/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200717.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 143

                            Headlines

17070 COLLINS: Faces Longhini Suit in Fla. Alleging ADA Violation
7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Appeals Decision in Labor Suit to 7th Circuit
AARON'S INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
ALASKA: Ruling on OPA's Contract With Service Providers Upheld
ALIGN TECH: City Smiles Voluntary Dismisses Antitrust Class Suit

ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Court Certifies Flete Collective Action
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Chouest Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Maggard Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Monroe Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Noe Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Carlson Antitrust Class Action in Calif.
AUTOZONER LLC: Loses Summary Judgment Bids in Carr FLSA Suit
BAIRD DRYWALL: Certification of Britt's Collective Action Sought
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Loan Agent Fees, Manoloff et al. Say
BANK OF AMERICA: Ices Slam Mandatory/Excessive Flood Insurance

BANK OF AMERICA: Williams Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
BANK OZK: Bank Staff Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
BARRETT FRAPPIER: Atchison Disputes Collection Letter Validity
BROTHERS' KEEPER: Jones Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
BT GROUP: Court Dismisses 4th Amended J. Christian Securities Suit

BUMBLE TRADING: Court Prelim. Certifies Settlement Classes
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Seeks Repatriation, Back Wages
CHAMELEON STRATEGIC: Foster Labor Suit Seeks Damages for Guards
CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 25 Deadline
CIRCLE K STORES: Mutchler Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California

CLASSIC SALADS: Cal. App. Flips Arbitration Denial in Morales Suit
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
CREDITONE LLC: Kaur Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Knight Hits Share Price Drop
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Alfred Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

DELAWARE NORTH: Morand-Doxzon Labor Suit Moved to S.D. California
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Burns Slams Data Breach
DHL EXPRESS: Schulz Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
DLJ ENTERPRISES: Ortega Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Binotti Sues Over Faculty No-poach Policy

DURHAM D&M: Romo Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
EF EDUCATION: Corrigan Sues Over Shelved Tour, Seeks Refund
ELECTROCORE INC: C. Tibbs Named Lead Plaintiff in Turnofsky Suit
EMPRO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under NYLL, Praczuk Claims
ENSIGN U.S.: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Oilfield Workers Class

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Dunn Seeks to Certify Safety Specialist Class
ESTEEM PATROL: Bailey Seeks Minimum Wage, Uniform Reimbursements
EZCATER INC: Farrer Suit Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court
FCI LOMPOC: Court Grants Provisional Class Cert. in Torres Suit
FLOWERS GROUP: Maciel Slams Misclassification, Usury

GENERAL ELECTRIC: 1st Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Imamura Suit
GIMLET MEDIA: Website Not Accessible to Deaf Users, Jones Claims
H & J RESTAURANTS: Jones Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class of Servers
HCA HEALTHCARE: Oleary Seeks to Certify Class
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Guijarro Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court

HGGC LLC: Fund Sues Over Nutraceutical Acquisition
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Laid-Off Resto Staff Seek Denied Benefits
HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Parziale Class Suit
HUB GROUP: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Drivers
IDEANOMICS INC: Faces Kim Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop

JEG'S AUTOMOTIVE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Ex Parte Bid for TRO in Legendary Suit
KAISER FOUNDATION: Haro Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. Cal.
KAT ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Technicians, Mayo Says
KM INDUSTRIAL: Harris Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court

LEAFLY HOLDINGS: Cruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
LIRA OF NEW YORK INC: Denied Staff Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
LO & BEHOLD: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Suit Claims
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Shaughnessy Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
MARCOS MEDICAL WELLNESS: Arispe Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads

MARYLAND: Appeals Order in Cedillo Habeas Corpus Suit to 4th Cir.
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Rocha Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies TRO & Prelim. Injunction Bid in Amos Suit
MOLEKULE INC: Lepore Disputes Air Purifier Efficacy
MORE AGENCY: Caban Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code

MOREHART MERCANTILE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Schubert Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cason et al. Sue Over Amendments of 2020 CBA
ORTHO ARCH CO: Sarraf Slams Illegally-sent Fax Ads
PEORIA DISPOSAL: Stinson Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Drivers
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 4 Deadline

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
RETAIL EQUATION: Unlawfully Shares Consumer Data, Hayden Claims
RIVER VALLEY RECYCLING: Mendez Hits Illegal Deductions, Unpaid OT
RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Class of Receptionists in McKenzie Certified
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Court Grants Renewed Class Certification Bid

SEED CONSULTING: Maryland Ct. Junks James Suit for Improper Venue
SHC SERVICES: Evans Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
SIX SLICE: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Bailey Suit Says
SPACIOUS LIVING: Gordon Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
STATE FARM: Bias Against Minority Insureds, Chee Vang Says

SYMANTEC CORP: Class Action Trial Scheduled for June 14, 2021
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Refused Travel Insurance Refund, Haas Claims
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Thomson Student Suit Moved to D.R.I.
VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE: McCulloch Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
VARSITY BRANDS: Gyms Sue Over Monopoly in All-Star Markets

VIKING GROUP: Crace Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
YELP INC: Aug. 25 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

17070 COLLINS: Faces Longhini Suit in Fla. Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI v. 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK
HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.;
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION; FIVE BELOW, INC.;
P16, LLC; 88 ZEST, LLC; WES TAYTA CORPORATION; VISTAR HALLANDALE
LLC; PANERA, LLC; BIG LOTS STORES, INC.; and ICE CREAM OF
HALLANDALE LLC, is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive
relief, declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Defendants 17070 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, Ltd. and RK
Hallandale Limited Partnership own, operate and oversee a
commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots. The
subject Commercial Property is open to the public and is located in
Hallandale Beach, Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property, regularly, to include
visits to the Commercial Property and businesses located within the
Commercial Property on April 17, 2019, and June 20, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that he encountered multiple violations of the
ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property and businesses located therein.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  bvirues@lawgmp.com
                  aquezada@lawgmp.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Appeals Decision in Labor Suit to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Niral Patel filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
his lawsuit entitled Niral Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-07010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 2,
2019, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaims and Third-Party
Complaint in the case captioned DHANANJAY PATEL, SAFDAR HUSSAIN,
VATSAL CHOKSHI, DHAVAL PATEL AND NIRAL PATEL, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant and
Third-Party Plaintiff, v. DPNEWTO1, DP TREMONT STREET INC., DP MILK
STREET INC., DP JERSEY INC., Third-Party Defendants, Case No.
17-11414-NMG (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs initially alleged that 7-Eleven and two 7-Eleven
market managers, Mary Cadigan and Andrew Brothers  1) misclassified
its franchisee convenience store workers in Massachusetts as
independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law 2) violated the
Massachusetts Wage Act (Wage Act) and 3) violated the Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Niral Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
Case No. 20-2225, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by July 22, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 17, 2020, for
      Niral Patel.[BN]

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

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

Defendant-Appellee 7-ELEVEN, INC., is represented by:

          Norman M. Leon, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 368-2192
          E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com


AARON'S INC: Castro Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS H. CASTRO CARDENAS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
AARON'S, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00274403 (Filed January 29, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
July 2, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01327-TLN-AC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Labor Code for failure to pay
wages and/or overtime, and failure to provide meal and rest
periods.

Aaron's, Inc., is a lease-to-own retailer. The Company focuses on
leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics, appliances, and
computers. The Company sells through the company-operated and
franchised stores in Canada, as well as its e-commerce platform,
Aarons.com.[BN]

Defendant Aaron's, Inc. i,s represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Michael A. Wahlander, Esq.
          Nolan R. Theurer, Esq.
          Sophia S. Kwan, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
                  mwahlander@seyfarth.com
                  ntheurer@seyfarth.com
                  skwan@seyfarth.com


ALASKA: Ruling on OPA's Contract With Service Providers Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, M.M., through his next friend ERIN KIRKLAND,
Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE
OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY; LESLIE RIDLE, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Department of Administration; and CHAD HOLT, in
his official capacity as Director of the Office of Public Advocacy,
Appellees, Supreme Court No. S-16970, No. 7445 (Alaska), the
Supreme Court of Alaska:

   (i) affirmed the superior court's ruling that the Office of
       Public Advocacy ("OPA") may contract with service providers

       to help satisfy its statutory visitation duty, and

  (ii) reversed the superior court's decision that M.M.'s next
       friend, Kirkland, is personally liable for his attorney's
       fees.

The case involves a dispute between an incapacitated Plaintiff and
the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), his court-appointed public
guardian.  The Plaintiff raised several issues in a complaint filed
on his behalf by a next friend in superior court -- issues
regarding the caseloads of OPA workers, the lack of standards of
practice for OPA workers, and OPA not visiting its wards quarterly
as required by statute.  The Plaintiff requested class
certification, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief.

OPA is the guardian of last resort for incapacitated persons in
Alaska.  The Plaintiff in the case, M.M, is incapacitated, and in
July 2014, the superior court appointed OPA as his guardian.  The
court also issued a guardianship plan detailing OPA's authority
over M.M. M.M.'s OPA guardian contracted with Assets, Inc. and an
assisted living representative to provide M.M. with housing and
care at an assisted living home.  The agreement between the three
parties memorialized the care M.M. would receive and specified that
Assets was required to conduct quarterly home visits, including two
unannounced visits to the assisted living home per year.

In October 2015 M.M., through his mother, Erin Kirkland, as next
friend, filed a class action complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated. M.M. named as Defendants the Department of
Administration, the Commissioner of the Department, OPA, and the
Director of OPA.  M.M. alleged that OPA had too many wards per
individual guardian and that the guardians were not fulfilling
their statutory duties to wards.  Specifically, M.M. alleged that
he does not receive in-person visits from his public guardian at
least every quarter, as required under Alaska law.  The complaint
also contained facts supporting class certification.  Finally, M.M.
claimed that relief was required because OPA had not adopted
standards of practice to regulate its workers' caseloads or to
specify how they should interact with their wards.

The State answered M.M.'s complaint, admitting that caseloads of
public guardians have increased over the last five years to an
average of more than 80 wards per public guardian, and that,
assuming a 37.5-hour work-week, each public guardian has on average
less than two hours to spend on each ward per month.  The State
also raised several affirmative defenses, including failure to
state a claim for which relief may be granted, immunity, and
non-justiciability. The State requested that M.M.'s complaint be
dismissed and that it be awarded costs and fees.  The State also
filed a motion to dismiss, again asserting non-justiciability and
failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

M.M. moved for partial summary judgment.  The superior court
granted partial summary judgment for the State on the issues
whether OPA was required to issue written standards or decrease the
caseloads of its guardians to fewer wards per guardian.  As to
whether OPA guardians must visit their wards quarterly, the court
concluded that the political question doctrine did not apply and
that the claim should not be dismissed on prudential grounds;
further, the court determined that AS 13.26.720(c)(2)8 was not
ambiguous, and that there were issues of material fact regarding
whether the substantial compliance doctrine applies in the case and
if so whether Plaintiff's public guardian has substantial[ly]
complied with applicable statutes as to M.M.

The superior court subsequently clarified its ruling regarding
substantial compliance.  It encouraged the parties to stipulate to
facts establishing who conducted the in-person visits with the
wards for and on behalf of the guardians, and when so the court
could "determine whether the Defendants' use of these alternative
individuals substantially complies with the defendants' statutory
requirement to visit M.M."  The parties filed stipulated facts and
supplemental briefing.  Following oral argument, the court
determined it had sufficient facts to rule on the remaining issue,
and it issued a final order granting the State's motion for summary
judgment and denying M.M.'s cross-motion.

The superior court concluded that OPA had not complied with its
visitation requirement on its own but that the undisputed facts
show several 'in-person' visits with the ward by contracted service
providers on a regular basis -- certainly weekly, monthly, and
several times each quarter.  Further, these providers regularly
report to the assigned public guardian, at least several times each
quarter.  The court concluded that the contracted service provider
for M.M. provides far more protection for M.M. than a simple
quarterly 'in-person' visit would provide."  In conclusion, it
stated that the buck still stops with the public guardian who is
required to monitor their ward's welfare.  But in the case, the
court finds the public guardian has done so through permissible
contracted services.

Following the superior court's order, the State moved for $25,000
in attorney's fees, 20% of its total fees pursuant to Alaska Civil
Rule 82(b)(2).  M.M. opposed, arguing that the State's request was
manifestly unreasonable, that an award of $25,000 would chill
access to the court system, that the State was not entitled to fees
for the time spent litigating the class certification issue, that
Kirkland as next friend was not personally liable for any fees, and
that the court should either deny the State's motion in its
entirety or award the State a lesser amount.  The court issued an
order awarding the State $12,500 and holding M.M.'s next friend
personally liable for payment.  The court issued final judgment for
the State.

M.M. appeals, arguing that the superior court improperly
interpreted the statutes addressing to whom OPA may delegate
duties, erred by awarding attorney's fees, and erred by holding the
Plaintiff's next friend personally liable for fees.  

Because the plain language, legislative history, public policy, and
purpose of the statutes discussed above all support the superior
court's interpretation, the Alaska Supreme Court affirms the court
on the issue whether OPA can contract with service providers to
help fulfill its visitation duty.  Among other things, the Alaska
Supreme Court finds that the plain meaning of the statutes read
together supports the superior court's determination that OPA may
contract with service providers to help meet its quarterly
visitation requirement.  Also, nothing in the legislative committee
meeting M.M. references or in the legislative history more
generally casts doubt on the superior court's interpretation of the
statutes.  And, the public policy behind OPA's wards receiving the
best care possible and having their conditions monitored as
frequently as possible supports allowing OPA to contract with
service providers to help fulfill its duty to perform quarterly
visits.

Next, the Alaska Supreme Court agrees with the State's assertion
that the terms "guardian ad litem" and "next friend" are often used
interchangeably.  But the legislature used neither term in AS
09.60.030, and the Alaska Supreme Court will not add language to
the statute.  The legislature easily could have included next
friend in the statute had it wished to do so; other state
legislatures have done so.  In the absence of clear statutory
direction, the Alaska Supreme Court cannot conclude that AS
09.60.030 directs courts to hold a next friend personally liable
for attorney's fees.  Accordingly, the Alaska Supreme Court
reverses the superior court's decision that Kirkland is personally
liable for attorney's fees adjudged against M.M.

Finally, the Alaska Supreme Court finds that the superior court
recognized its discretion to vary fees to avoid chilling access to
the courts for M.M. and similarly situated litigants.  It noted
that M.M. diligently pursued the case and that the resolution of
the issues in this case was important to both parties.  The court
was sympathetic to M.M.'s indigent status and accordingly reduced
the State's requested fee award by half.  Typically, the Court
would uphold a fee award like the one in the case, given that the
superior court was well within its discretion to award half of the
fees permitted by Civil Rule 82(b)(2).  But in light of its
decision that a next friend may not be held personally liable for
an incapacitated person's attorney's fees, the Alaska Supreme Court
remands for the superior court to reconsider whether the fee amount
awarded in the case remains appropriate given that M.M. will be
left personally liable for the fees.

For the foregoing reasons, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the
superior court's decision that OPA can contract with service
providers to help fulfill its duty to visit wards quarterly.  The
Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision that
M.M.'s next friend, Kirkland, is personally liable for his
attorney's fees.  The Alaska Supreme Court remanded to allow
reconsideration of the fee award in the case given its decision.

A full-text copy of the Alaska Supreme Court's April 24, 2020
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/cXpscm from Leagle.com.

Goriune Dudukgian -- njp@njp-law.com -- and James J. Davis, Jr.,
Northern Justice Project, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellant.

Kathryn Vogel, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna
Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees.


ALIGN TECH: City Smiles Voluntary Dismisses Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon and Simon, PC dba City Smiles, on its own behalf and on
behalf of others have voluntarily dismissed its complaint against
Align Technology, Inc.

The case is SIMON AND SIMON, PC d/b/a CITY SMILES, Plaintiff, v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, C.A. No. 19-506 (LPS) (D.
Del.).

Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action without prejudice and
will file an amended complaint in a venue not subject to dismissal
or transfer pursuant to the contractual choice-of-venue
provision.

The antitrust class action suit was commenced by Plaintiff against
Defendant Align on March 14, 2019, alleging violations of Section 2
of the Sherman Act.  Align sells the Invisalign system, an
orthodontic treatment for straightening teeth without metal braces.
It involves the use of custom-made, plastic dental aligners.  To
make the aligners, Align requires a dental professional to obtain
an impression of the patient's teeth and transmit that impression
to Align.  One way to take an impression is with a digital
intraoral scanner.  In September 2015, Align introduced a scanner
called the iTero Element, which can be used to order Invisalign
from Align.  

Plaintiff City Smiles is a dental practice in Chicago, Illinois
that prescribes aligners to its patients.  It purchased an iTero
Element scanner from Align in December 2016 and purchased
Invisalign for multiple patients between 2015 and 2018.

The Complaint takes issue with two categories of conduct by Align
that, the Plaintiff contends, amount to an anticompetitive scheme
to monopolize both the scanner and the aligner markets.  The first
relates to the criteria under which Align accepts orders for
Invisalign.  A dental professional can order Invisalign by sending
Align a physical impression of a patient's teeth, for example, by
creating a silicone mold.  The Complaint alleges that silicone
molds "are burdensome and inefficient and not an acceptable
substitute for a proper Scanner."

Alternatively, a dental professional can order Invisalign by using
the iTero Element scanner and sending Align a digital impression.
For a 15-month period in 2016 to 2018, Align also accepted digital
scans sent directly from 3Shape's Trios scanners, pursuant to an
agreement between Align and 3Shape "Interoperability Agreement").
Pursuant to the Interoperability Agreement, Trios scanners were
used to place over 40,000 Invisalign orders.  In January 2018,
shortly after Align filed four patent infringement lawsuits against
3Shape relating to the Trios scanner, Align terminated the
Interoperability Agreement and stopped accepting scans sent
directly from Trios scanners.

Align also accepts digital scans from scanners made by two other
manufacturers: 3M's True Definition and Dentsply Sirona's CEREC
Omnicam.  According to the Complaint, however, those scanners are
designed to scan individual teeth and are unsuitable for making
aligners.  Thus, according to the Complaint, a scanner is the only
"acceptable" way to order aligners, and Align's iTero Element and
3Shape's Trios are the only "suitable" scanners.  Since Align no
longer accepts Invisalign orders from Trios scanners, the only
"viable" way to order Invisalign-brand aligners is to use Align's
iTero Element.

The second category of challenged conduct relates to the design of
the iTero Element.  Align designed the iTero Element with the
capability to send digital scans directly to Align for orders of
Invisalign.  The iTero Element cannot send scans directly to
Align's competitors in the aligner market.  If a dental
professional wants to send a scan taken by the iTero Element to
another aligner manufacturer, the dental professional must pay a
fee to Align to convert the scan into another format.  The
Complaint does not provide any further information about the fees.

According to City Smiles, those two categories of conduct by Align
-- (1) Align's refusal to accept scans from the Trios scanner for
Invisalign orders and (2) the design of Align's scanner— --
operate as a de facto bundle by making it impracticable for Dental
Practices to sell Invisalign without an iTero Scanner, or for
Dental Practices with an iTero Scanner to sell other Aligners.  It
alleges that Align's actions have harmed competition in the scanner
and aligner markets, resulting in higher prices, reduced
competition, and reduced product choice.  According to City Smiles,
it was injured as a direct result of its purchase of an iTero
Element scanner in 2016 and the numerous Invisalign orders it made
between 2015 and 2018, all at "artificially inflated" prices.

