---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 146

                            Headlines

AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Alcantar Employment Suit in California
ASUS COMPUTER: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Carlotti Suit
AVIVA INSURANCE: Thomson Rogers Launches Canada-Wide Class Action
AVKARE INC: Hendrix Suit Moved From E.D. California to D.N.J.
BLUE MAGMA: Faces Broughton FCRA Class Suit Over Consumer Report

BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Court Issues Prelim. Injunction in Savino Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 24 Deadline
CANADA: Court Authorizes Nunavik Class Action v. Quebec Gov't
CANADIAN HOCKEY LEAGUE: Ex Sting Player Launches Class Action
CARGILL LTD: Faces Class-action Suit Over COVID-19 Outbreak

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Bid to Certify Class in Harvey Suit Denied
CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline

CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Summary Judgment Motions in Reynolds Denied
DONEGAL MUTUAL: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ELIZABETHTOWN COMMUNITY: Court Junks Jantzer's Data Breach Suit
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss First State Suit
ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing

EQUITY ONE: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over ADA Violation
FUELROD: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit With New Founders Program
GARUDA LABS: Faces Basu-Kesselman Suit in Calif. Super. Court
GEO GROUP: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Filing
GEO GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 7 Deadline

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Student A Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D.D.C.
GOLDEN STATE: Faces Diller Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
GOYA FOODS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
GRANA Y MONTERO: Settles Odebrecht-Related Class Action for $20MM
GRAND CANYON: Portnoy Law Firm Files Class Action

HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Vanilla Soy Milk Label
HANOVER INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, T&L Says
HOSTWAY CORP: Settles Deceptive Trade Practices Class Action
IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 27 Deadline
ILLINOIS: S.D. Ill. Dismisses Parker Suit Over Inmate Rights

IOVATE HEALTH: Sabatano Warranty Breach Claims Survives Dismissal
J2 GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action Lawsuit
J2 GLOBAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
JACKY JASPER: S.D.N.Y. Wants Nygard to Confirm if Suit Continues
JGM CONSTRUCTION: Faces CS Illumination Suit in New York Sup. Ct.

KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Suit Over Misleading Granola Labels Tossed
KING COUNTY, WA: Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Dolan Suit Upheld
KIRKLAND LAKE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 28 Deadline
KIRKLAND LAKE: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of August 28 Deadline
KROTO INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA

LOCAL CANTINA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Credit Card Tips
LOGITECH INC: Motion in Porath Suit Transferred to Cal. District
M & L CLEANING: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jimenez
MARCELLO'S CHOPHOUSE: Bid to End Gutierrez Harassment Suit Denied
MDL 2672: Bosch Can't Enforce Settlement Against 61 Opt-Outs

MEDIC AMBULANCE: Court Dismisses Silva Suit with Prejudice
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Employee Files ERISA Class Action in Maryland
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Employees Retirement System Files Class Action
MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Franklin Personal Injury Suit in Ariz.

NEW YORK BLACK: Parties in Kasiotis Suit Must File Joint Letter
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 19 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEWELL BRANDS: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
NOVAGOLD: Slams Potential Class Action
OCWEN LOAN: Smith Foreclosure Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts

PARKCHESTER DPS: Court Okays $703K Settlement in Fitzpatrick Suit
PETER NYGARD: Asks Court to Dismiss Class-Action Lawsuit
PHILIPP PLEIN: Web Site not Accessible to Blind, West Suit Claims
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Sept. 1 Oil Spill Class Action Trial Set
PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline

PREMIER GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Mahoney Suit Claims
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Suit Denied Class Certification
PURE & SIMPLE: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
RAILS RETAIL: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ROBERT BOSCH: Announces Emissions Class Action Proposed Settlement

ROLFE & LOBELLO: Moore Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces Hawn FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York
SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: $450K Deal in Shannon Lawsuit Gets Prelim. Nod
SINGLE SOURCE: Underpays Drivers Under FLSA, Lucenti Suit Claims
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Layton Class Suit Removed to District of Nevada

