plaintiff has been prepared to run the risk of being exposed to an
adverse costs order.

Solicitors are likely to be initially careful about the types of
claims they commence where they will seek to apply for a
contingency fee order from the Court. We suspect that the early
focus will be on those matters where funders have previously not
been interested, like bushfire claims, product liability torts, and
consumer claims such as mis-selling of financial products, consumer
credit insurance and MySuper claims. These types of claims have
traditionally been brought on a "no win no fee" basis. We think
that Plaintiff firms will focus on these types of claims before
they seek to compete in more traditionally funded investor or
shareholder claims. In a climate of Royal Commissions investigating
institutional abuse, we also expect to see group proceedings for
victims of sexual, physical and mental abuse as one class of claims
where plaintiff firms will seek to take advantage of the new
contingency fee law.

It is unlikely that plaintiff law firms will take on unmeritorious
class actions when they are exposed to the financial downside if
the action fails. If the action involves significant risk then the
plaintiff's lawyers will not be able to buy ATE to protect against
the adverse costs risk.

The matters which the Court will wish to be informed about on any
application under s33ZDA are likely to include whether any other
costs model has been considered, including the traditional uplift
fee; the potential value of the claim; and the backend funding of
the lawyers upfront costs, including whether litigation funders are
providing any support and likely to receive any fee.

When it comes time to discuss settlement, insurers may find that a
new dynamic enters the negotiations as the plaintiffs' lawyers need
to balance the interests of the group members, with their own
financial interests. This interest is not just confined to the
greater the settlement the more revenue for the law firm, but also
whether in hard fought class actions any revenue will flow to the
law firm. Plaintiff firms will need to be careful not to under
settle to protect their own interests. We foresee a greater role
for Court appointed contradictors of settlements, who may be
appointed to independently scrutinise whether a settlement is in
the best interests of group members.

Summary

The introduction of contingency fees is a significant and
controversial change to the way that lawyers are permitted to
charge their fees. The Victorian Government has been criticised as
pandering to the union firms. However, Victoria is frequently at
the forefront of reform and this disruptive change is no different.
Whilst we do not expect a flood of claims will result, this reform
has forever changed the landscape of class action litigation.

Footnotes

1. Troiano v Voci [2019] VSC 859, at [57]

2. Vince Morabito and Jarrah Ekstein "Class Actions Filed for the
benefit of Vulnerable Persons - An Australian Study" (2016) 35
Civil Justice Quarterly 61

3. Victorian Law Reform Commission report Access to Justice -
Litigation Funding and Group Proceedings, Ch 3. para 3.24 [GN]




                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***