City Smiles' Complaint sets forth the following claims:
monopolization of the clear aligner market under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act (Count 1); and monopolization of the market for
scanners for orthodontic treatment under Section 2 of the Sherman
Act (Count 2).  It seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, respectively.

Before the Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal notice, Align
sought a dismissal of the case.

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware recommended approval of Align's Motion to
Dismiss.  In her recommendation, Judge Hall concluded that City
Smiles' Complaint fails to plausibly allege anticompetitive
conduct, a required element of monopolization under Section 2 of
the Sherman Act.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/qUZnN9 from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Plaintiff's May 2020 Voluntary Dismissal is
available at https://is.gd/5iUcr0 from PacerMonitor.com.


ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Court Certifies Flete Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY
MAINTENANCE INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER
BREWER, individually, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order on July 13,
2020, granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a collective
action and facilitate notice to potential class members.

   -- The Court conditionally certifies a Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action consisting of:

      "all current and former employees of AAFM and Brewer from
      July 13, 2017 to the present who worked as "non-exempt
      customer service/clerical employees," were paid a
      combination of salary, hourly and other incentives, such
      that their straight-time pay varied week-to-week and did
      not remain fixed, and worked over 40 hours in one of more
      workweeks for Defendants."

   -- On or before July 27, 2020, Defendants will provide the
      Plaintiff's counsel with a list containing the names,
      email addresses, last known addresses, and dates of
      employment of each potential class member (the "Opt-In
      List");

   -- The Plaintiff shall send such Notices to the members of
      the Opt-in List as the Court has found the proposed
      notice, as amended, is appropriate;

   -- Within two days of sending notice, Plaintiff's counsel
      shall file with the Court and serve on Defendant's counsel
      a Certification as to the date on which Notice was mailed
      and/or emailed to the individuals on the Opt-In List;

   -- The time period for opting into this action will be 90
      days from the date Notice is sent via U.S. Mail and/or e-
      mail. In order to be timely, consent forms must be signed
      3 by the Opt-in, dated, and filed with the Court by the
      90th day after notice is sent;

   -- Within seven days of receiving a signed opt-in consent
      form, Plaintiff's counsel shall provide a copy of said
      consent form to Defendant's counsel.

   -- The Court does not approve Plaintiff sending a reminder
      notice to the putative class members.

   -- The Defendants are not required at this time to post a
      copy of the Notice at Defendants' facilities. Service of
      the Notice via both U.S. Mail and e-mail should be
      sufficient. In the event that Defendants do not produce a
      full list of mailing and e-mail addresses, Plaintiff can
      re-raise this issue of posting.[CC]

ALLERGAN INC: Faces Chouest Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY CHOUEST v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.;
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOEs 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-08204 (D.N.J., July 2, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others 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 adds.

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 Chouest case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN 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:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Maggard Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MAGGARD and RICHARD MAGGARD v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as
ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-08272 (D.N.J., July 2, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others 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.

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 Plaintiffs contend they 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 Maggard case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Michelle Maggard 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 Plaintiffs are 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 Monroe Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MONROE and TONY MONROE v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as
ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-08207 (D.N.J., July 2, 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 adds.

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 Plaintiffs contend they 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 Monroe case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Jennifer Monroe 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Noe Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
INGRID NOE v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOEs 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-08201
(D.N.J., July 2, 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.

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 Noe case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN 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:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE Third Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Carlson Antitrust Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheridan Carlson, individually and on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Altria Group, Inc.
and Juul Labs, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03430, (N.D. Cal.,
May 21, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.

Altria and Juul are the largest e-cigarette manufacturers in the
country. In December 20, 2018, Altria purchased a 35% non-voting
stake in Juul which resulted in Altria's seemingly orchestrated
exit from the closed-system e-cigarette market in exchange for a
portion of Juul's profits thus propelling Juul to a dominant
position in the market after eliminating its competition allowing
it was able to charge supra-competitive prices for its products.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Jill Manning, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      Email: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@steyerlaw.com
             jmanning@steyerlaw.com

             - and -

      Arthur Bailey, Esq.
      Marco Cercone, Esq.
      RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
      1600 Liberty Building
      424 Main Street
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Tel.: (716) 664-2967
      Fax: (716) 664-2983
      Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com
             cercone@ruppbaase.com


AUTOZONER LLC: Loses Summary Judgment Bids in Carr FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOPE M. CARR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUTOZONER, LLC;
AND AUTOZONE STORES, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:15-cv-00356-AKK (N.D. Ala.), Judge Abdul K. Kallon of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern
Division, denied AutoZone's motions for summary judgment as to the
claims of opt-in Plaintiffs Jamaal Joseph, Lisa Minkosky, Daniel
Urban, and Kevin Wood.

The Plaintiffs, who work as store managers for AutoZone stores
across the country, commenced the class action against AutoZoner
and AutoZone for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).  Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other damages.

AutoZone operates thousands of stores across the United States that
are organized into divisions, regions, districts, and individual
stores.  Each AutoZone district includes seven to fifteen stores
overseen by a district manager.  AutoZone stores vary widely in
size, sales volume, and number of employees, but each store is
managed by a store manager who reports to a district manager.  The
store managers, such as the Plaintiffs, receive a salary and are
the highest-level employees in each store.  As salaried employees,
none of the Plaintiffs are paid overtime for any hours they work
over 40 hours per week.

In spite of the differences between the Plaintiffs' stores, they
each contend that AutoZone's policies make clear that sales and
customer services are each manager's most important job duties.
Nevertheless, they admit that they have responsibility for
everything related to the store, including supervising employees
and the store's overall performance even when they perform
non-managerial duties.

The action is currently before the Court on AutoZone's motions for
summary judgment as to the claims of Plaintiffs Joseph, Minkosky,
Urban, and Wood.  Autozone argues that the Plaintiffs are properly
classified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements under
the executive and administrative exemptions.

AutoZone does not seriously dispute that the Plaintiffs spend a
majority of their time performing non-managerial tasks.  Instead,
Autozone contends that the relative importance of the Plaintiffs'
exempt duties shows that their primary duty is management because
the Plaintiffs are ultimately responsible for their stores at all
times, and the stores could not operate if they failed to perform
their managerial tasks.

The Plaintiffs counter in multiple ways.  First, Plaintiffs present
evidence that their primary duty at their respective stores is
customer service and sales.  Second, Plaintiffs challenge the
extent and level of their managerial duties.  The Plaintiffs claim
also that the district managers limit their discretion over other
managerial tasks, including disciplining employees, performance
reviews, resolving customer complaints, hiring, and ordering items
for the stores.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, all of the
evidence undermines the relative importance of the Plaintiffs'
managerial duties to AutoZone.  While AutoZone asserts that its
stores could not operate day-to-day without a manager scheduling
employees, ensuring policies are followed, and delegating work to
the employees, a jury weighing all the evidence may side with the
Plaintiffs' claim that it is the district managers that have
ultimate responsibility for scheduling and ensuring AutoZone's
policies are followed, and that AutoZone's automated scheduling
system generally delegates tasks to employees.

In addition, based on the evidence that Plaintiffs often cannot
accomplish their managerial tasks because AutoZone requires them to
focus on sales and customer service, a jury may also accept the
Plaintiffs' contention that sales and customer service are
relatively more important to AutoZone than the Plaintiffs'
managerial duties.  Consequently, based on the record, the first
factor weighs against a finding as a matter of law that the
Plaintiffs' exempt duties were more important than their non-exempt
duties.

Next, while the Court is skeptical of these contentions, it holds
that its role at the summary judgment stage is not to weigh the
evidence.  Instead, the Court must construe the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.  In that respect, AutoZone
has not established that the Plaintiffs were performing exempt and
non-exempt tasks concurrently over a prolonged or continual basis.
Put simply, a question of fact exists on the issue, and a
reasonable jury may well find that the amount of time the
Plaintiffs spend working on non-exempt duties weighs in favor of
finding that their primary duty is not management.

Next, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the
evidence shows that AutoZone's corporate policies and close
district manager oversight left store managers little choice in how
to manage their stores.  Thus, a jury could find that based on the
Plaintiffs' limited discretion with respect to their managerial
tasks, their relative freedom from supervision weighs in favor of
finding that their primary duty is not management.

Finally, AutoZone's evidence is not sufficient to establish that
the Plaintiffs' hourly wage was significantly different than other
employees in their stores, and AutoZone has not shown that this
factor weighs in favor of finding the Plaintiffs are exempt
executives.

In summary, viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Plaintiffs, the Court holds that the evidence shows that the
Plaintiffs spent the vast majority of their time performing the
same duties as hourly employees, and that they lacked discretion
and freedom from supervision over their managerial tasks.  In light
of that evidence, a reasonable jury could determine that the
Plaintiffs' primary duty was not management, and a question of fact
exists on this issue.  As a result, AutoZone has not established as
a matter of law that the Plaintiffs are exempt executives under the
FLSA.

Based on the foregoing, questions of fact exist regarding whether
the Plaintiffs' primary duty was management, and, therefore,
whether they qualify as exempt executive under the FLSA.
Consequently, AutoZone's motions for summary judgment as to the
claims of these Plaintiffs are denied, Judge Kallon ruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/5842LO from Leagle.com.


BAIRD DRYWALL: Certification of Britt's Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BRITT, et al., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BAIRD
DRYWALL & ACOUSTIC, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00882-EKD-RSB (Filed
W.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certificating this case as a collective
      action;

   2. mandating dissemination of notice to all putative
      Plaintiffs comprising the collective, defined as follows:

      "all past and present laborers of Defendant Baird Drywall
      & Acoustic, Inc. who, at any time from December 30, 2016
      through the present, were hired through labor brokers or
      sub-subcontractors to provide framing, drywall, ceiling,
      or similar construction labor for the benefit of
      Defendant";

   3. directing the dissemination of notice and opt-in forms to
      putative Plaintiffs as follows: Conspicuously at all Baird  
      worksites; Conspicuously at all locations where putative  
      Plaintiffs collect their pay; By text message; By email;  
      By  mail; By phone; By Facebook and other social media;  
      and On a website, with an electronic opt-in form, with the  
      web address provided in the other forms of notice; and

   4. directing the Defendant to collect names, cell phone  
      numbers, email address, Facebook and other social media  
      contact info, and mailing addresses from the putative  
      Plaintiffs working at its jobsites, and provide the  
      Plaintiffs with a spreadsheet containing this information  
      for all putative Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are Joseph Britt and opt-in Plaintiffs Pio Mendoza,
Jason Roragen, Edis Humberto Toledo, Luis Romero, Dario Mendoza,
Jose Hernandez, Jose Claros, Ariel Palacio, Jose Luis Archaga,
Mario Gallego, Jordan Ponce, Ariel Antonio Ponce Munoz, Oscar
Gonzalez, Miguel Santos, and Rolando Flores, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.

Baird was founded in 1980. The company's line of business includes
providing asphalt tile, carpeting, linoleum, and resilient flooring
installation and services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
           CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
           530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
           Richmond, VA 23219
           Telephone: (804) 788-0808
           Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
           E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

                - and -

           Timothy Coffield, Esq.
           COFFIELD PLC
           106-F Melbourne Park Circle
           Charlottesville, VA 22901
           Telephone: (434) 218-3133
           Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
           E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Loan Agent Fees, Manoloff et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case MICHAEL MANOLOFF 3835 Brinkman Street Houston, Texas 77018
and MIKE C. MANOLOFF, PC 6600 Sands Point Drive Houston, Texas
77074 Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, N.A. 100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 and Cross River Bank 400 Kelby
Street Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024 and Celtic Bank 268 South State
Street, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 and JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A. 1111 Polaris Parkway Columbus, Ohio 43240 and Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. 101 North Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South
Dakota 57104 and Guaranty Bank & Trust 100 West Arkansas Street
Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455 and Amegy Bank 1717 West Loop South
Houston, Texas 77027 and Spirit of Texas Bank 625 University Drive
College Station, Texas 77840 and The Bancorp Bank 409 Silverside
Road #105 Wilmington, Delaware 19809 and WebBank 215 State Street,
Suite 1000 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 and Zions Bancorporation,
N.A. One South Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84133 and
Allegiance Bank 8727 Wes Sam Houston Parkway N. Houston, Texas
77040 and Capital One, N.A. 1680 Capital One Drive McLean, Virginia
22102 and Ready Capital Corporation 1140 Avenue of the Americas,
8th Floor New York, New York 10036 and ReadyCap Lending, LLC 200
Connell Drive, Suite 400 Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922 and
Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. 101 North Main Street, Suite 100 Ann
Arbor, Michigan 75201 Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02451 (S.D.
Tex., July 13, 2020) alleges that Defendants refuse to comply with
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES
Act") that requires them to pay loan agent fees out of the
compensation they received for processing Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP") loans.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the outbreak of the coronavirus
("COVID-19"), the federal government enacted emergency legislation
to enable small businesses to continue employing and paying their
employees by creating the PPP, which provides federally guaranteed
loans to make payroll expenses for two months. The PPP is contained
within sections 1102 and 1106 of the CARES Act.

Under the Rule, the total amount that an agent shall receive from
the Lender "for assistance in preparing an application for a PPP
loan" is as follows: Up to one percent for loans of not more than
$350,000; a half of a percent for loans of more than $350,000 and
less than $2 million; and a quarter of a percent for loans of at
least $2 million.

According to the complaint, despite these clear instructions that
Lenders are to pay the agent fees-and despite requests by the
agents to the Lenders to be paid their fees-Defendant Lenders have
unlawfully withheld those fees from the agents and have instead
kept the funds intended for the agents for themselves.

Defendant Lenders have no legal authority under the CARES Act to
deny the agents' fees due and owing to them by the CARES Act and
the Rule.

Defendants are banking companies doing business across various
states of the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fields Alexander, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN LLP
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-3700
          Facsimile: (713) 951-3720
          E-mail: falexander@beckredden.com

               - and -  

          James E. Arnold, Esq.
          Damion M. Clifford, Esq.
          Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq.
          ARNOLD & CLIFFORD LLP
          115 W. Main St., 4th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 460-1600
          E-mail: jarnold@arnlaw.com
                  dclifford@arnlaw.com
                  ggosnell@arnlaw.com
                  tcarwile@arnlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Redmon, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN LLP
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-3700
          Facsimile: (713) 951-3720
          E-mail: predmon@beckredden.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Ices Slam Mandatory/Excessive Flood Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Ice and Cynthia Ice, husband and wife, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bank
of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00537 (W.D. Okla., June
9, 2020) seeks monetary and/or equitable relief, statutory, treble,
punitive or exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including costs of
notice, administration and expert fees and such other legal or
equitable relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief for
violation of the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in North
Carolina. Bradley and Cynthia Ice has a home loan secured by their
residential property. They claim to be forced to purchase and/or
maintain flood insurance in excess of the amounts required by
federal law, in amounts greater than the bank's secured interest in
the property and contrary to the amounts agreed upon in the
relevant loan and mortgage documents. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward L. White, Esq.
      Kerry D. Green, Esq.
      EDWARD L. WHITE P.C.
      829 East 33rd Street
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 810-8188
      Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
      Email: ed@edwhitelaw.com
             kerry@edwhitelaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Williams Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-22830 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act
and the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Loan Program.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated agents, alleges that the Defendant failed and refused to
pay her and Class members the statutorily-required fees for their
work as agents of business borrowers in obtaining a
federally-guaranteed loan through the Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP), a federal bail-out program implemented to provide businesses
with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19. Under the SBA
Regulations for PPP, the lender and agent are to split the Federal
Government fees with approximately 80% to be retained by the
lender, and 20% to be forwarded to the agent by the lender from its
lender fees received. In this case, the Defendant instead, retained
the agent fee portion of the lender fees received from the Federal
Government for itself.

As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class Members are not being
compensated for their work, and for their valuable and necessary
contribution to the PPP as intended by the Congress.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking institution, with its principal
place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Jason Klein, Esq.
         BALES SOMMERS & KLEIN, P.A.
         One Biscayne Tower
         2 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 1881
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 372-1200
         Facsimile: (305) 372-9008
         E-mail: jklein@bsklawyers.com
                 rbalesjr@bsklawyers.com

BANK OZK: Bank Staff Seek Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Causey and Alesha Arnold, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Bank OZK, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00687, (E.D. Ark., May 28, 2020) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Bank OZK as hourly-paid assistant managers.
They claim to have worked hours which went uncompensated, including
attending community meetings and events off the clock in the
evenings, and were not paid a lawful overtime premium for all hours
worked over forty each week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Daniel Ford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


BARRETT FRAPPIER: Atchison Disputes Collection Letter Validity
--------------------------------------------------------------
April Atchison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Barrett Frappier and Weisserman, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01519 (D. Colo., May 28, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other
relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Barrett Frappier & Weisserman is a debt collecting company. It
attempted to collect a consumer debt from Atchison. She claims that
she receive a demand letter that threatened to accelerate the
entire sum of both principal and interest due and payable and
invoke any remedies provided for in the Note and Deed of Trust,
including but not limited to foreclosure sale of the property and
downplayed its mandate to inform Atchison of her right to dispute.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
      Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Tel: (602) 388-8898, 899-9189
      Fax: (866) 317-2674
      Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
             arinkleib@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


BROTHERS' KEEPER: Jones Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mahogany Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brothers' Keeper, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00405 (E.D. Va., June 9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
as well as interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursements for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brothers' Keeper is a behavioral health services agency with
locations throughout the state of Virginia where Jones was employed
as an hourly-paid Counselor. She claims to have completed mandatory
reports and related paperwork, as well as handle work-related
communications and perform other tasks outside their scheduled
hours while not "logged-in" to its time keeping system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-8524
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


BT GROUP: Court Dismisses 4th Amended J. Christian Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint in JAMES CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BT GROUP PLC, GAVIN E.
PATTERSON, IAN LIVINGSTON, TONY CHANMUGAM, LUIS ALVAREZ, and NICK
ROSE Defendants, Civ. No. 17-497 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J) --  for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative securities class action under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against
BT Group PLC and several high-ranking individuals associated with
that company.  They allege that the Defendants were knowledgeable
-- or reckless in their ignorance of -- fraudulent practices in one
of BT Group PLC's many subsidiaries, BT Italy.  According to the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements; the Plaintiffs relied on those statements when
investing in BT Group securities; and the Plaintiffs allegedly were
damaged as a result.

On Aug. 1, 2018, the Court issued an opinion and order dismissing
the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failing to meet the
heightened pleading standard required by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On Oct. 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint.  On Dec. 28, 2018,
with the parties' consent, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, which added BARC Chairman Nick Rose as an Individual
Defendant, but was otherwise substantially identical to the second
amended complaint.  The Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint
as well.  To avoid wasting the resources of the parties or the
Court, the latter administratively terminated the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiffs leave to file another
amended complaint within 30 days.