STATE FARM: McClure Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Arizona
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Action for Negligence
TICKETMASTER: Wants Lawsuit Over Cancelled Baseball Games Tossed
UNITED STATES OIL: Faces Securities Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Lee's Immediate Compassionate Release

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sexual Harassment Class Action Tossed
URNEX BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
WELCH FOODS: Sued by Clevenger Over "Slack-Filling" Practices
WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
[*] Koskie Minsky, Merchant Law Commences Class Suit v. Insurers

[*] New York Gyms File Class Action Lawsuit

                            *********

AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Alcantar Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerojet Rocketdyne
Inc. The case is captioned as Edward Alcantar, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc., an Ohio
corporation and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281224-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 29, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an American rocket and missile propulsion
manufacturer. Headquartered in Sacramento, California, the Company
is owned by Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


ASUS COMPUTER: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Carlotti Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an Order granting the Parties' Motion for Final Approval of
the Settlement Agreement in the case captioned JOSEPH CARLOTTI v.
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03369-DMR (N.D.
Cal.).

The Court also grants the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive award. Class counsel is awarded $787,500 in
fees and costs. Mr. Carlotti is awarded $5,000 as an incentive
award.

Within 21 days after the distribution of settlement funds and
payment of attorneys' fees, class counsel shall file a
Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with the Northern
District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,
available at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements.
The Post-Distribution Accounting must contain all information
listed in the Guidance, and shall be filed with the court and
posted on the Settlement Web site.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
manufactured and sold two laptop models that contain defects: the
ASUS GL502VS (VS) and the ASUS GL502VKS (VKS).  First, the laptops
allegedly have several issues relating to their power supply units,
including: (1) the battery drains during use, even when connected
to a power outlet (2) there are significant reductions in
computational performance when the battery power is low; and (3)
there is accelerated degradation of the batteries (Power Defect).
Second, the Plaintiff claims that the laptops' cooling system is
insufficient to prevent overheating, leading to reduced durability
and performance (Overheating Issue).

The operative complaint proposes a class of "[a]ll persons in the
United States who purchased one or more ASUS GL502VS or GL502VSK
laptops." The California Subclass includes "[a]ll members of the
Class who made their purchase in California." On behalf of the
putative class and subclass, the Plaintiff brings numerous claims
for relief, including: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (4) deceit and fraudulent concealment;
(5) unjust enrichment; (6) violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (7) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code; (8) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act; and (9) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yabtaexm from Leagle.com


AVIVA INSURANCE: Thomson Rogers Launches Canada-Wide Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Rogers has issued a Canada-wide class action proceeding
claiming $100 million in damages on behalf of Canadian businesses
who have been denied business interruption insurance by Aviva
Insurance Company of Canada ("Aviva") during the COVID-19
pandemic.

Aviva sold Enterprise Insurance Policies (the "Policies") to
Canadian businesses, which included protection for the loss of
business income as a result of an outbreak of a contagious or
infectious disease ("contagious disease coverage").

Canadian businesses small and large have applied to Aviva for
contagious disease coverage and have been denied coverage by Aviva,
which takes the position that the global COVID-19 pandemic does not
qualify as a contagious or infectious disease under the Policies.

The Representative Plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., is a window
manufacturing and installation company located in Ontario, which
had to close its operations for several months as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Thomson Rogers has been contacted by Canadian
businesses who have suffered extreme economic hardship as a result
of Aviva's failure to honour their business interruption claims and
seeks damages including punitive damages on their behalf.

"Aviva has allegedly failed to honour its good faith obligations to
its policyholders with respect to business interruption claims
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This has put Canadian
companies on the brink when they are most vulnerable," said Robert
Ben and Stephen Birman, partners at Thomson, Rogers.

Many Canadian businesses are unaware that they have contagious
disease coverage and have not submitted claims to Aviva.