On Aug. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint,
which added new allegations and Section 10(b) claims against Luis
Alvarez and Richard Cameron.  Also newly alleged is the scienter of
the two Individual Defendants.  The fourth amended complaint relies
on six news article, which, according to the Plaintiffs,
demonstrate the Defendants' scienter.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  They argue
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead scienter and that the
Individual Defendants did not make misleading statements.

Judge McNulty finds that the fourth amended complaint supplements
the scienter allegations from several different angles, largely
drawing on media accounts.  The Plaintiffs again note that BT Group
investigated reports of bullying and allege that it demonstrates
fraud.  They also repeat the opinion of a "source" in a media
account that it would have been impossible for the parent company
not to know of the fraud at BT Italy.  They rely on general
statements of the fraud's perpetrators that transactions were
approved by BT Group.  Next, the Plaintiffs claim that a report by
Italian prosecutors, which identified pressure to meet high
earnings goals, constructively alerted BT Group to the fraud.
Finally, they allege, based on public reporting of BT Group's
internal review, that the parent company's negligence and
mismanagement demonstrate scienter.

Concededly there was fraudulent conduct at the Italian subsidiary.
Indeed, the company's public statements and accounting write-downs,
following investigation, admitted as much.  The allegation,
however, is that management, far from investigating and disclosing
the misconduct, knew about and purposely concealed the misconduct
in order to defraud investors.  There, the allegations are
lacking.

The Plaintiffs attempt to invoke the "corporate scienter" doctrine
to impute scienter to BT Group.  The fourth amended complaint does
not contain any allegations that move the needle towards the
extraordinary circumstances required to show corporate scienter.
Instead, the Plaintiffs have concentrated their efforts on
allegations against individuals that fall flat nonetheless.  Their
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims are thus dismissed for failure
to adequately plead corporate scienter.

Since the Plaintiffs fail to adequately state Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims, the Section 20(a) claims against the individual
defendants fail as well.  Liability under Section 20(a) is
predicated upon an independent violation of the chapter or the
rules or regulations thereunder.  Claims under Section 20(a)
therefore, are derivative -- requiring proof of a separate
underlying violation of the Exchange Act.  Because the Plaintiffs
have not pled a predicate violation of Section 10(b) or
Rule 10b-5, the Section 20(a) claim is dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McNulty granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/rcyq53 from Leagle.com.


BUMBLE TRADING: Court Prelim. Certifies Settlement Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as NICK KING, JR., DEENA FISCHER,
and ELENA WEINBERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BUMBLE TRADING, INC., and BUMBLE HOLDING
LTD., Case No. 5:18-cv-06868-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Nathanael Cousins entered an order on July 15, 2020:

   1. preliminarily certifying settlement classes pursuant to
      Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
      for the purposes of settlement only:

      The ARL Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all persons who purchased, within California, during the
      Settlement Class Period, Bumble Boost and had their credit
      card, debit card, and/or a third-party payment account
      charged as part of Bumble's automatic renewal program or
      continuous service program";

      The DSL Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all persons nationwide who purchased Bumble Boost during
      the Settlement Class Period"

      Excluded from the ARL Settlement Class and the DSL
      Settlement Class are (1) any Judge, or mediator presiding
      over this Action and members of their immediate families,
      (2) Bumble and Bumble's employees; (3) persons who
      properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement
      Classes, (4) Class Counsel, and (5) the legal
      representatives, successors or assigns of any such
      excluded persons.

   2. appointing Nick King, Jr. as the Class Representative for
      the ARL Settlement Class and Deena Fischer and Elena
      Weinberger as the Class Representatives for the DSL
      Settlement Class;

   3. appointing the following attorneys as Class Counsel for
      the  Settlement Classes:

            David C. Parisi, Esq.
            Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
            PARISI & HAVENS LLP
            100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
            San Francisco, CA 94111

                 - and -

            Yitzchak Lieberman, Esq.
            Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
            PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
            7400 Hollywood Boulevard, #505
            Los Angeles, CA 90046

Bumble shall establish a Settlement Fund totaling $22,500,000, as
per the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Fund will
be maintained by a Settlement Administrator for the benefit of the
Settlement Classes.

Bumble shall make deposits into the Settlement Fund in accordance
with this schedule:

     a. Within 30 days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order, Bumble will disburse to the Settlement Administrator the
Notice and Administrative Cost Estimate portion of the Settlement
Fund to be used by the Settlement Administrator for preliminary
Settlement Administration Costs, including the costs to complete
the Notice, establish and maintain the Settlement Website,
establish and maintain a toll-free telephone number for questions
by Settlement Class Members, as well as any other initial
administration costs to the Parties.

     b. All Settlement Administration Costs will be drawn from the
Settlement Fund by the Settlement Administrator, subject to the
written approval of Bumble (via its counsel) and Class Counsel.

     c. Upon the Effective Date, Bumble will disburse to the
Settlement Administrator the remainder of the Settlement Fund
necessary to make all payments in accordance 7 with Sections 2.2,
2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 8.4 and 9.4 of the Settlement Agreement.[CC]



CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Seeks Repatriation, Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Maunes Maglana, on his own behalf and as a class
representative of all other similarly situated Filipino crewmembers
trapped aboard "Celebrity" cruise vessels, Plaintiff, v. Celebrity
Cruises Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-22133 (S.D. Fla., May 21,
2020), seek damages and equitable relief in the form of a mandatory
injunction requiring repatriation of Celebrity's Filipino
crewmembers, resulting from negligence under the Jones Act.

Ryan Maunes Maglana, is a citizen of the Philippines and works on
board Celebrity's vessel "Millennium" as a Beverage Controller. He
has worked with Celebrity for 14 years. He claims that Celebrity
unilaterally terminated his contract since the March 14th no-sail
Order of the Center for Disease Control due to the COVID-19
pandemic and stopped paying wages shortly thereafter. Maglana has
been held without wages since his contract was terminated by
Celebrity on March 30th. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raul G. Delgado Ii, Esq.
      DELGADO TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      10661 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 210
      Miami, FL 33176
      Tel: (305) 596-7911
      Cell: (305) 972-0817
      Fax: (305) 397-2654
      Toll Free: (877) 372-0817
      Email: raul@cruiselawyermiami.com
             Raulsr@cruiselawyermiami.com
             heidi@cruiselawyermiami.com
             filing@cruiselawyermiami.com


CHAMELEON STRATEGIC: Foster Labor Suit Seeks Damages for Guards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Foster, Kevin Glazier and Tyson Rhoads, individually, and
in their representative capacities v. Chameleon Strategic
Operations Inc.; Kosh Haimovitch, an individual; and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV25487 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated seeking to recover damages against the
Defendants due to their illegal employment practices that violate
the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

According to the complaint, CS Operations has employed a workforce
of private security officers, who were misclassified as independent
contractors (the Guards). The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages
including overtime and minimum wage, continuing wages, damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs, including such reasonable reimbursement
of fees and costs as may be required by Section 218.5 of the
California Labor Code.

CS Operations is a company, which offers security services
throughout Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 323 962 3777
          Facsimile: 323 962 3004


CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 25, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Cheetah Mobile, Inc.
("Cheetah Mobile" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMCM) investors who
purchased securities between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Cheetah Mobile 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/cheetah-mobile-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 February 21, 2020, before the market opened, Cheetah Mobile
disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google
AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some
of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies,
resulting in certain invalid traffic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.61, or nearly 17%,
to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not
compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that,
as a result there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would
terminate its advertising contracts with the Company; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to attract new
users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that as
a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
August 25, 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.

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


CIRCLE K STORES: Mutchler Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN MUTCHLER, on behalf
of the State of California, as a private attorney general v. CIRCLE
K STORES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00016331-CU-OE-CTL (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on July 2, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01239-GPC-BGS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks recovery of civil penalties and attorneys'
fees. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff from October 2, 2018, to
August 23, 2019. As such, the Plaintiff was employed for 37 weeks
during the Private Attorneys General Act Period in which he seeks
to recover civil penalties.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. Founded in
1951 in El Paso, Texas, the Company filed for bankruptcy protection
in 1990 and went through several owners, before being acquired by
Alimentation Couche-Tard in 2003.[BN]

Defendant Circle K is represented by:

          Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Christopher A. Braham, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: 310 277 4110
          Facsimile: 310 277 4730
          E-mail: mcrodriguez@mwe.com
                  cbraham@mwe.com


CLASSIC SALADS: Cal. App. Flips Arbitration Denial in Morales Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIA MORALES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLASSIC
SALADS, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. H046007 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, reversed the
trial court's order denying Classic Salads' petition to compel
arbitration.

Appellant Classic Salads is a California corporation that operates
a salad-processing plant in Watsonville.  Respondent Victoria
Morales worked at the Classic Salads plant in 2015.  

In 2018, Morales and another former Classic Salads employee who is
not a party to the appeal filed the operative class action
complaint against Classic Salads for sex discrimination, alleging
Classic Salads operated an employment system in which jobs are
segregated by sex and women are denied higher paying 'men's jobs
due to discrimination in job assignments and promotions and
discrimination in pay within the same job classification.  The
complaint alleged a single cause of action for violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Classic Salads denied
the allegations.

Classic Salads filed a petition to compel arbitration of Morales's
claim.  In the petition, Classic Salads alleged that Morales and
Classic Salads entered into an arbitration agreement on March 13,
2015, the date on which it hired her.  Classic Salads asserted the
arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.
It sought an order compelling arbitration of Morales' claims and
staying proceedings as to her until the trial court had ruled on
the petition or until the conclusion of arbitration.  In support of
its assertion for application of the FAA, Classic Salads filed a
declaration stating it operated in California and Arizona and sold
its products to customers throughout the United States.

Morales opposed Classic Salads' petition to compel arbitration on
the ground that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.  She
asserted the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it
was a "classic adhesion contract" that Classic Salads did not
explain to her, and it was substantively unconscionable because the
JAMS rules referenced in the agreement provide for only minimal
discovery.  Morales cited to rule 17 of the JAMS rules for
arbitration of employment disputes, emphasizing in particular rule
17(b), which she argued allowed her only one deposition of the
opposing party absent the approval of the arbitrator.  She also
asserted that the JAMS rules did not require parties to provide
each other with evidence helpful to the opposing party's case.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition and denied it.
It finds the arbitration agreement unenforceable because it is
unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively.  The facts in
this case are most factually similar to the facts of Baxter v.
Genworth North American Corp. (2017).

Classic Salads appeals the trial court's order denying its petition
to compel arbitration.  Classic Salads contends that the trial
court erred when it found that the arbitration agreement was
unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  With respect to
procedural unconscionability, Classic Salads concedes that
Morales's assent to the arbitration agreement was a condition of
her employment, and it did not give her an opportunity to negotiate
its terms.  However, Classic Salads argues that it was not required
to explain the arbitration agreement to Morales, and the agreement
was obvious because it was contained in a stand-alone document that
Morales signed separately.  Furthermore, Classic Salads maintains
that the agreement's failure to include a copy of the JAMS rules
does not render it procedurally unconscionable.

Morales counters that the trial court did not err in finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable as unconscionable.  The
agreement was "highly procedurally unconscionable" because it was
an adhesion contract, and Morales was not given a copy of the
relevant JAMS rules when she signed it.  She asserts that Classic
Salads has forfeited any argument that the arbitration agreement
incorporates the discovery rules of section 1283.05 because it did
not make that argument in the trial court.  In any event, she
contends section 1283.05 simply allows the arbitrator to determine
how many depositions should be taken.  

The Appellate Court concludes that neither the arbitration
agreement nor its discovery provision was one-sided.  Morales has
not pointed to any case in which a reviewing court found that an
arbitration agreement that incorporated section 1283.05 -- or even
one referencing only JAMS rule 17 -- was substantively
unconscionable based solely on its purported limitations on
discovery.  Having examined the text of the arbitration agreement
and the applicable case law, the Appellate Court concludes that
Morales did not carry her burden of showing in the trial court the
agreement was substantively unconscionable.  As an arbitration
agreement is unenforceable only if the agreement is both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the trial court
erred in denying Classic Salads' petition to compel arbitration.

Classic Salads requests that the Appellate Court compels the trial
court to stay further proceedings in the matter.  Morales asserts
such an order would be inappropriate because the underlying
litigation involves at least one Plaintiff who did not enter into
an arbitration agreement.  As the record on appeal is limited to
the proceedings involving Morales, the question of a stay is a
matter the trial court should consider in the first instance.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
order.   On remand, the trial court will enter a new order granting
Classic Salads' petition to compel arbitration.  The Appellant is
entitled to costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/yi95yy from Leagle.com.


CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the District of Utah on behalf of
purchasers of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX) securities between
February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case
is captioned Gelt Trading, Ltd. v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., No.
20-cv-00368, and is assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero.
The Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit charges Co-Diagnostics and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Co-Diagnostics securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Co-Diagnostics
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Co-Diagnostics class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Co-Diagnostics class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Co-Diagnostics
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
August 17, 2020.

According to the Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit, due to
Co-Diagnostics' purported expertise in DNA-based testing, the
world's recent need for accurate Covid-19 testing presented
Co-Diagnostics with a business opportunity. However, as the
Co-Diagnostics class action lawsuit alleges, defendants made
continual, knowing, and willful misstatements about their main
product, a Covid-19 diagnostic test, to artificially inflate the
price of Co-Diagnostics' stock while the officers and directors
exercised low priced options and dumped their stock into the
market. For example, defendants allegedly made false statements to
the market regarding the accuracy of Co-Diagnostics' Covid-19
tests, stating that the tests were 100% accurate – a claim that
appeared to set Co-Diagnostics apart from its competitors.

On May 14, 2020, news outlets reported that Co-Diagnostics was
reluctant to participate in U.S.-based testing to verify its
accuracy claims. As public reports casting doubt on Co-Diagnostics'
claims of 100% accuracy began to circulate, its stock price
declined, closing at $22.13 per share that day.

Later that evening, in response to other drug companies' widely
reported struggles with test accuracy, financial news services
began reporting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
had announced that no Covid-19 test was 100% accurate. The FDA's
announcement undermined Co-Diagnostics' claims about its test's
100% accuracy. On this news, the price of Co-Diagnostics stock fell
again the following trading day--further damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP--http://www.rgrdlaw.com--isone of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations,
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry.

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CREDITONE LLC: Kaur Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KULDEEP KAUR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CREDITONE, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01076 (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
himself as the class representative, and appoint his 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.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Knight Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cytomx Therapeutics, Inc., Sean A.
Mccarthy, Carlos Campoy and Debanjan Ray, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03432 (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2020), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CytomX operates as an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company in
the U.S.  CytomX's lead product candidates in the clinical stage of
investigational antibody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer
include, among others, CX-072 and CX-2009. CytomX failed to
disclose that it had downplayed issues with CX-072 and CX-2009's
safety and efficacy observed in clinical programs that showed a
response rate of 8.8%, compared to a response rate of 18.5% in
patients receiving the combination of CX-072 and Bristol-Myers
Squibb's ipilimumab and that it also suggested a significantly
higher rate of serious or greater treatment-related toxicity to the
eyes at dose equivalents at least 8 mg/kg, three times a 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. Knight owns CytomX securities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      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
      Email: 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
      Email: 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
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Alfred Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Alfred, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00637 (D. N.H., May 28, 2020), seeks disgorgement of
all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus
housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining the
Dartmouth 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.

Trustees of Dartmouth College operates Dartmouth College, an
institution of higher learning located in Hanover, New Hampshire
where Alfred's son is an undergraduate studying at Dartmouth.
Alfred has already paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester. Dartmouth decided to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Alfred claims that his
son would 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. Dartmouth refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger B. Phillips, Esq.
     PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE, PLLC
     104 Pleasant Street
     Concord, NH 03301
     Tel: (603) 225-2767
     Fax: (603) 226-3581
     Email: roger@phillipslawoffice.com

             - and -

      Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
      Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
      Brenton J. Goodman, Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR
      316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Tel: (850) 435-7140
      Fax: (850) 436-6140
      Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com
             rtimmons@levinlaw.com
             bgoodman@levinlaw.com

             - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
      43 SE Main St., Suite 505
      Minneapolis, MN 55414
      Tel: (612) 594-5900
      Email: emdrake@bm.net


DELAWARE NORTH: Morand-Doxzon Labor Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA MORAND-DOXZON, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORTSERVICE, INC.;
CALIFORNIA SPORTSERVICE, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Case No.
37-2020-00016163-CU-OE-CTL (Filed May 26, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on July 6, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01258-DMS-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay all straight time
wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; and failure
to provide suitable resting facilities for meal or rest periods in
violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.

Delaware North operates as a food, beverage, and retail management
company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon Meer, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          Michelle Zakarian, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                  bpelliconi@seyfarth.com
                  mzakarian@seyfarth.com


DELOITTE CONSULTING: Burns Slams Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Janet M. Burns, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-04077 (S.D. N.Y., May 27, 2020), seeks monetary,
actual and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest, costs, fees and attorneys' fees, expenses and
costs of prosecuting this action and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of implied and express contract, negligence,
invasion of privacy and for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Deloitte contracts with state agencies--including the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services, the Illinois Department of
Employment Security, the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment and the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services to
create and maintain web-portals by which applicants may apply for
benefits and communicate with the state agencies.

Burns applied for unemployment benefits through the Ohio Department
of Job and Family Services online portal. On May 20, 2020, Deloitte
had discovered that the web-portal it created and maintained
exposed applicants' Personal Information to the public. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Matthew B. George, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mgeorge@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      David A. Straite, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022-7237
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Email: dstraite@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      David P. Meyer, Esq.
      Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
      Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
      MEYER WILSON CO. L.P.A.
      1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Phone: (614) 224-6000
      Facsimile: (614) 224-6066


DHL EXPRESS: Schulz Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK SCHULZ, on behalf
of himself and all those similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA),
INC., and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC-20-584120 (Filed April 20,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 7, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-04490 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts causes of action for failure to compensate
for fours worked; failure to compensate for overtime; failure to
provide paid rest breaks; and failure to provide meal periods.

DHL Express offers shipping, tracking and courier delivery
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Quadra, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Coll, Esq.
          Niall Vignoles, Esq.
          QUADRA & COLL, LLP
          649 Mission St., Fl. 5
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 426-3502
          Facsimile: (415) 795-4530
          E-mail: jquadra@quadracoll.com
                  rcoll@quadracoll.com
                  niall@vignoleslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard B. Lapp, Esq.
          Chantelle C. Egan, Esq.
          Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: rlapp@seyfarth.com
                  cegan@seyfarth.com
                  pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com


DLJ ENTERPRISES: Ortega Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAULTER PINDADO ORTEGA v. DLJ ENTERPRISES, LTD. and DAVID L. JARON,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02995 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated employees, who worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
proper overtime compensation as required by Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff also brings this action to challenge the Defendants'
practice of disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, and
privileges of Plaintiff's employment in violation of the New York
City Human Rights Law. The Defendants also failed to return to the
Plaintiff tools that he used when working for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate an autobody shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Binotti Sues Over Faculty No-poach Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Binotti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke University, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00470 (M.D. N.C., May 27, 2020), seeks to recover actual,
compensatory and treble damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees
and interest and obtain injunctive relief for injuries caused under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Duke University is a private, tax-exempt, non-profit university
with its principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina,
that owns and operates educational and research facilities. Binotti
has been a Professor of Spanish at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill since 1990 and alleges that Duke and the
University of North Carolina suppressed competition for each
other's faculty across the two universities thus reducing
employees' labor mobility and suppressing their compensation to
levels materially lower than they would have been in a competitive
market. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
      Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
      Yaman Salahi, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: dharvey@lchb.com
             ashaver@lchb.com
             lchan@lchb.com
             ysalahi@lchb.com

             - and -

      M. Travis Payne, Esq.
      EDELSTEIN & PAYNE
      315 East Jones Street
      Raleigh, NC 27601
      Telephone: (919) 828-1456
      Facsimile: (919) 828-4689
      Email: eandp@mindspring.com

             - and -

      Robert M. Elliot, Esq.
      Daniel Lyon, Esq.
      ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC
      426 Old Salem Rd.
      Brickenstein-Leinbach House
      Winston-Salem, NC 27101
      Telephone: (336) 724-2828
      Facsimile: (336) 724-3335
      Email: rmelliot@emplawfirm.com
c

DURHAM D&M: Romo Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ROMO, SHANNON
DICKINSON, on behalf of themselves and all "aggrieved employees"
pursuant to Labor Code section 2698 et seq. v. DURHAM D&M LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 20PSCV00056 (Filed January 21, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 7, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06057 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek civil penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The Defendant
allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and non-exempt Aggrieved
Employees all overtime wages earned during the course of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm

Defendant Durham is represented by:

          Jon Meer, Esq.
          Michael Afar, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  mafar@seyfarth.com


EF EDUCATION: Corrigan Sues Over Shelved Tour, Seeks Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Corrigan, an individual person on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EF Education Tours, Inc.,
EF Travel, Inc., EF Educational Exchange, Inc., EF Education First,
Inc., EF Explore America, Inc., EF Institute for Cultural Exchange,
Inc., EF Education First International, Ltd., United States Fire
Insurance Company, Specialty Insurance Solutions, Inc. and Seven
Corners, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-11010, (D. Mass., May 27,
2020), seeks restitutionary damages, an injunction to enjoin EF
from enforcing the "No Public Heath Health Emergency Refund Clause"
allowing them to refuse to make a full cash refund, an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further
relief for breach of contract.

EF promotes, markets, and sells tours involving air travel, ground
transportation, hotel, food, sightseeing, etc. that leave from
various points of origin in the United States and go to various
places all over the world. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc.
is a California corporation while EF Education First International,
Ltd. is a Swiss corporation.

Corrigan's daughter was scheduled to go on an EF Tour that was
canceled by EF as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. EF invoked the
"No Public Heath Health Emergency Refund Clause".[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry M. Altman, Esq.
      ALTMAN & ALTMAN
      404 Main Street, Suite #3
      Wilmington, MA 01887
      Tel: (781) 944-5441
      Email: baltman@altmanattorneys.com


ELECTROCORE INC: C. Tibbs Named Lead Plaintiff in Turnofsky Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALLYN TURNOFSKY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROCORE, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Civ. No. 19-18400 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, among other
things, ruled on Plaintiff Carole Tibbs' Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff.

The case is a securities class action.  Defendant electroCore, Inc.
is a bioelectronics medicine company whose lead product, gammaCore,
is used for acute treatment of pain associated with migraine and
episodic cluster headaches.  In June 2018, Defendant electroCore
filed its Prospectus as part of its Registration Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), Defendant electroCore sold
5.98 million shares of common stock at $15.00 per share, raising
approximately $79.5 million.  In May 2019, it reported that it had
an operating loss of $14.2 million in its first quarter.  Defendant
electroCore's share price fell nearly 30% the next day.  On Sept.
25, 2019, Defendant electroCore revealed that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") requested additional information and
analysis of clinical data for its submission seeking expanded use
of gammaCore.  Its share price fell over 23% that day.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff Turnofsky alleges that Defendant
electroCore's Registration Statement was false, misleading, and
omitted material, adverse facts about its business.  Plaintiff
Turnofsky also brings claims against underwriters of Defendant
electroCore's IPO, as well as its officers who signed or authorized
the Registration Statement.

Plaintiff Turnofsky defines the putative class as all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant electroCore
common stock issued in connection with its IPO between June 22,
2018 and Sept. 25, 2019 and who were damaged thereby.  The
Plaintiff alleges four counts: (1) violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933; (2) violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act; (3) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (4) violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The matter comes before the Court upon the Moving Plaintiffs'
Motions to Consolidate, Appoint Lead Plaintiff, and Approve Lead
and/or Liaison Counsel.  Plaintiffs Garcia and Tibbs filed
Oppositions and Replies.

Each Moving Plaintiff moved to consolidate the case with Priewe v.
electroCore, Inc., Civ. No. 19-19653.  Priewe v. electroCore, Inc.
was voluntarily dismissed on Feb. 19, 2020.  Accordingly, the
Moving Plaintiffs' Motions to Consolidate are moot.

Plaintiff Erwin Yuson withdrew his Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff.  Plaintiff Priewe Investor Group filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition, conceding that it did not have the largest
financial interest in the action.  Therefore, the Court will
consider Plaintiff Brian Garcia's and Plaintiff Carole Tibbs'
Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff.

Judge Thompson finds that under the considerations enumerated in In
re Cendant Corp. Litig., Plaintiff Tibbs has a larger financial
interest than Plaintiff Garcia.  First, Plaintiff Tibbs purchased
more shares than Plaintiff Garcia during the putative Class Period.
Second, Plaintiff Tibbs spent more on shares during the Class
Period than did Plaintiff Garcia.  Third, Plaintiff claims greater
losses than Plaintiff Tibbs.  Therefore, Plaintiff Tibbs has the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class.

Plaintiff Tibbs also satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Members of a class may sue or be
sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  Therefore, Plaintiff Tibbs is the
presumptive Lead Plaintiff.

Judge Thompson also finds no reason to believe that Plaintiff Tibbs
would not have the ability and incentive to represent the claims of
the Class vigorously, that the Plaintiff's chosen counsel would be
inadequate, or that there would be any conflict between Plaintiff
Tibbs' claims and those asserted on behalf of the Class.

Plaintiff Garcia is unable to rebut the presumption favoring
appointment of Plaintiff Tibbs as the Lead Plaintiff.  Plaintiff
Garcia has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Tibbs will not fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Class, nor that
Plaintiff Tibbs is subject to unique defenses that would render her
incapable of doing so.

Judge Thompson also finds that Plaintiff Tibbs is not subject to
unique defenses that would render her inadequate to represent the
Class.  Because Plaintiff Garcia has not rebutted the presumption
that Plaintiff Tibbs should serve as the Lead Plaintiff, the Judge
grants Plaintiff Tibbs' Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff to the
extent that it seeks to appoint Plaintiff Tibbs as the Lead
Plaintiff, and denies the Motion to the extent that it once also
sought to appoint Plaintiff Stone as the Lead Plaintiff.

In sum, Judge Thompson:

   (1) mooted the Motions to Consolidate, Appoint Lead Plaintiff,
       and Approve Lead and/or Liaison Counsel filed by Plaintiff
       Brian R. Garcia, Plaintiff Erwin Yuson, Plaintiffs James
       Priewe and Justin Priewe ("Priewe Investor Group"), and
       Plaintiff Carole Tibbs;

   (2) denied Plaintiff Brian Garcia's Motions to Appoint Lead
       Plaintiff and Approve Lead and Liaison Counsel;

   (3) mooted Plaintiff Erwin Yuson's Motions to Appoint Lead
       Plaintiff and Approve Lead Counsel;

   (4) denied Plaintiff Priewe Investor Group's Motions to Appoint

       Lead Plaintiff and Approve Lead Counsel;

   (5) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Tibbs' Motion
       to Appoint Lead Plaintiff; and

   (6) granted Plaintiff Tibbs' Motion to Approve Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2lFvcd from Leagle.com.


EMPRO INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under NYLL, Praczuk Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WLADYSLAWA PRACZUK and JOLANTA MURDZA, individually for themselves,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPRO, INC., and
"RITA," Defendant whose last name is currently unknown, Case No.
511498/2020 (N.Y. Sup., July 2, 2020), seeks to recover wages and
benefits, which the Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have maintained a policy
and practice of requiring them to regularly work in excess of eight
hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for
all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" wages
compensation.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants to provide personal
attendant care, medical assistance, home care services, and other
health-related matters to the Defendants' clients within the State
of New York.

Empro is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health
aide staffing services at the residences of its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Breneckl, Esq.
          JODRE BRENECKL LLP
          71-27 Fresh Pond Road, Second Floor
          Queens, NY 11385


ENSIGN U.S.: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Oilfield Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE ORTIZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENSIGN U.S. DRILLING
(SW), INC., ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC., TRINIDAD DRILLING,
LLC, and TRINIDAD DRILLING, LP, Case No. 5:20-cv-00503-OLG (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action for purposes of
      notice and discovery;

   2. granting that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members:

      "ALL OILFIELD WORKERS EMPLOYED BY ENSIGN U.S. DRILLING
      (SW), INC., ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC., TRINIDAD
      DRILLING, LLC AND/OR TRINIDAD DRILLING, LTD., ANYWHERE IN
      THE UNITED STATES, AT ANY TIME FROM APRIL 23, 2017 THROUGH
      THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS MATTER, AND WERE PAID A DAY
      RATE BUT NO OVERTIME";

   3. approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   4. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's
      Counsel the contact information (including the address,
      telephone number and e-mail address) for each Putative
      Class Member in a usable electronic format;

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for Putative Class
      Members to join the case; and

   6. authorizing notice to be sent via First Class Mail,
      e-mail, and text-message to the Putative Class Members.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as exempt employees
despite only paying them a day rate and no overtime compensation,
regardless of the number of hours worked each week.

Moreover, the fact that Defendants uniformly classified their Day
Rate Oilfield Workers as and did not pay any overtime regardless of
where they worked, which client they were working for, or any other
individualized factors, demonstrates that all Day Rate Oilfield
Workers are similarly situated for purposes of conditional
certification.

Ensign Defendants provide drilling operations and rig management
for the oil and gas industry throughout the United States and
Canada. Trinidad Defendants also provided drilling operations and
rig management for the oil and gas industry throughout the United
States and Canada. The Trinidad Defendants were absorbed into the
Ensign Defendants after a hostile corporate takeover in
November 2018.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, 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
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Dunn Seeks to Certify Safety Specialist Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MERLE DUNN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS
OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-00277-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying a
collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and approving a
Court-authorized notice of this Action against Enterprise to a
Putative Class as follows:

   "all current and former Safety Specialists employed by
   Enterprise in its Field Safety Division who were paid a
   salary without overtime compensation at any time during the
   last three years."

According to the complaint, Enterprise misclassified its Safety
Specialists working in its Field Safety Division as exempt
employees to avoid paying them overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Enterprise maintained a uniform practice
of paying these works a salary without any overtime compensation,
despite the fact they regularly worked more than 40 hours each week
performing non-exempt job duties.

Enterprise Products owns and operates pipelines. The Company
transports natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum products, and
anhydrous ammonia.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

ESTEEM PATROL: Bailey Seeks Minimum Wage, Uniform Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Bailey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Esteem Patrol Service Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 707035/2020 (N.Y. Sup., June 9, 2020), seeks minimum wages
and money spent in laundering and maintaining her company-provided
uniform in accordance with New York labor laws and the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Esteem Patrol Service operates as Citi Security where Bailey was
employed as a security guard. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Gaylord, Esq.
      BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
      445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Phone: (516) 742-4949
      Fax: (516)742-1977
      Email: mark@bglawny.com


EZCATER INC: Farrer Suit Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Farrer's motion to
remand the case, MATTHEW FARRER, Plaintiff, v. EZCATER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01804-JCS (N.D. Cal.), to the California
Superior Court for Alameda County.

Plaintiff Farrer originally filed the putative class action in the
California Superior Court for Alameda County, where it was assigned
case number HG19047343, asserting wage and hour claims against
Defendant ezCater on behalf of himself and other delivery drivers
whom Farrer contends were misclassified as independent contractors
rather than ezCater employees.  Farrer's complaint asserts that
ezCater misclassified him and similarly situated delivery drivers
as independent contractors rather than employees, and that ezCater
failed to provide them with employment benefits required under the
California Labor Code.  Among other relief, Farrer seeks attorneys'
fees under several provisions of the Labor Code and other
California statutes.

ezCater removed to the Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and relying on Farrer's potential
recovery of attorneys' fees to satisfy the amount in controversy.
In its notice of removal, ezCater relied on Farrer's request for
attorneys' fees to show that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a).  

Farrer moves to remand, arguing that ezCater has not shown a
sufficient amount in controversy, in part because any award of
attorneys' fees is attributable to the putative class as a whole
and only Farrer's individual share of those fees counts toward the
amount in controversy.  ezCater does not dispute that principle and
does not argue that it can show an amount in controversy over
$75,000 if there are any other class members, but contends that
Farrer's allegations are not sufficient to show that there are any
other class members, or stated differently, despite the proposed
class, and the characterization of the case as a Class Action, in
reality, the only claims asserted are on behalf of the Plaintiff
individually, and therefore the aggregation rule should be
disregarded.

Magistrate Judge Spero holds that the relevant question is whether,
if Farrer succeeds in proving his case, the amount in controversy
apportioned specifically to him would exceed $75,000.  Under Kanter
v. Warner-Lambert Co., the Judge assumes that Farrer would succeed
in certifying a class of similarly situated drivers and that any
attorneys' fees recovered would be apportioned among them for the
purpose of the amount in controversy.  ezCater does not argue that
Farrer's share of apportioned attorneys' fees would exceed the
amount in controversy threshold if there are any other class
members.  Even if he could determine as a matter of law on the
motion to remand that the delivery drivers who contracted with
Jobble have no claim against ezCater -- which, to be clear, the
Judge cannot -- then based on ezCater's own assertion that Farrer
"worked for" Jobble, Inc., Farrer himself would have no claim, and
the amount in controversy would be zero.  Either way, ezCater has
not met its burden to show that the amount in controversy for the
only named Plaintiff's claim exceeds $75,000, and the case must be
remanded.

For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge Spero granted Farrer's
motion to remand, and remanded the case to the California Superior
Court for Alameda County.  The Clerk will close the case in the
Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/T5jyAG from Leagle.com.


FCI LOMPOC: Court Grants Provisional Class Cert. in Torres Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Torres et al.,
Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. Milusnic et al., Defendant-Respondents,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo
B. Marshall entered an order on July 14, 2020, granting
Petitioners' motion for preliminary injunction and ex parte
application for provisional class certification:

   1. The Court certifies, on a provisional basis, a class
      defined as:

      "all current and future people in post-conviction custody
      at FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc over the age of 50, and all
      current and future people in post-conviction custody at
      FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc of any age with underlying
      health conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary
      disease; serious heart conditions such as heart failure,
      coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies; Type 2
      diabetes; chronic kidney disease; sickle cell disease;
      immunocompromised state from a solid organ transplant;
      obesity (body mass index of 30 or higher); asthma;
      cerebrovascular diseases; cystic fibrosis; hypertension or
      high blood pressure; immunocompromised state from blood or
      bone marrow transplant; immune deficiencies, HIV, or those
      who use corticosteroids, or use other immune weakening
      medicines; neurologic conditions such as dementia; liver
      diseases; pulmonary fibrosis; thalassemia; Type 1
      diabetes; and smokers";

   2. No later than July 20, 2020, Respondents shall file under
      seal a list with the Court which: (a) identifies all
      members of the class defined in this Order; (b) identifies
      each class member's sentencing court and the criminal case
      number; and (c) identifies whether the class member has
      (i) submitted a request for compassionate release, and if
      so whether a decision has been made as to the request, and
      (ii) been reviewed for home confinement since March 26,
      2020, and if so, whether the inmate has been designated
      for home confinement;

   3. No later than July 22, 2020, Respondents shall file a
      declaration setting forth the process used to identify the
      class members in the list filed;

   4. No later than July 22, 2020, notify inmates that they are
      being considered for home confinement and institute a
      process, including free telephone calls or emails to their
      families so that inmates can provide Respondents with a
      plan for release to home confinement, which includes any
      information about their ability to quarantine for 14 days
      upon release;

   5. No later than July 28, 2020, Respondents shall make full
      and speedy use of their authority under the CARES Act and
      evaluate each class member's eligibility for home
      confinement which gives substantial weight to the inmate's
      risk factors for severe illness or death from COVID-19
      based on age (over 50) or Underlying Health Conditions;

   6. No later than July 29, 2020, Respondents shall file under
      seal a declaration setting forth a list of class members
      whom Respondents have determined are eligible for home
      confinement, and an explanation for each denial of home
      confinement of any class member, including an explanation
      of the factual basis for any factors determined to
      outweigh the danger to the inmate from COVID-19;

   7. No later than July 22, 2020, file a declaration setting
      forth criteria for compassionate release which takes into
      account COVID-19, and an explanation if no such criteria
      for compassionate release exists which takes into account
      COVID-19 as to Lompoc inmates; and

   8. No later than August 3, 2020, for any Lompoc inmate who
      has made a written request for compassionate release based
      on COVID-19 but has not received a decision, Respondents
      shall provide written notice of either (a) a referral of
      the matter in writing with recommendation of approval of
      the request pursuant to 28 C.F.R. section 571.62, or (b) a
      denial of the request and copy of the applicable appeal
      form pursuant to 28 C.F.R. sections 571.63, 542.15.

The Court further orders the parties to meet and confer no later
than July 17 regarding arrangements for a site visit of Lompoc and
a process in which Petitioners' counsel can confidentially
communicate with Petitioners and class 4 members, and file a joint
status report re same no later than July 20, 2020.

The Court said, "Respondents' failure to make prompt and reasonable
use of home confinement and compassionate release in light of the
pandemic which takes into account inmates' age and medical
conditions is applicable to each member of the class so that
injunctive relief is appropriate as to the class as a whole.
Accordingly, the Court finds Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied."

This action is brought on behalf of "all current and future people
in post-conviction custody at Lompoc", challenging the Director of
the Bureau of Prisons and Warden of Lompoc's response during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint asserts two causes of action: (1)
Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
sections 2241, 2243; (2) and Unconstitutional Conditions of
Confinement in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution pursuant to U.S. Const, Amend. VIII; 28 U.S.C. section
1331; 5 U.S.C. section 702, "Injunctive Relief Only.

The Petitioners are Yonnedil Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix
Samuel Garcia, Andre Brown, and Shawn Fears are federal inmates
incarcerated at FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc located in Santa Barbara,
California.

The FCI Lompoc is a low-security United States federal prison for
male inmates in California. It is part of the Lompoc Federal
Correctional Complex and is operated by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice.[CC]

FLOWERS GROUP: Maciel Slams Misclassification, Usury
----------------------------------------------------
Jose Maciel, and Maciel Distribution, Inc., individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Bakeries, LLC and Flowers Finance,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03814, (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2020),
seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, reimbursement of
business-related expenses and failure to pay wages on a timely
basis, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all
wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest
and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail
customers using a centralized network of communication,
distribution and warehousing facilities. Maciel worked as a
delivery driver for Flowers, delivering products to customers,
distributors, stocking the products on store shelves and assembling
promotional displays. He was allegedly misclassified as an
independent contractor thus denied the rights, obligations,
privileges and benefits owed to him as an employee.

Also, delivery employees often pay in excess of $100,000 for the
right to the "independent business opportunity" but is financed in
form of a "loan." Flowers offers to finance the loans for these
arrangement or through subsidiaries, at usurious rates, increasing
the money it unjustly reaps from these workers, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
      Shaun Markley, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
             atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
             smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


GENERAL ELECTRIC: 1st Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Imamura Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the district
court's dismissal of the amended complaint of individuals and
entities from the Fukushima Prefecture against General Electric
Company.

The appellate case is SHINYA IMAMURA; IRYO HOJIN NISHIKAI; IRYO
HOJIN SHADAN IMAMURA CLINIC; KABUSHIKI KAISHA BELLEVUE TRADING;
KABUSHIKI KAISHA MARUHI; KOEKI ZAIDAN HOJIN JINSENKAI; KONNO GEKA
CLINIC; AKIRA KONNO; MASAHIRO YAMAGUCHI; JUNKO TAKAHASHI, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee, DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19-1457 (1st Cir.).

In the late 1960s, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. ("TEPCO")
commissioned the construction of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant ("FNPP") in Fukushima, which is located along the
eastern seaboard of Japan.  TEPCO is the licensed operator of the
FNPP.  The FNPP contained six boiling water nuclear reactors, all
designed by GE.  GE constructed three of the reactors itself (Units
1, 2, and 6) and provided the designs and expertise for the
remaining reactors (Units 3, 4, and 5), which were constructed by
the Japanese companies Toshiba Corp. and Hitachi Limited.  GE also
designed the rest of the facilities at the FNPP and participated
regularly in the maintenance of the facility over many years.

In 2011, an earthquake-induced tsunami struck the FNPP.  The event
triggered a series of explosions that caused a tragic nuclear
disaster, which destroyed the property and livelihoods of the
residents of Fukushima Prefecture and the surrounding area.

The Plaintiffs in the complaint are four individuals and six
business entities from Fukushima Prefecture who suffered property
damage and/or economic harm as a result of the FNPP disaster.  They
filed a class action lawsuit against GE in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on the theory that GE bears at least partial
responsibility for the FNPP disaster because it negligently
designed the FNPP's nuclear reactors and safety mechanisms, both of
which were implicated in the explosions.

The Plaintiffs brought seven claims against GE, its subsidiaries,
agents, and employees.  They alleged negligence (Count I), strict
product liability for manufacturing and design defects (Counts II
and III), and damage to real property (Count IV) under
Massachusetts law.  They also alleged negligence (Count V), failure
to warn (Count VI), and diminution of value to real property and
business interests (Count VII) under Japanese law.  The Plaintiffs
sought both compensatory and punitive damages.

The district court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens based on its determination that an adequate
alternative forum was available to the Plaintiffs in Japan and that
dismissal was in both the private and public interest.  The
Plaintiffs dispute the district court's conclusion as to the
availability of an adequate alternative forum in Japan, where they
maintain there is no avenue for recovery specifically against GE.

The Plaintiffs exclusively dispute the availability of an adequate
alternative forum in Japan.  They do not challenge the district
court's balancing of factors at the second step of the analysis.
Instead, they merely assert that because Japan is not an adequate
alternative forum, the district court incorrectly proceeded to the
second step to weigh the private and public interest factors.

Accordingly, the First Circuit finds that Plaintiffs have waived
any argument that the district court abused its discretion as to
its balancing of the relevant private and public interest factors.
The First Circuit therefore limits its review to the first step of
the forum non conveniens analysis: the availability of an adequate
alternative forum.

The First Circuit finds that even if the Plaintiffs are allowed to
litigate their claims against GE in Massachusetts, local choice of
law rules likely dictate that Japanese law would apply.  The
district court recognized as much in its balancing of the public
interest factors.  From that, the First Circuit draws the
reasonable inference that the Compensation Act may inevitably
require the dismissal of the case from the Plaintiffs' chosen forum
even if allowed to proceed to the next phase of litigation.

The First Circuit also finds that Japan does permit the litigation
of the subject matter of the Plaintiffs' dispute, and as such, the
administrative compensation scheme available to them exists in
addition to, not to the exclusion of, their ability to pursue a
lawsuit against TEPCO.  

Moreover, the Plaintiffs fail to recognize that the court in Nat'l
Hockey League Players' Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club
istinguished that case from Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. on the basis
that the Plymouth Whalers plaintiff was notably unable to pursue
its own claim through the alleged administrative process, and that
it was improbable that any administrative complaint would result in
a prosecution.  There are no such bars on the Plaintiffs' ability
to mediate their claims through the ADR Center or pursue them
directly with TEPCO.

Therefore, the First Circuit holds that Japan satisfies the forum
availability requirement despite the jurisdictional idiosyncrasies
presented by the case.  Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that an adequate alternative
forum is available to the Plaintiffs in Japan.  Because the
Appellants have waived any claim as to the balancing of the private
and public interest factors, the inquiry ends there.

For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/waaUAQ from Leagle.com.

Earl M. Forte, with whom Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC,
Timothy P. Frawley -- Timothy.Frawley@tfrawleylaw.com -- Law
Offices of Timothy P. Frawley, Faith R. Greenfield, Bonnie L. Dixon
-- bd@aplaw.jp -- and Atsumi & Sakai were on brief, for
appellants.

David J. Weiner -- david.weiner@arnoldporter.com -- with whom Sally
L. Pei -- sally.pei@arnoldporter.com -- Michael D. Schissel, Arnold
& Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, John B. Koss, and Mintz Levin Cohn
Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC were on brief, for appellee.


GIMLET MEDIA: Website Not Accessible to Deaf Users, Jones Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, - against - GIMLET MEDIA
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03102 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020) is
a class action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights
violations committed by Defendant after it denies Plaintiff and
other deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services that it provides to
non-disabled individuals, through http://www.gimletmedia.comand
related domains owned by Defendant.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to
use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible
for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the audio portion
of podcasts that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes
the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation
in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental
part of the common marketplace and daily living.

Defendant has chosen to post podcasts without closed captioning, or
with limited closed captioning, that are inaccessible to deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals, despite readily available accessible
technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily
trafficked websites, which makes use of closed captioning for
hard-of-hearing individuals, such as YouTube and Netflix.

By failing to make the Website accessible to deaf and
hard-of-hearing persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access
requirements under both state and federal law.

Gimlet Media LLC is an online narrative podcasting service provider
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

H & J RESTAURANTS: Jones Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class of Servers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DEVAN JONES, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. H & J RESTAURANTS,
LLC d/b/a TOKYO HIBACHI, Case No. 5:19-cv-00105-TBR (W.D. Ky.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23 class of:

      "all current and former servers employed by Defendants in
      their Paducah, Kentucky restaurant at any time since July
      22, 2014";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);

   3. approving Plaintiff's proposed Class Notice for
      distribution to all putative class members via U.S. Mail;
      and

   4. directing the Defendants to produce a list of all putative
      class members, including names and last known mailing
      addresses within 14 days of the Court's ruling.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants require servers to share tips
in violation of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, KRS 337.065,
thereby forfeiting the right to rely on the KWHA's "tip credit"
provision to satisfy their minimum wage and overtime obligations to
servers.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Glenn D. Denton, Esq.
          DENTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          PO Box 969
          Paducah, KY 42002-0969
          Telephone: (270) 450-8253
          Facsimile: (270) 450-8259
          E-mail: gdenton@dentonfirm.com

HCA HEALTHCARE: Oleary Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH OLEARY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation doing business as HCA FLORIDA, and FORT
WALTON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No.
9:19-cv-80647-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "individual financially responsible for any patient who,
      subsequent to May 15, 2015, received or will in the future
      receive treatment and services at a HCA Florida emergency
      department facility, and who was or will in the future be
      charged an emergency department Facility Fee with a CPT or
      HPCPS Code of 99281, 99282, 99283, 99284 or 99285 for the
      visit."

      Excluded from the Class are any officers or directors of
      the Defendants, together with the legal representatives,
      heirs, successors, or assigns of Defendants, and any
      judicial officer assigned to this matter and his or her
      immediate family.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for certification of the class set
with respect to his claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief brought under Fla. Stat. section 86.101 and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that the HCA-affiliated
hospitals uniformly charge ER patients a substantial "Facility
Fee", "ED Evaluation and Management charge" or "Evaluation and
Management Services Fee". The Plaintiff further alleges that HCA
and its affiliated hospitals have an obligation to notify
prospective ER patients of such Fee in advance of treatment,
pursuant to FDUTPA.

HCA Healthcare owns, operates, controls and/or provides management
and billing services to multiple HCA affiliated hospitals with ER
facilities which operate under the HCA brand.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L. KRAMER
          9550 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 253
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Jared Michael Lee, Esq.
          JACKSON LEE | PA
          1985 Longwood Lake Mary Rd., Suite 1001
          Longwood, FL 32750
          Telephone: (407) 477-4401
          Facsimile: (407) 477-4949
          E-mail: Jared@JacksonLeePA.com
                  Service@JacksonLeePA.com
                  Melissa@JacksonLeePA.com

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Guijarro Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted Guijarro's motion to remand
to superior court the case, Maria Guijarro, Plaintiff, v.
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00324-VAP-AFMx (C.D. Cal.).

On Dec. 10, 2019, Plaintiff Guijarro filed her initial complaint
against Defendants Healthcare Services Group, HCSG West LLC, and
Yolocare, Inc., doing business as Terracina Post Acute, in San
Bernardino Superior Court, alleging violations of various
California Labor Codes.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff identifies as the putative class
all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants who
worked at any of their locations in the State of California at any
time within the period beginning four years prior to the filing of
the action, and ending at the time the action settles or proceeds
to final judgment.

The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that the Defendants engaged
in various unlawful practices, including (1) failure to provide
meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) failure to
pay overtime wages, (4) failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure
to timely pay wages during employment, (6) failure to pay all wages
due at termination, (7) failure to maintain payroll records, (8)
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, (9) failure to
indemnify employees for business expenses, and unfair business
practices.  The Plaintiff also seeks penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff brought (1) a class
action on behalf of those similarly situated, and (2) a
representative action under the PAGA.  She served the Defendants
with the Complaint on Dec. 12, 2019, and the Defendants answered
the Complaint on Jan. 13, 2020.  On Feb. 19, 2020, the Defendants
removed the instant action to the Court, claiming the Court had
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Before the Court is Plaintif Guijarro's Motion to Remand Action to
Superior Court.  The Defendants opposed the Motion, and the
Plaintiff replied.  The Plaintiff contends removal is improper
because (1) it was untimely, (2) even if the diversity requirement
is satisfied, exceptions to CAFA's diversity requirement apply, and
(3) the Defendants failed to satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement.  As the removed complaint does not allege a specific
amount in controversy, the Defendant must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater than $5
million.

Judge Phillips concludes that the plaintiffs in class actions may
plead conservatively to secure a state forum, as long as those
pleadings are made in good faith.  The plaintiffs are, after all,
masters of their own complaints.  The Ninth Circuit therefore
cautions that courts should assure that removal occurs once the
jurisdictional facts supporting removal are evident, so as to guard
against premature and protective removals.   

Rather than moving ahead, relying largely upon conjecture, the
Defendants could have waited for evidence that it is more likely
than not that the amount in controversy requirement in the case is
satisfied.  Alternatively, as they are in possession of detailed
information regarding their employees, the Defendants could have
reviewed their own records and marshaled more detailed evidence to
support their claims regarding the amount in controversy.  At this
time, however, Judge Phillips finds they fail to satisfy its burden
in invoking the Court's jurisdiction.

Judge Phillips therefore granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand,
and remanded the action to the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/yrxqTP from Leagle.com.


HGGC LLC: Fund Sues Over Nutraceutical Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------
Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated former stockholders of
Nutraceutical International Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Michael D.
Burke, Jon Ross Kimo Esplin, Frank W. Gay II, Jeffrey A. Hinrichs,
James D. Stice, HGGC Fund III, L.P., and HGGC, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2020-0410 (Del. Ch., May 28, 2020), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Nutraceutical's breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the acquisition of Nutraceutical by HGGC, LLC.

Gay and Hinrichs, who collectively owned over 10% of Nutraceutical
outstanding stock agreed to vote in favor of the acquisition and
against any other acquisition proposal. Nutraceutical's
stockholders claim that they did not receive fair value for their
stock. Nutraceutical's financial advisor performed a valuation
analysis that placed its value substantially in excess of the $446
million. Less than two years after the acquisition closed, HGGC
sold a 40% minority interest in Nutraceutical at a $650 million
valuation.

Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund was a stockholder of
Nutraceutical. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
      Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 622-7000
      Email: cmackintosh@gelaw.com
             ktucker@gelaw.com


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Laid-Off Resto Staff Seek Denied Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie De La Cruz and Mireya Rivas Virgen on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Hometown Buffet, Inc., Alamo Buffets Payroll, LLC, Buffets, LLC,
Vitanova Brands, Food Management Partners, Inc., Larry Harris,
individually, Allen Jones, Individually and Jason Kemp,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04558 (C.D. Cal., May 21,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements, meal
breaks, waiting time penalties and paid sick days pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and California labor laws,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs including recovery of damages in the amount of sixty days
pay under the California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Defendants own, run, and manage restaurant chains in Burbank, Los
Angeles and Santa Ana where De La Cruz and Virgen worked as Shift
Manager and Line Server, respectively, for Hometown Buffet located
at 1850 Empire Ave in Burbank. Defendants furloughed its employees
and implemented a mass layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matt E.O. Finkelberg, Esq.
      DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 3250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (310) 602-6050
      Facsimile: (310) 602-6350
      Email: matt@dereksmithlaw.com


HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Parziale Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN PARZIALE, Plaintiff, v. HP, INC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-05363-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The putative nation-wide class action suit arises out of Defendant
HP's implementation of a remote firmware update that allegedly
incapacitated Plaintiff Parziale's HP printers and 33 other models
of HP printers by preventing the use of certain non-HP ink
cartridges in those printers.

On Sept. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased an HP Officejet Pro 7740
printer from an Office Depot in Jacksonville, Florida.  On June 6,
2018, he purchased another HP Officejet Pro 7740 printer from
Amazon.com.  When shopping for a printer, it was important to him
that the printer be compatible with third-party ink cartridges and
refilled HP ink cartridges because these non-HP cartridges were
less expensive than their HP brand counterparts.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that he would not have purchased the
printers had he known that he would be unable to use non-HP
cartridges with the printer.  The Plaintiff did not see any
representations by HP that he would only be able to use HP brand
cartridges, so he bought the HP printers.  The packaging on the
printers he bought included the statement: "Please use genuine HP
ink cartridges for best results."

Though the Plaintiff did not know it at the time of purchase,
certain HP printers are configured to perform automatic updates to
the software embedded in the device without user intervention.  It
means that HP can remotely update the firmware in its printers
without users' knowledge.  HP's online support page for the
Officejet Pro 7740 contains a brief description of that remote
update ability, which HP calls "dynamic security."

On April 12, 2019, HP used dynamic security technology to implement
a firmware update that modified the firmware on many models of HP
printers, including the Plaintiff's printers, without alerting
users.  The update caused affected printers to cease functioning
with certain third-party and refilled cartridges.  HP printers and
compatible ink cartridges contain chips that allow the printer and
the cartridge to communicate with each other.  The printer chip
contains a master key code and the cartridge chip contains a base
key code that allows the printer to authenticate that the cartridge
is compatible.  The April firmware update changed the communication
protocol between printer chips and cartridge chips so that certain
varieties of non-HP cartridge chips were no longer able to
communicate with the HP printers.  Because the firmware update
blocked these non-HP cartridge chips, any cartridge with such a
chip no longer functioned with an HP printer.

As a result of the update, the Plaintiff's printer ceased working
with the refilled cartridges that were installed in his printers at
the time.  When he attempted to print, he received a series of
error messages stating that he needed to replace empty cartridges
and that there was a "cartridge problem."  He replaced the refilled
cartridges with other third-party cartridges and received another
error message directing him to remove and reinstall the cartridge
to make sure it was correctly installed.  The Plaintiff was not
able to use his printers unless and until he bought HP brand
cartridges.  At the time of the firmware update, the Plaintiff had
purchased and was in possession of at least nine refilled
cartridges, which no longer functioned with his printer following
the update.  As of the date the FAC was filed, his printers still
did not work unless they were loaded with original HP cartridges.
The Plaintiff alleges that this limited functionality devalued his
printers.

The Plaintiff alleges that HP has engaged in this type of conduct
before.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks to represent all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, purchased or owned one or more Class
Printers as well as all persons in Florida who purchased or owned
one or more Class Printers ("Florida Subclass").

On behalf of the Florida Subclass, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA") (Claim 1) and the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law
("FMAL") (Claim 2).  On behalf of the Class, he asserts claims for
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") (Claim 3),
trespass to chattels (Claim 4), and tortious interference with
contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage (Claim
5).

HP now moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims, asserting
that HP is not under any legal duty to make its printers compatible
with non-HP ink cartridges.  HP reasons that all of the Plaintiff's
claims start from the underlying and deficient premise that HP had
some duty to make its printers compatible with non-HP ink
cartridges, even those containing cloned security chips that
infringe on HP's intellectual property.  HP argues that it was
under no such legal obligation, did not make any misleading
representations as to the compatibility of non-HP cartridges with
its printers, and generally did nothing unlawful.

In his Opposition to HP's Motion, the Plaintiff represented that he
would voluntarily withdraw his claim for tortious interference with
contractual relations.  Therefore, the Court does not address HP's
arguments for dismissal of Claim 5.

Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege any
representation or omission likely to deceive a reasonable customer
sufficient to state a claim under FDUTPA.  Because none of the
allegedly misleading statements gave rise to a duty to disclose
additional information, he finds that the Plaintiff's allegations
as to HP's omissions are insufficient to state a claim under
FDUTPA.  Moreover, the information that the Plaintiff argues HP
should have disclosed was in large part disclosed on the Support
Page.

Next, the Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to meet the
second or third prongs of the Section 5 Test, and is thus unable to
state a claim under FDUTPA based on unfair practices.  Because the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to
show that the HP's conduct was deceptive or unfair, he need not
consider whether the Plaintiff has adequately alleged causation or
damages.  The Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim (Claim 1) is dismissed
without prejudice.

The Plaintiff's FMAL claim (Claim 2) is also dismissed without
prejudice.  The Court finds that the alleged representations and
omissions are not "untrue or misleading" under the FMAL for the
same reasons that those representations and omissions are not
deceptive or unfair under the FDUTPA.  Because the Plaintiff has
failed to allege any misleading advertising, his allegations are
insufficient to state a claim under the FMAL and the Judge need not
consider whether he adequately alleged the elements of fraudulent
inducement.

To the extent it is premised on Sections 1030(a)(5)(B),
1030(a)(5)(C), 1030(a)(2)(C), and 1030(a)(6)(A), the Judge
dismissed the Plaintiff's CFAA claim without prejudice.  The
Plaintiff does not allege how "printer-to-cartridge communications"
function like passwords.  The Plaintiff also fails to allege that
any information was transferred or disposed of as a result of the
firmware update, or that HP intended to transfer or dispose of any
information.  His allegations are insufficient to state a claim
under Section 1030(a)(6)(A).

The Plaintiff's trespass allegations mirror those relating to its
CFAA claim.  Plaintiff alleges that HP exceeded its authorized
access to his printers when it activated a firmware update that
disabled his printers.  The Plaintiff further alleges that HP's
conduct caused damage by preventing the Class Printers from
operating, by impairing the condition of these printers, by
reducing the value of these printers, and by depriving Plaintiff
and Class members of the use of these printers and of their non-HP
ink cartridges for a substantial period of time.  HP argues that
because it had authorized access, the Plaintiff cannot claim that
HP acted "without authorization" for the purposes of a trespass
claim.  The Judge finds that the allegations are sufficient to
state a claim.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has shown a sufficient
likelihood that he will be wronged again in a similar way to
establish standing for injunctive relief.  HP's motion to strike
the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Davila granted in part HP's motion
to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim (Claim 1); FMAL claim
(Claim 2); and CFAA claim (Claim 3) to the extent it is premised on
18 U.S.C. Sections 1030(a)(5)(B), 1030(a)(5)(C), 1030(a)(2)(C), and
1030(a)(6)(A) are dismissed with leave to amend.  HP's motion to
dismiss is denied in all other respects.  HP's motion to strike the
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is denied.  The Plaintiff
may file and serve an amended complaint consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6Af396 from Leagle.com.


HUB GROUP: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Wages for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Raul Martinez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Hub Group Trucking, Inc.; Hub Group, Inc.,
Doing Business In California As California Hub Group, Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) alleges that
Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which
contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
Defendants have increased their profits by violating California
wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) Failing to pay
overtime and double-time wages at the proper rates; (b) Failing to
timely pay all earned wages; (c) Unlawfully deducting from the
wages of employees; (d) Failing to reimburse all business expenses
incurred by drivers; (e) Failing to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (f) Failing to authorize or permit
rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (g) Failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (h) Failing to pay
all wages due upon separation of employment.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against
Defendants on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages and
benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and
penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203, 204, 210, 221,
226, 226.7, 510, 511, 512, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 1198,
and provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201 et. seq.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as driver in California from April
6, 2016 until the entry of judgment.

Hub Group Trucking, Inc. and Hub Group, Inc. operate a trucking
company in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046
          E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com

IDEANOMICS INC: Faces Kim Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KIM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IDEANOMICS, INC., ALFRED POOR, BRUNO WU, and CONOR
MCCARTHY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05203 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), is a
federal securities class action brought on behalf of all investors,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics securities between
March 20, 2020, and June 25, 2020, inclusive, alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In recent press releases, Ideanomics has lauded its "one million
square foot EV expo center in Qingdao, Shandong Province," in
China, also known as the Company's Mobile Energy Global Division,
or the "MEG Center." According to Ideanomics, the MEG Center is
"the largest auto trading market in Qingdao," China.

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of
tweets in which it called Ideanomics "an egregious & obvious
fraud." 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."

On this news, Ideanomics' stock price fell from its June 24, 2020
closing price of $3.09 per share to a June 25, 2020 closing price
of $2.44 per share, a one day drop of $0.65 per share, 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 stock price continued
to plummet on June 26, 2020, dropping to a close of $1.46 per
share. This represents a two day drop of approximately 53%.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one million square
foot EV expo center."

The Plaintiff acquired Ideanomics securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Ideanomics purports to be a global company focused on facilitating
the adoption of commercial electric vehicles and developing next
generation financial services and Fintech products. Ideanomics
common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker
"IDEX." The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  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


JEG'S AUTOMOTIVE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JEG’S AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05376-LJL (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 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, a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features
which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation
bar descriptions and prices, and avail consumers of the ability to
peruse the numerous items offered for sale.

According to the complaint, because Defendant's website,
www.jegs.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.

Jeg's Automotive, Inc. is an Ohio-based automotive parts and
accessories retailer doing business in New York.[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

JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Ex Parte Bid for TRO in Legendary Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEGENDARY TRANSPORT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE
& CO. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03636-ODW (GJSx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied Legendary's ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order.

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Legendary initiated the putative
nationwide class action against Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA"), Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A, and Citibank, N.A.  Legendary asserts claims
arising out of the Defendants' alleged lending practices associated
with the Paycheck Protection Program-portion ("PPP") of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

Legendary alleges it is a client of Defendant Chase and that Chase
caused confusion which prevented Legendary from timely applying for
a PPP loan before initial funds were exhausted.  Legendary also
alleges that the Defendants accept applications from their existing
customers alone, in violation of anti-trust laws, and that practice
prevents small businesses like Legendary from applying for and
obtaining a PPP loan from another lender.

On April 22, 2020, Legendary filed an ex parte application for a
TRO.  The TRO seeks an order directing the Defendants to
discontinue their alleged practice of limiting PPP loan
applications to only existing customers.  Legendary asserts that
Congress recently announced new funding for the PPP program and
argues Legendary and small businesses like it will likely suffer
irreparable harm if they are limited to an application with their
existing lender only.

Legendary seeks the ex parte TRO without notice to any Defendant,
of the complaint or the TRO, and also asks the Court to waive the
requirement of a bond.  Defendant Chase learned of Legendary's TRO
application on its own and filed an Opposition.  No other Defendant
has appeared or opposed.

As Legendary fails to satisfy the requirements for a TRO without
notice, Judge Wright denies Legendary's application.  Further, even
had it given notice, Legendary fails to demonstrate a likelihood of
irreparable harm absent the requested injunction.  The risk of
irreparable harm must be likely, not just possible.

Nowhere does Legendary state what irreparable harm it is likely to
suffer absent the injunction it seeks.  Legendary asserts only that
it was unable to initially apply for a loan under the PPP and, now
that additional funding has been approved, will likely suffer
irreparable harm if limited to an application with [its] existing
lender only.  It also asserts that the Defendants' policies limit
small businesses' access to PPP loans, which were intended to avoid
the irreparable injury that falls on a business when it can no
longer function.  Yet, Legendary does not describe that injury
beyond these speculative and conclusory statements.  The Judge
declines to speculate.

Also, Legendary fails to explain how its alleged injury is not
compensable in money damages.  It is particularly problematic as
the subject matter of the litigation concerns the Defendants'
alleged monetary lending practices and Legendary's inability to
obtain funding.

Even under the sliding scale approach, a plaintiff must still show
a likelihood of irreparable injury.  As Legendary fails to do so,
it has not established that it is entitled to a TRO.  For this
additional reason, the Judge denies Legendary's application.

For at least the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright finds that
Legendary has not satisfied the difficult task to establish that it
is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction.  Accordingly, Judge Wright denied
Legendary's application.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/wTicvJ from Leagle.com.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Haro Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REGINA HARO, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15082
(Filed April 17, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 6,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06006 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for failure to pay wages for all hours
worked, failure to pay reporting time pay, and failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals provides health care services.[BN]

The Defendant Kaiser Foundation is represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Kerry Friedrichs, Esq.
          Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
          Jaclyn A. Gross, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549


KAT ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Technicians, Mayo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MAYO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff(s), v. KAT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and DARIN
HARDING, Defendant(s), Case No. 7:20-cv-00170 (W.D. Tex., July 13,
2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all current and former employees of Defendants, who were
paid on a day-rate basis without overtime during the past three
years to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Mayo and other similarly
situated employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but
refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of
[forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate at which [they were or are] employed."

Mr. Mayo was employed by the Defendants as a solid control
technician from October 2018 to May 2020.

Kat Energy Services, LLC is a Midland, Texas-based oilfield
services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net

KM INDUSTRIAL: Harris Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Harris motion to remand the case,
LEVONE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. KM INDUSTRIAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-07801-WHO (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda.

Harris was employed by KMI as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
January 2017 until July 2019.  He alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), California Labor Code, and
California unfair competition law.

First, Harris alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy or
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the putative class to
arrive at their work stations within the 30 minutes for meal
periods that was allotted to them, and as a result "regularly"
shortened meal periods.  In addition, due to security searches that
took place whenever one entered or left the premises, the class
members had to shorten their meal period by fifteen minutes
whenever they left the premises for lunch.  "Hot jobs" also
"consistently" caused the class members to work through meal
periods.  KMI imposed a policy whereby a meal period was
automatically deducted from employees' time regardless of whether
they took that meal period or not.

Harris alleges that the putative class members were not provided
with rest periods of at least 10 minutes for each four-hour work
period, or major fraction thereof.  It was due to KMI's policy of
not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift, chronic
understaffing and overworking employees, lack of formal written
meal and rest period policy, and security checks.  In addition, if
the class members were suited up to clean the tankers, they were
unable to take their rest periods because by the time they took off
all of their gear, their rest break was over and they had to put it
all back on to return to work.  Finally, Harris alleges that KMI
failed to provide accurate wage statements because all hours
worked, including overtime, meal and rest period premiums, and
reimbursements, were not included.

Harris filed the action in Alameda Superior Court on Oct. 24, 2019.
On Nov. 27, 2019, KMI filed a notice of removal to the Norther
District of California.  In support of its notice of removal, KMI
submitted the declaration of Julian Lopez, the Corporate Human
Resources Director of KMI's parent company.  Lopez stated that KMI
employed approximately 442 putative class members (understood as
non-exempt, non-union employees in California) during the relevant
time period, who worked an aggregate of 39,834 weeks.  252
employees worked as non-exempt employees for an aggregate of 10,552
weeks.  The median pay rate for all 442 employees is $20 per hour,
which is lower than the average pay rate.  237 employees were
terminated during the relevant time period.  Lopez based that
information of KMI's computer system, which tracks personnel and
payroll information for employees.

At issue is whether Harris has alleged in excess of $5 million in
controversy such that the case is properly in federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Harris moves
to remand the case to state court.  The parties dispute whether the
amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA is satisfied.  KMI had
the burden to establish the amount-in-controversy.

Harris argues that KMI inflated the damages calculation by relying
on several unsupported assumptions: (i) that every class member
missed one meal period per week; (ii) that every class member
missed two rest periods per week; (iii) that every class member was
not paid one hour of overtime every week; (iv) that every class
member was provided with a non-compliant wage statement for each
pay period during the class period and that each employee was
entitled to the maximum statutory penalty; and (iv) that every
class member that was separated from employment was not provided
with all final wages and that the maximum 30-day violation period
would apply.

Harris contends that KMI improperly considered possible damages to
the entire class and not for each discrete subclass (e.g., meal
period sub-class, rest period sub-class, wage statement penalties
sub-class, waiting time penalties sub-class, and expense
reimbursement sub-class), and that KMI did not examine whether each
potential class member worked an adequate shift, how many days each
worked per week, or whether he took any time off.  He also
challenges KMI's use of median and not average rate of pay, and its
use of a vaguely described computer system.

Judge Orrick finds that many of Harris' criticisms of KMI's
calculations are unpersuasive.  With respect to the meal and rest
period violations, the complaint alleges that meal and rest
violations occurred in part because of security searches that
always occurred, that meal periods were automatically deducted from
employee time regardless of whether they were in fact taken, that
employees did not track their own time, and that KMI did not
schedule rest periods as part of each work shift.  Moreover, Harris
alleges that class members that cleaned tankers were not paid for
the time to take their gear on and off, effectively creating a
violation whenever this task was performed.  These allegations are
specific and sufficiently pervasive to support a 20% violation rate
that KMI has calculated.  Similarly, based upon the allegations
regarding meal and rest break violations, KMI's assumption of one
hour of overtime per term of employment and its assumptions
regarding waiting periods is reasonable.  

However, as Harris points out, KMI did not consider the amounts of
time worked by each employee per week such that he would qualify
for a rest break and/or a meal break.  It assumes that the 442
potential class members regularly, or at least more often than not,
worked over 3.5 or 8 hours in order to calculate the potential meal
and rest break violations (and consequently, overtime and waiting
time).  But no evidence supports that assumption.  KMI did not
provide any evidence, either in support of its motion to remove or
in opposing the motion to remand, regarding the 442 potential class
members' shifts or the number of employees that worked full time.
The complaint does not provide any allegations regarding Harris' or
any other putative class members' shifts.

KMI largely does not address this problem but instead states that
its calculation is based on the theory of averages; if some class
members did not suffer any violations, others suffered more than
the estimate.  That argument would be persuasive if there was some
indication of how many putative class members worked shifts that
would entitle them to a meal or rest break, but there is none.  For
that reason, the case upon which KMI relies is distinguishable.
With the current record, there is no evidence to that effect, many
of KMI's non-exempt employees could have worked 3.5 hour shifts and
not be entitled to any breaks, and KMI's calculation would be
grossly exaggerated.

It is not up to the Judge to fill in KMI's blanks.  The Judge finds
that KMI has failed to show that its meal or rest break
calculations (or its other calculations that are premised upon
these violations) are reasonable.  Because he cannot credit these
calculations, KMI has failed to show that Harris' claimed damages
exceed $5 million by a preponderance of the evidence.

For these reasons, Judge Orrick granted Harris' motion to remand,
and remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/d2LmX6 from Leagle.com.


LEAFLY HOLDINGS: Cruz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Leafly Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-04423, (S.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Leafly Holdings is a cannabis and CBD retailer that owns and
operates the website, "www.leafly.com" offering delivery of
throughout the United States by online sale and general delivery to
the public. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIRA OF NEW YORK INC: Denied Staff Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Mino Hernandez, Osmel Ruben Sosa Najera, Rafael Basurto
Gomez, Jose Luis Mendez, Miguel Miranda, and Rosalio Perez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Lira of New York Inc., Luigi Militelo, Tommy Tin, Jonathan
Mateos and Luigi Lusardi, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04457 (S.D.
N.Y., June 10, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a seafood restaurant,
located at 1394 3rd Ave, New York under the name "Luke's Bar &
Grill" where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, food
preparers, dishwashers and porter. They worked in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Luke's
also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked
and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours worked, either
at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

Moreover, Sosa, Gomez and Miranda were ostensibly employed as
delivery workers but spent a significant amount of time spent
performing non-tipped duties. They were paid lower than the
required tip-credit rate but was deducted a tip credit because
their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, thus allowing
Luke's to pay the tip-credit instead of the minimum wage rate, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LO & BEHOLD: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. LO & BEHOLD L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-05215-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Web site will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff brings his civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site, https://www.loandbeholdnaturals.com/, 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, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby is a violation of his rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendant's Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.

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

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant operates the Lo & Behold online retail store across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Shaughnessy Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TYRON SHAUGHNESSY, JOHANNES
JAEGER, JUERGAN BADURA and DAVID BEBERFALL, on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current or
former employees of the named defendant v. LUFTHANSA TECHNIK NORTH
AMERICA HOLDING CORP., a foreign profit corporation, and/or in the
alternative, LUFTHANSA TECHNIK COMPONENT SERVICES LLC, a foreign
profit corporation, Case No. 20-2-08903-6 SEA (Filed May 15, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in
and for the King County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on July 2, 2020.

The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01032 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages as required by the Washington Minimum Wage Act,
failure to pay all wages due upon termination of employment as
required by the Washington Wage Payment Act, and willful
withholding of wages, in violation of the Washington Wage Rebate
Act.

Lufthansa Technik provides aircraft technical services. The Company
offers maintenance, repair, overhaul, engine, landing gear,
component, cockpit, and cable products, and modification services
for civil aircrafts. Lufthansa Technik caters to the civil aviation
industry worldwide.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William H. Walsh, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206-340-1000
          E-mail: wwalsh@cozen.com


MARCOS MEDICAL WELLNESS: Arispe Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Arispe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marcos Medical Wellness, PLLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00631 (W.D. Tex., May 27, 2020), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Marcos Medical Wellness operates a medical care center. To promote
its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via
an auto dialer. Arispe did not give express consent to receive such
texts, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angelica Gentile, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com


MARYLAND: Appeals Order in Cedillo Habeas Corpus Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Donna Bounds filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Angel Cedillo v. Donna Bounds, Case No.
8:20-cv-00780-TDC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt.

Donna Bounds is sued in her official capacity as Warden of the
Worcester County Detention Center in Maryland.

Plaintiffs Mauricio Coreas and Angel Guzman Cedillo, currently in
immigration detention, filed this action against Respondents
seeking their immediate release in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Both are detained by the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement in Maryland, and both have underlying medical
conditions that place them at increased risk of serious
complications or even death from COVID19. According to Dr.
Greifinger, based on reviewing the conditions in their respective
facilities, "ICE has failed to adequately comprehend and respond to
the COVID-19 pandemic for those detained in ICE custody, including
at Worcester and Howard County Detention Centers."

The appellate case is captioned as Angel Cedillo v. Donna Bounds,
Case No. 20-7005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees ANGEL GUZMAN CEDILLO and WILLIAM
KEMCHA are represented by:

          Adina Bassin Appelbaum, Esq.
          CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION
          1612 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 899-1412
          E-mail: adina@caircoalition.org

               - and -

          David Cyrus Fathi, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          915 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 548-6603
          E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org

               - and -

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org

               - and -

          Amber Nasir Qureshi, Esq.
          Sirine Shebaya, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
          NATIONAL LAWYERS' GUILD
          2201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 470-2082

               - and -

          Nicholas Taichi Steiner, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARYLAND
          3600 Clipper Mill Road
          Baltimore, MD 21211-0000
          Telephone: (410) 889-8555
          E-mail: steiner@aclu-md.org

Defendant-Respondent-Appellant WARDEN DONNA BOUNDS is represented
by:

          Vickie Elaine LeDuc, Esq.
          Vincent J. Vaccarella, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          36 South Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 209-4836


MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Rocha Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROCHA, as an individual
and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt former and
current employees v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;
MCDONALD'S USA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 11, Inclusive, Case No.
20CECG01570 (Filed May 28, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July
2, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00462 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the
Defendants for failure to pay all overtime wages; minimum wage
violations; meal period violations; and rest period violations
pursuant to California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act.

McDonald's Restaurants owns and operates a chain of
restaurants.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron L. Agenbroad, Esq.
          Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 626 3939
          Facsimile: 415 875 5700
          E-mail: alagenbroad@jonesday.com
                  kitrummel@jonesday.com


MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies TRO & Prelim. Injunction Bid in Amos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL AMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOMMY TAYLOR, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge
Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi, Greenville Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

On Jan. 28, 2020, 33 inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
at Parchman filed a "First Amended Class-Action Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial" against Tommy Taylor, in his official
capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the
Superintendent of Parchman.  In their complaint, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants' policies and practices caused years of
neglect at Parchman, which placed them in imminent danger of
serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the
Fourteenth Amendment.  The pleading, which includes a proposed
class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

On March 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a
temporary restraining order and mandatory preliminary injunction.
The motion seeks an order directing mandatory and affirmative
action to safeguard the Plaintiffs at Parchman from SARS-CoV-2,
also known as COVID-19.

After the Court directed expedited briefing on the motion, the
Defendants filed a response on March 19, 2020.  The Plaintiffs
replied a day later.  Three days after the completion of the
expedited briefing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
issued a document titled, "Interim Guidance on Management of
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention
Facilities."  Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to
supplement their filings in light of the CDC's guidance.  The
parties complied with the directive.

As supplemented, the Plaintiffs' motion seeks a court order
requiring that the Defendants: (1) implement the CDC Guidance; (2)
implement the Centurion Plan; (3) enact a variety of screening,
visitation, and cleaning protocols; (4) make regular reports to the
Court and the Plaintiffs; and (5) provide access to a Mississippi
Department of Health official who will monitor compliance with the
Court's order, and report to the Court and the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants contend that the relief the Plaintiffs seek is
inappropriate because (1) there is no underlying violation of a
federal right which would justify the relief; (2) even if there was
an underlying constitutional violation, the requested relief is
more intrusive than necessary; and (3) all the requested measures
are either already being undertaken, are in many respects not
possible or recommended (such as testing every single inmate), or
have not been shown by the Plaintiffs to have any reasonable
relation to preventing the alleged harm.

Judge Brown finds that the Defendants have undoubtedly taken steps
to address the risk of COVID-19 in Parchman.  Such undisputed steps
include the creation and updating of the Centurion Plan, posting of
signs, promulgation of quarantine and screening policies for both
inmates and visitors, suspension of in-person visitation except for
attorneys, implementing cleaning procedures in the housing units,
the waiving of co-pays for inmates, limitations on transfers, and
the provision of extra soap to inmates.  However, the record is
also undisputed that the implementation of these steps has been
inconsistent or ineffectual.  Additionally, portions of the
Defendants' stated policies conflict in some ways with some of the
general recommendations of the CDC Guidance.

However, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of
deliberate indifference, at least with respect to COVID-19.  The
Defendants have taken numerous proactive steps to prevent the
transmission of COVID-19, which they believe to be consistent with
the CDC Guidance.  While there is some evidence showing incomplete
implementation of the procedures, the evidence is either limited to
sporadic instances, limited to two buildings in a single unit of
Parchman, or both, and therefore fails to show a policy or custom
which would justify the facility-wide injunctive relief sought by
the Plaintiffs.

Similarly, while elements of Parchman's protocols appear to
conflict with a handful of provisions in the CDC Guidance
(provision of paper towels and tissues and policies enforcing
social distancing), these departures are insufficient on their own
to show a likelihood of success regarding deliberate indifference,
particularly in light of the comprehensive and far reaching steps
taken by the Defendants.   Indeed, as in Valentine, the evidence
shows that Parchman has taken and continues to take measures --
informed by guidance from the CDC and medical professionals -- to
abate and control the spread of the virus.  Accordingly, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their
claims.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs must show that they will
suffer irreparable injuries even after accounting for the
protective measures in place.  There is no evidence to support such
a finding.  In addition, the Mississippi legislature has
responsibility for prison policy to MDOC.  Accordingly, the
injunction sought in the case would impose irreparable injury and
the public interest would be harmed which outweigh the potential
threat to the Plaintiffs.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Brown denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/1aBLOf from Leagle.com.


MOLEKULE INC: Lepore Disputes Air Purifier Efficacy
---------------------------------------------------
Paul Lepore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Molekule, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-02571 (E.D. N.Y., June 9, 2020), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and for
violation of New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.

Molekule manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells air
purifiers under its "Air" brand and claims to "destroy" germs and
"eliminate" indoor air pollution. Lepore claims that it does not
remove impurities from the air to the extent advertised. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      Email: mreese@reesellp.com

             - and -

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
      Great Neck NY 11021-5101
      Telephone: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


MORE AGENCY: Caban Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO CABAN v. MORE AGENCY, INC.; KUSHY PUNCH, INC.; VERTICAL BLISS
INC; CONGLOMERATE MARKETING LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV25388 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging violation of the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act arising from the Defendants' failure to pay all wages,
including minimum, regular, and overtime wages.

In July 2018, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as a non-exempt
hourly Machine Operator and terminated him on October 22, 2019.
Throughout the PAGA period, the Plaintiff's duties included,
powering, depowering, operating, and maintaining machines,
inspecting and weighing gummy products, quality control, sorting
products, and creating labels, and labeling candies.

More Agency is a California corporation that is a consulting
company. More Agency shares the same business address as
Conglomerate Marketing LLC and owns the copyright and/or trademark
rights to Kushy Punch, Inc.

Kushy Punch is a California corporation that manufactures and sells
cannabis infused candy and other items to retailers and consumers
throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Michael A. Swift, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  mswift@mahoney-law.net


MOREHART MERCANTILE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Schubert Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELENE SCHUBERT v. MOREHART MERCANTILE CORPORATION and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24900 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 2, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated aggrieved employees alleging that Morehart did
not provide them with minimum wages.

The Plaintiff contends that she and others were entitled to minimum
wages for work performed that Morehart did not compensate them for
all hours worked at the minimum wage rate pursuant to California
Labor Code.

Ms. Schubert started working for Morehart in July 2005. She worked
as a "Clerk" and her job duties included ordering, inventory,
putting stock away, answering phone calls, and general customer
service. The Defendants classified her as an hourly, non-exempt
employee and her latest rate of pay was $21 per hour. Her schedule
starting in 2017 was Monday through Thursday and the general hours
were 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. but did vary based on holidays. She
generally worked at the "The Malibu Feed Bin" store in Malibu,
California. Her employment at Morehart ended on February 4, 2020.

Morehart was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cason et al. Sue Over Amendments of 2020 CBA
---------------------------------------------------------------
AVEION CASON and DONALD VINCENT MAJKOWSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL
PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN BOARD, THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY AND
NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN BOARD, and NATIONAL FOOTBAL LEAGUE
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01875 (D.D.C.,
July 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and violations of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the terms
of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle National Football League (NFL) Player
Retirement Plan and the NFL Player Disability and Neurocognitive
Benefit Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and
participants by failing to disclose the adverse impact of the 2020
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Amendments to the Plan
participants who are totally and permanently (T&P) disabled former
NFL players, including the Plaintiffs.  As a result of the 2020 CBA
between the National Football League Management Council and the
Players Association, both as presented to players in proposal form
for a vote, and later secretly modified after approval, T&P
disabled former NFL players will lose substantial vested T&P
disability benefits.

The Plaintiffs and Class members seek to reform the 2020 CBA to
undo these amendments, seek equitable relief to redress the
fiduciaries' violations, and enjoin any actions that would diminish
the Class' vested disability benefits in a manner inconsistent with
the conditions under which these disability benefits were first
granted and became vested under the Plans.

National Football League Players Association is a labor
organization that represents both former and current professional
American football players in the NFL located at 63 Gene Upshaw
Place, 1133 20th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

National Football League Management Council is a non-profit
association of clubs of the NFL located at 345 Park Ave, Floor 8,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
         Colin M. Downes, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         1735 20th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 734-7046
         E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com
                 colin@blockesq.com

                 - and –

         Ray Genco, Esq.
         GENCO LAW FIRM
         177 Huntington Ave
         Boston, MA 02115
         Telephone: (561) 614-4256
         E-mail: ray@gencolaw.com

                 - and –

         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com

ORTHO ARCH CO: Sarraf Slams Illegally-sent Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Keivan Sarraf, DDS, Inc., individually and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ortho Arch Company,
Inc. and Kimberly Sundblom, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05116 (C.D.
Cal., June 9, 2020), seeks statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ortho Arch Company operates as Ortho Arch. Sarraf received a fax
offering, a trade-in for pliers. At no point in time did Sarraf
provide them with his express written consent to be contacted in
this manner. Keivan Sarraf, DDS, Inc. operates a dental practice in
Beverly Hills, California. [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


PEORIA DISPOSAL: Stinson Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN STINSON, and KEVIN
RIPPER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY, AREA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
WIGAND DISPOSAL COMPANY, AREA RECYCLING, INC., AREA LANDFILLS,
INC., CLINTON LANDFILL, INC., HICKORY RIDGE LANDFILL, INC.,
TAZEWELL COUNTY LANDFILL, INC., PDC LANDFILLS, INC., PDC SERVICES,
INC., COULTER COMPANIES, INC., ADS MISSOURI, INC., PEORIA RECYCLING
AND TRANSFER FACILITY, INC., WASHINGTON LANDFILL, INC., and PEORIA
CITY/COUNTY LANDFILL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01130-MMM (C.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
      Labor Standards Act class of, and implementing a procedure
      whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims
      is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text-message) to:

      "ALL CURRENT AND FORMER WASTE DISPOSAL DRIVERS WHO WORKED
      FOR PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY, AREA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
      WIGAND DISPOSAL COMPANY, AREA RECYCLING, INC., AREA
      LANDFILLS, INC., CLINTON LANDFILL, INC., HICKORY RIDGE
      LANDFILL, INC., TAZEWELL COUNTY LANDFILL, INC., PDC
      LANDFILLS, INC., PDC SERVICES, INC., COULTER COMPANIES,
      INC., ADS MISSOURI, INC., PEORIA RECYCLING AND TRANSFER
      FACILITY, INC., WASHINGTON LANDFILL, INC., AND/OR
      PEORIA CUTY/COUNTY LANDFILL, INC., ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED
      STATES, AT ANY TIME FROM MARCH 27, 2017 THROUGH THE FINAL
      DISPOSITION OF THIS MATTER (Putative Class Members)";

   2. approving a Reminder Email and Text Message to be sent to
      Putative Class Members halfway through the 90-day notice
      period; and

   3. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
      Court's order, identify all Putative Class Members by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail
      addresses of all Putative Class Members who worked for
      Defendants at any time from beginning three years
      immediately preceding the filing of the Original Complaint
      through the present.[CC]

The Defendants are engaged in garbage collection and recycling
services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, 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
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 6
disclosed that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (Nasdaq:PPC)
("Pilgrim's Pride") on behalf investors who purchased or acquired
Pilgrim's Pride common stock between February 9, 2017, and June 3,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A, et al.
v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01966, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Pilgrim's Pride common stock during the Class Period may,
no later than September 4, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this litigation please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/pilgrims-pride-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pilgrims.

The Class Period commences on February 9, 2017, when Pilgrim's
Pride filed its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2016,
with the SEC on a Form 10-K that touted Pilgrim's Pride's
"competitive strengths" and advantages regarding its market
position in the chicken industry. It further represented that
Pilgrim's Pride's "full-line product capabilities, high-volume
production capacities, research and development expertise and
extensive distribution and marketing experience are competitive
strengths compared to smaller and non-vertically integrated
producers."

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants continued to tout
Pilgrim's Pride'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. However, on June 3, 2020, the
truth about the source of Pilgrim's Pride's purported competitive
strengths and advantages was revealed when the United States
Department of Justice announced criminal charges (the "Indictment")
charging four executives in the chicken industry with criminal
antitrust violations, including defendant Jayson J. Penn, Pilgrim's
Pride's President and Chief Executive Officer since March 2019, and
Roger Austin, a former Pilgrim's Pride Vice President. The
Indictment alleges that these individuals, as well as other
co-conspirators, including defendant William W. Lovette, who was
Pilgrim's Pride's President and Chief Executive Officer from
January 2011 to March 2019, violated the Sherman Act by
"participating in a continuing network of suppliers and
co-conspirators, an understood purpose of which was to suppress and
eliminate competition through rigging bids and fixing prices and
price-related terms for broiler chicken products sold in the United
States."

The Indictment further alleged that in order to further the
conspiracy, the individuals utilized their network of suppliers and
co-conspirators from at least as early as 2012 and continuing
through at least early 2017 to: "reach agreements and
understandings to submit aligned, though not necessarily identical,
bids and to offer aligned, though not necessarily identical,
prices, and price-related terms, including discount levels";
"participate in conversations and communications relating to
non-public information such as bids, prices, and price-related
terms, including discount levels, . . . with the shared
understanding that the purpose of the conversations and
communications was to rig bids, and to fix, maintain, stabilize,
and raise prices and other price-related terms, including discount
levels"; and "monitor bids submitted by, and prices and
price-related terms, including discount levels, offered by,
Suppliers and co-conspirators."

Following 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.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pilgrim's
Pride 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) Pilgrim's
Pride received competitive advantages, which persisted during the
Class Period, from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a
result, the defendants' statements about the Pilgrim's Pride's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Pilgrim's Pride investors may, no later than September 4, 2020,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contacts:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Case No. GD-20-006465 (Filed June 4, 2020), 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 Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01008-MPK to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated certain
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Resurgent Capital provides financial services. The Company manages
debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. FrontLine
Asset offers debt collection and call center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com

               - and -

          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          186 42nd Street, PO Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica G. Lucas, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 577-7400
          Facsimile: (412) 347-5461
          E-mail: jlucas@grsm.com


RETAIL EQUATION: Unlawfully Shares Consumer Data, Hayden Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHADI HAYDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE RETAIL EQUATION, INC., and SEPHORA USA, INC., Case
No. 8:20-cv-01203-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for invasion of privacy, violations of
California's unfair competition law, unconscionability, defamation
per se, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and unjust
enrichment.

The case involves the alleged unlawful sharing, receipt, and use of
consumer data--specifically, non-anonymized, individual Consumer
Commercial Activity Data and Consumer ID Data. The Plaintiff
contends that without the consent or knowledge of its consumers,
Sephora shares with TRE data collected from Sephora's consumers.
TRE processes the shared consumer data to generate a consumer
report and a risk score for each of Sephora's consumers.

Sephora describes itself as "a leader in global prestige retail."
Sephora operates approximately 2,300 stores in 33 countries
worldwide, and approximately 400 stores in the United States.

TRE, also operating under the moniker Appriss Retail, describes
itself as "the industry leader in retail transaction optimization
solutions at the point of sale and point of return." TRE's
technology "uses statistical modeling and analytics to detect
fraudulent and abusive behavior when returns are processed at
retailers' return counters."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310 474 9111
          Facsimile: 310 474 8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: 918 588 3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


RIVER VALLEY RECYCLING: Mendez Hits Illegal Deductions, Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. River Valley Recycling, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02161, (C.D. Ill., June 10, 2020), seeks to recover
minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Mendez worked for River Valley Recycling as a production employee,
disassembling engines and transmissions to remove recyclable parts
before the engine or transmission would be smelted to extract base
metals. He was paid a piece rate for the work he performed, $0.0350
per pound for metal extracted from engines and $0.0250 per pound
for metal extracted from transmissions. He claims to be denied
overtime in this scheme and deducted the cost of his uniform from
his pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Class of Receptionists in McKenzie Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, McKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A., and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-1921-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and (ii) denied Ruby's
Motion to Preclude Class Certification.

Plaintiffs McKenzie and Oliver are two former clients of Defendant
Ruby Receptionists.  Ruby is a business that provides virtual
receptionist services to its clients.  The putative class in the
federal action consists of Ruby's clients in the United States for
telephone call answering and messaging services.  Many of Ruby's
clients are small law firms or solo practitioners.

Ruby's clients enter into written contracts with Ruby to purchase
receptionist services.  It bills its clients based on the quantity
of "receptionist minutes" used or contracted for per month.  The
claims of Named Plaintiffs McKenzie and Oliver stem from two of
Ruby's billing practices.  First, the Plaintiffs allege that Ruby
failed to disclose to its clients Ruby's practice of always
"rounding up" to the next 30-second increment when calculating a
"receptionist minute."  Second, they allege that Ruby failed to
disclose to its clients that Ruby includes in its charges the time
that callers have been placed "on hold" or "parked" by Ruby's
receptionists.

The Plaintiffs argue that Ruby breached its contracts with
customers by: (1) always rounding up to the nearest 30-second
increment when billing; and (2) charging customers for "hold" or
"parked" time, because Ruby failed to disclose these billing
practices to customers and prospective customers.  Ruby's billing
practices allegedly inflate the time charged against the balance of
customers' receptionist minutes, causing customers to use their
minutes more quickly and effectively receive fewer receptionist
minutes than they had bargained for and paid.  The Plaintiffs also
assert claims of unjust enrichment, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, and money had and received based on these
two billing practices.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against Ruby
based on Ruby's allegedly misleading billing practices.  They
assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and money had and
received.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ruby's motion
to preclude class certification.  

The Plaintiffs request certification of a class defined as all
persons or entities in the United States who obtained receptionist
services from Defendant Ruby Receptionists between Nov. 2, 2012 and
May 31, 2018, pursuant to its form Service Agreements.

Judge Simon holds that the proposed class action satisfies the Rule
23(a) and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  Accordingly, Judge Simon
(i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and
(ii) denied Ruby's Motion to Preclude Class Certification.

The Court certified a class consisting of: All persons or entities
in the United States who obtained receptionist services from
Defendant Ruby Receptionists between Nov. 2, 2012 and May 31, 2018,
pursuant to its form Service Agreements.

If at any time during the litigation it appears that the
requirements of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b) are no longer satisfied,
the Court will consider a motion to decertify the Class or
otherwise modify the class definition.

A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/q7BzOL from Leagle.com.

Keith S. Dubanevich -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- and Cody Berne
-- cberne@stollberne.com -- STOLL BERNE, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street,
Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204; Laurence D. King, Matthew B. George,
and Mario M. Choi, KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP, 350 Sansome Street,
Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104; Robert I Lax , LAX LLP, 380
Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10168; Jon M.
Herskowitz, BARON & HERKSOWITZ, 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd, #1704, Miami
FL; Gregory J. Brod, BROD LAW FIRM, PC, 96 Jessie Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Andrew R. Escobar -- andrew.escobar@dlapiper.com -- and Austin
Rainwater -- austin.rainwater@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP, 701
Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900, Seattle, WA 98104. Of Attorneys for
Defendant.


SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Court Grants Renewed Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DESIREE ABELSON v. SARASOTA
COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No. 8:19-cv-03092-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez entered an order on July 14,
2020:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional
      certification of:

      "all former and current employees of Defendant who hold,
      or previously held, the positions of "Caseworker II" and
      "Caseworker III" in the three years prior to the filing of
      the complaint in this case"; and

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer in accordance
      with this Order. After consulting with defense counsel,
      the Plaintiff's counsel shall file a motion for approval
      of the proposed notice and notice procedures within 14
      days of the date of this Order, noting any objections to
      the proposed notice which have not been resolved by the
      parties.

The Court says it has granted conditional certification in other
cases that also involved fairly limited evidence of other similarly
situated employees who desired to opt-in. Similarly, to the extent
there might be slight variations between the job duties of a person
employed as a Caseworker II and another person employed as a
Caseworker III, "variations in specific job duties, job locations,
working hours, or the availability of various defenses are examples
of factual issues that are not considered at the notice stage."
Vondriska v. Premier Mortg. Funding, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1330,
1335 (M.D. Fla. 2007). For these reasons, the Court grants
Abelson's renewed motion for conditional certification.

In its prior order the Court denied Abelson's initial motion for
conditional certification because the affidavits she relied upon
from other employees failed to state whether those other employees
were also classified as non-exempt from overtime compensation while
working for the County as a Caseworker II or Caseworker III,
whether they were paid insufficient overtime compensation under the
FLSA, and whether they were similarly situated with respect to
their job duties.

Sarasota County is located in Southwest Florida on the Gulf
Coast.[CC]

SEED CONSULTING: Maryland Ct. Junks James Suit for Improper Venue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHERINE JAMES, Plaintiff, v. SEED CONSULTING, LLC,
d/b/a SEED CAPITAL CORP., Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-20-0371
(D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Improper Venue.

Plaintiff James is a Maryland consumer who executed an agreement
with Seed Consulting to obtain funding for a for-profit real estate
training program.  In early 2018, James alleges that she learned of
a job training opportunity called the "National Real Estate Network
("NREN").  On Jan. 25, 2018, James and her then-significant other,
Michael Brown, signed up to attend an in-person three-day course
with NREN.  James and Brown attended the course from Feb. 9 through
Feb. 11, 2018 at the Baltimore Marriott, Inner Harbor.

On Feb. 11, 2018, while at the training, James alleges she was
offered an "Elite Business Package," which would cost her $29,997.
When she did not have the funds necessary for this business
package, James alleges that a representative from NREN referred her
to a representative from Defendant Seed Consulting, who allegedly
told James that Seed Consulting would work with her to provide all
of the financing needed for the Elite Business Package.  On the
same day, Seed Consulting's representative provided James with a
Business Consulting Services Agreement, which contained a service
fee of $3,495.  James signed the Consulting Agreement, which was
notarized by Seed Consulting's representative.

On March 23, 2018, Seed Consulting sent James an email about
opening eight credit cards in James's name, totaling $44,500 in
credit lines.  On April 8, 2018, Seed Consulting emailed James
telling her that Seed Consulting's work was complete, and James
received the consumer credit cards in the mail, with no
restrictions on their use.  James alleges that she used the credit
cards to cover her real estate training, but that her credit score
fell from the hard inquiries and multiple lines of credit use.  Her
monthly credit card payments were allegedly too high for her to
bear, leading her to default on multiple cards, incur charge-offs,
and be sued by creditors in the Maryland state courts.

In a case brought by creditor Wells Fargo against James in the
District Court for Baltimore City, Wells Fargo v. James, Case
Number 010100057842019, evidence was allegedly presented that Seed
Consulting was an unlicensed credit services business and the court
allegedly determined that James was a victim of fraudulent
activity.  James alleges that she continues to suffer damages as a
result of the Consulting Agreement with Seed Consulting and Seed
Consulting's unlicensed practices, seeking actual and statutory
damages, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff brought the action against Seed Consulting in the
Court on Feb. 11, 2020.  On March 10, 2020, in the purported class
action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act, Defendant Seed Consulting has moved
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to dismiss Plaintiff James' Complaint for improver venue.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the action for improper venue
under Rule 12(b)(3), arguing that the forum-selection clause
contained in the Consulting Agreement requires this case to be
filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Plaintiff James responds that the forum-selection clause is
permissive, not mandatory, and, even if mandatory, the forum
selection clause is unreasonable and contravenes Maryland public
policy.  Should the Court determine that venue is improper, James
requests that the Court transfer the case to the Eighth Judicial
District Court in Las Vegas, rather than dismiss it.

Judge Bennett holds that there is a complete lack of any evidence
suggesting that the Consulting Agreement was induced by fraud or
overreaching by Seed Consulting.  While James asserts unequal
bargaining power because Seed Consulting drafted the contract, that
fact alone does not render the forum selection clause unreasonable
or unenforceable.

In addition, James does not assert that a trial in Nevada state
court would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that it would
deprive her of her day in court or deprive her of a remedy.
Indeed, she may still bring her case in Nevada state court.
Moreover, James bears the burden to show any grave inconveniences
that might result from a trial in Nevada, other the mere
inconvenience of traveling there.  That, she has not done.

James' public policy argument about Maryland's interest in
resolving the dispute is equally unavailing.  James asserts that
because she brings a claim under the Maryland Credit Services
Business Act ("MCSBA") that public policy strongly favors suit in
Maryland.  However, the Fourth Circuit obviated the concern in
Kunda v. C.R. Bard, explaining the availability of comparable,
albeit different, legislation in different states demonstrates that
protection under the statute is unnecessary where there is a
substitute, as there is in that case.  Indeed, Nevada has enacted a
statute similar to the MCSBA.  The Plaintiff has simply failed to
satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating that the enforcement of
the forum selection clause in this case is unreasonable.

Finally, while the Judge finds that the Consulting Agreement's
forum selection clause is enforceable, the Court lacks authority to
transfer the case to the appropriate venue, the Eighth Judicial
District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada -- a state court.  A federal
court does not have authority to transfer a case over which it
lacks jurisdiction to state court.  Accordingly, the case must be
dismissed.  The Plaintiff, however, is free to pursue the action by
filing suit in the appropriate Nevada state court.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Bennett granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue.  

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/UwqEsg from Leagle.com.


SHC SERVICES: Evans Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE A. EVANS v. SHC
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH CARE, Case No.
20SL-CC02966 (Filed May 28, 2020), was removed from the Missouri
Circuit Court for St. Louis County to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on July 7, 2020.

The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00896 to the proceeding.

Ms. Evans brings the Petition on behalf of herself and a putative
class of nurses, who worked for SHC in the State of Missouri. In
her Petition, Evans alleges that SHC failed to pay the nurses for
all straight time worked and all overtime worked because the nurses
worked through their unpaid lunch breaks without pay.

SHC Services provides healthcare staffing solutions. The Company
offers contingent staffing, direct hire, and recruitment process
outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Kasper, Esq.
          Ryan P. Schellert, Esq.
          KASPER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3930 Old Highway 94 South, Suite 105
          St. Charles, MO 63304
          E-mail: kevinkasper@kasperlawfirm.net
                  ryanschellert@kasperlawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timm Schowalter, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Wesselschmidt, Esq.
          SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, P.C.
          600 Washington Avenue, 15th floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-231-3332
          Facsimile: 314-241-7604
          E-mail: tschowalter@sandbergphoenix.com
                  bwesselschmidt@sandbergphoenix.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Roche, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Ostrander, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: mroche@winston.com
                  bostrander@winston.com

               - and -

          E. Paul Wood, Esq.
          LITTLEFIELD & PETERSON
          551 E. South Temple
          Salt Lake City, UT 84102
          Telephone: (801) 531-0435
          E-mail: epwood@lp-law.com


SIX SLICE: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Bailey Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Six Slice Acquisitions, LLC, Brian
Drescher, Doe Corporation 1-10 and John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-00432, (S.D. Ohio, May 28, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendants operate 13 Marco's Pizza locations in the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area where Bailey was a delivery
driver. He claims to be inadequately reimbursed for his
delivery-related expenses, thereby rendering his pay below the
legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phil Krzeski, Esq.
     Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Telephone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

            - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
     Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
     Nathan J. Spencer, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
     Cincinnati, OH 45236
     Telephone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
            pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
            lroselle@billerkimble.com
            nspencer@billerkimble.com
     Website: www.billerkimble.com


SPACIOUS LIVING: Gordon Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
April Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spacious Living Group LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-03956, (S.D. N.Y., May 21, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, and for failure to
provide proper wage notices and wage statement violations.

Plaintiff is a construction flagger who worked the public streets,
roadways and sidewalks throughout New York City and New York State,
pursuant to contracts with Spacious Living. She claims to have
typically worked well in excess of forty hours each week and was
paid an hourly rate that did not include overtime premiums for
hours worked over forty in a given workweek and was not paid the
statutory minimum wage. Plaintiff also did not receive accurate
wage notices or wage statements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
             graham@peltongraham.com


STATE FARM: Bias Against Minority Insureds, Chee Vang Says
----------------------------------------------------------
CHEE VANG, YEE VANG, XENG THAO, and YENG HER as mother of J.Y., a
minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01260-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., July 10,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for discrimination
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

According to the complaint, State Farm has discriminated and
continues to discriminate against the Plaintiffs on the basis of
race, ethnicity, and national origin in deciding their claims for
automobile-insurance health care benefits. State Farm provides
insurance for medical expenses through bodily injury liability
coverage and health-insurance coverage. As such, all of State
Farm's automobile-insurance and health policies provide health care
coverage and thus constitute a health care program or activity for
purposes of the ACA. In connection with this coverage, State Farm
systematically and intentionally discriminates against racial and
ethnic minorities through a policy of disproportionately
investigating and handling automobile-insurance claims to target
healthcare providers that serve minority populations, and it
subjects patients treating at those providers to unnecessary,
burdensome, and frequently abusive investigations. State Farm's
strategy is designed and intended to avoid payment of claims for
treatment to State Farm policyholders who are racial or ethnic
minorities.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a provider of
automobile insurance coverage, with its principal place of business
in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
         David W. Asp, Esq.
         Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
                 dwasp@locklaw.com
                 RNlinsk@locklaw.com

                - and –

         J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
         David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
                 david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com

SYMANTEC CORP: Class Action Trial Scheduled for June 14, 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
AB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

                            Plaintiffs,

            v.

SYMANTEC CORPORATION and
GREGORY S. CLARK,

                            Defendants

Case No.  3:18-cv-02902-WHA

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:      All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly-traded common stock of Symantec Corporation
("Symantec") during the period from May 11, 2017, to August 2,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby
(the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.  

In the Action, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Symantec
Corporation (now known as NortonLifeLock Inc.) and Gregory S. Clark
defrauded shareholders by manipulating Symantec's financial reports
to create the illusion of stronger-than-actual financial
performance and outlook for fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and that
Defendant Clark engaged in insider trading by selling shares of
Symantec common stock during the Class Period while in possession
of material, non-public information in violation of federal
securities laws.  Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiff's
allegations, and deny any wrongdoing or violation of law.  Please
note:  at this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary
recovery.  Trial in this Action is currently scheduled for June 14,
2021.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
(the "Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential Class Members.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy of the
Notice by downloading it from www.SymantecSecuritiesLitigation.com
or by contacting the Notice Administrator at:

         Symantec Securities Litigation
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173106
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
         1-800-949-0206

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:

        Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
        Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
        BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
        & GROSSMANN LLP
        1251 Avenue of the Americas
        New York, NY 10020
        1-800-380-8496

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you want to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and
holdings in Symantec common stock.  If you are a Class Member and
do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.  If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or
incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written
notification of your new address.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than August 25, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.

Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California

DATED: July 6, 2020 [GN]


TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Refused Travel Insurance Refund, Haas Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HAAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE SERVICES INC., BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06171 (C.D. Cal., July 10,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment, conversion, and violations of California Business and
Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to refund the
Travel Insurance Plan acquired by the Plaintiff for a cruise travel
based on the argument that the request to cancel it already lapsed
the 15-day review period. The Plaintiff contends that she contacted
the Defendants immediately to cancel the Travel Insurance Plan
after she was notified by Viking River Cruises that the cruise trip
was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued her a full
refund of the trip. The Plaintiff also argues that she had no way
to know that the trip would be cancelled thus it was impossible for
her to request for the insurance plan cancellation within the
15-day time period.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unfair business
acts and practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of
purchasing Defendants' Travel Insurance Plans.

Travelex Insurance Services Inc. is a travel insurance provider,
with its principal office located in Omaha, Nebraska.

Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company is a travel
insurance company with its principal place of business located in
Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
         15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (818) 783-8836
         Facsimile: (818) 783-9985
         E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com

                - and –

         Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
         Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 432-8492
         E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                 abasser@pomlaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Thomson Student Suit Moved to D.R.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN THOMSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, Case No. WC-2020-0209 (Filed May
14, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Washington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island on July 2, 2020.

The District of Rhode Island Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00295-WES-LDA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks refunds of tuition and fees paid by or on
behalf of students because the University closed its campus and
transitioned to online learning in March 2020 in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board consists of 17 members initially appointed by the
governor in consultation with the University president, and with
the consent of the Senate. Additionally, the University president
appoints one full time student and one faculty member to serve on
the board as non-voting members in ex officio capacity.

The University of Rhode Island is a public research university with
its main campus in Kingston, Rhode Island. The University is the
flagship public research, as well as the land grant and sea grant
university for the state of Rhode Island. The University's main
campus is located in the village of Kingston in southern Rhode
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Caron, Esq.
          CARON LAW OFFICE
          478A Broadway
          Providence, RI 02909
          Telephone: (401) 621-8600
          E-mail: rjcaron@robertjcaronlaw.com

               - and -

          John M. Bradham, Esq.
          Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM
          FRIEDMAN & BROWN, LLP
          444 Madison Ave., 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 695-8050
          E-mail: jbradham@msbllp.com
                  pkatzman@msbllp.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Wiley, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                  roy@akimlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Daly, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
          One Financial Plaza, 26th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 588-5113
          E-mail: mdaly@pierceatwood.com


VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE: McCulloch Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara McCulloch DMD MSD PLLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Valley Forge Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00809 (W.D. Wash., May 29,
2020), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such further and other
relief for breach of contract.

McCulloch owns and operates an orthodontics business located at
2817 80th Ave. SE, Mercer Island. She was prohibited from
practicing dental services except for urgent and emergency
procedures amidst the closure of all non-essential businesses
during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Valley Forge is an insurance carrier. McCulloch took out a business
insurance from them to maintain income in case of an insured loss.
However, McCulloch was denied for business interruption claims due
to closure. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
      Ian S. Birk, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
      Maureen Falecki, Esq.
      Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
             lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
             mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
             nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Alison Chase, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      801 Garden Street, Suite 301
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Fax: (805) 456-1497
      Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com


VARSITY BRANDS: Gyms Sue Over Monopoly in All-Star Markets
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FUSION ELITE ALL STARS and SPIRIT FACTOR LLC D/B/A FUEL
ATHLETICS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC; VARSITY SPIRIT, LLC; VARSITY
SPIRIT FASHION & SUPPLIES, LLC; and U.S. ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03390 (E.D. Pa., July 10, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' monopolization and conspiracy in the
All-Star Competitions and the All-Star Apparel Markets.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege that the Defendants maintained and enhanced their
monopoly power in the All-Star Competitions through anticompetitive
practices. The Defendants imposed exclusionary agreements or terms
on All-Star gyms, causing these gyms to agree to patronize Varsity
exclusively in the primary All-Star Competition Market as well as
in the ancillary All-Star Apparel Market. These agreements or terms
directly require the largest, highest sale volume All-Star Gyms
with the top Cheerleaders and Teams, necessary to put on successful
All-Star Competitions, to purchase All-Star Apparel exclusively
from Varsity and to fill the limited number of events comprising
their competition seasons with Varsity's All-Star Competitions, to
the exclusion of other All-Star Competition and All-Star Apparel
companies; and condition the avoidance of paying penalty prices for
goods and services in the All-Star Competition and All-Star Apparel
Markets on exclusive or near exclusive patronage of Varsity in both
Relevant Markets. The Defendants focused its exclusionary conduct
on All-Star Gyms because these Gyms recruit, train, organize, and
maintain All-Star Teams. All-Star Gyms also select the All-Star
Competitions to attend and make purchasing decisions regarding the
All-Star Apparel to be used by their Teams. As such, All-Star Gyms
are a key input for producing a successful All-Star Competition and
the primary and necessary distribution channel for All-Star
Apparel.

Fusion Elite All Stars is a cheer and tumbling training facility
located in Hollister, California.

Spirit Factor LLC, d/b/a Fuel Athletics, is an All-Star
Cheerleading and All-Star Dance gym located in Altamonte Springs,
Florida.

Varsity Brands, LLC, formally known as Varsity Brands, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation that produces sports apparel and equipment
with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.

Varsity Spirit, LLC, formally known as Varsity Spirit Corp., is a
corporation that sells cheerleading, dance team and band apparel,
trains cheerleaders and dancers at educational camps and hosts
cheerleading competitions, with its principal place of business in
Memphis, Tennessee.

Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies, LLC, formally known as Varsity
Spirit Fashion & Supplies Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of
cheerleading apparel and accessories with its principal place of
business in Memphis, Tennessee.

The U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. is the governing body for
All-Star cheerleading and dance in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq.
         Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
         Mark R. Suter, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net
                 ecramer@bm.net
                 msuter@bm.net

                 - and –

         Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
         Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
         Victoria Sims, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                 kvandyc@cuneolaw.com
                 vicky@cuneolaw.com

                 - and –

         Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
         JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
         81 Prospect Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (518) 732-6703
         E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org

                 - and –

         Brian Shearer, Esq.
         Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
         JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
         718 7th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (518) 732-6703
         E-mail: brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org
                 cbriskin@justicecatalyst.org

VIKING GROUP: Crace Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as IAN CRACE, for himself, and
all others similarly situated, v. VIKING GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00176-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 37(a), and
83(b) and Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry
of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA class; and

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice
      of Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff filed this action to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages for himself and other delivery drivers who worked at
any of the approximately 19 restaurants operated and controlled by
the Defendant. The Defendant is a franchisee of Donatos, with
locations throughout the greater Dayton, Ohio and Springfield, Ohio
areas.

The group of similarly-situated delivery drivers includes any
delivery driver who worked at any of Defendant's locations from May
6, 2017 to present, and who, in one or more workweeks, was paid
less than the full non-tipped minimum wage that was applicable at
the time of their employment.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON LAW, LLC
          9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 11A
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: 513 834 8254
          Facsimile: 513 834 8253
          E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com

YELP INC: Aug. 25 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case No. 3:18-cv-00400-EMC

JONATHAN DAVIS and ROEI AZAR, on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

                 Plaintiffs,

v.

YELP, INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN,
LANNY BAKER, and JED NACHMAN,

                 Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

This notice is for all individuals and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Yelp Common Stock between February 10,
2017 and May 9, 2017, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby (The "Class").           

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
action ("Action") against Yelp, Inc. ("Yelp"), Jeremy Stoppelman,
Lanny Baker, and Jed Nachman ("Defendants"), has been certified as
a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons
and entities that are excluded from the Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
("Notice"). Lead Plaintiff Jonathan Davis has been certified by the
Court to represent the Class.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LAWSUIT.  The full printed Notice is currently being mailed
and emailed (to the extent the Notice Administrator has access to
known Class Members' email addresses) to known Class Members. If
you have not yet received a full printed Notice, you may obtain a
copy by downloading it from www.YelpSecuritiesLitigation.com or by
contacting the Administrator:

         Yelp, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         P.O. Box 91030
         Seattle, WA 98111
         Info@YelpSecuritiesLitigation.com
         (888) 964-0696

If you did not receive the Notice by mail and/or email, and you are
a member of the Class, please send your name and address to the
Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in
connection with the Action, you will receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:

         Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         Email: kwolke@glancylaw.com

         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
         1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
         Atlanta, Georgia 30338
         Telephone: (770) 392-0090
         Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
         Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in Yelp
common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and
you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all
past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and do not wish
to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude
yourself from the Class.

If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any order or judgment in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must complete the exclusion
form at https://secure.yelpsecuritieslitigation.com/ or submit a
written request by letter (or via the email address mentioned in
the full printed Notice) for exclusion postmarked or submitted
online no later than August 25, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. It is within the
Court's discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request
exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement
or judgment in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
or visiting the website www.YelpSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

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 ***