"Canadian businesses insured by Aviva should immediately review
their policies to determine whether they include these significant
coverages that are often referred to as Restrictive Access,
Negative Publicity or Interruption by Civil Authority coverages,"
say Robert Ben and Stephen Birman

For further information regarding this claim, please contact:

Robert Ben (rben@thomsonrogers.com or 416-868-3168) or
Stephen Birman (sbirman@thomsonrogers.com or 416-868-3137).

Mark Hunter
Thomson Rogers
4168683190
mhunter@thomsonrogers.com

Robert Ben
Thomson Rogers
4168683137
rben@thomsonrogers.com [GN]


AVKARE INC: Hendrix Suit Moved From E.D. California to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Masao Hendrix, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AvKare, Inc., AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., Express Scripts Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00676, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July
13, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-08713-MCA-MAH to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

AvKARE is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer of unit dose, unit
of use, and bulk products that are utilized in hospital pharmacies
to retail pharmacies across the nation.[BN]


BLUE MAGMA: Faces Broughton FCRA Class Suit Over Consumer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
TED BROUGHTON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLUE MAGMA RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a Florida profit
corporation, Case No. 109552700 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., June
29, 2020), alleges that Blue Magma violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act of 1970 by procuring consumer reports on the
Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes,
without disclosing to them that it may obtain their consumer report
for employment purposes, before obtaining a copy of their consumer
report.

The Plaintiff applied for employment with the Defendant. On April
1, 2018 Blue Magma procured the Plaintiff's consumer report for
employment purposes.

The Plaintiff contends that he did not authorize Blue Magma to
obtain his consumer report. Thus, Blue Magma viewed his personal,
private, and sensitive information without a permissible purpose.

Blue Magma is a property management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Court Issues Prelim. Injunction in Savino Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts has issued a preliminary injunction in the case,
MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v. STEVEN J.
SOUZA, Superintendent of Bristol County House of Correction in his
official capacity, Defendant-Respondent, Civil Action No.
20-10617-WGY (D. Mass.).

A class of civil immigration detainees held in the Bristol County
House of Correction, citing the unparalleled health crisis, press
the Court to release them from confinement in tight and allegedly
unsanitary quarters.  The government refuses to play ball.

The named Plaintiffs-Petitioners are two of 148 individuals
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on civil
immigration charges who, at the start of the litigation, were held
at the Bristol County House of Correction ("BCHOC") in North
Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

On March 27, 2020, the Detainees filed a purported class action
suit alleging that the conditions of their confinement violated
their due process rights and seeking release.  The gravamen of the
complaint was that the facility was simply too crowded to practice
social distancing in accordance with ubiquitous medical advice, and
that the conditions were otherwise unhygienic.  The Detainees also
filed a motion for class certification, and a motion for a
temporary restraining order, which the Court converted into a
motion for a preliminary injunction at the initial hearing held on
March 30, 2020.

At a hearing on April 2, 2020, the Court provisionally certified
five subclasses, and later that day, put together a list of 12
Detainees with no criminal history or pending criminal charges.
The next morning, the counsel for the government informed the Court
that ICE would voluntarily release six of those individuals on
Orders of Supervision.  At a hearing that same day, the government
told the Court that ICE would not voluntarily release anyone else.
The Court ordered bail for three Detainees at that hearing and
requested that the parties supply (jointly or separately) a list of
50 names to consider for bail.  Neither party opted to select fifty
candidates.  On April 8, 2020, the Court certified the general
class of presently incarcerated Detainees and explained the basis
for its bail procedures.

Over the next several weeks, the Court received briefing from the
parties relating to each Detainee's criminal and medical histories,
as well as other pertinent information, and assessed each one
individually.  True to its word, ICE systematically opposed bail
for every Detainee after the initial six.  For each group the Court
considered, the government stated: "It is ICE's position, for the
record, that release of none of the listed individuals is required
for either their safety or the safety of the remaining civil
detainee population at BCHOC."  The Court ruled on the bail
applications that were relatively clear cases and took the rest
under advisement.

Between the filing of the case and the preliminary injunction, six
Detainees were released by ICE on Orders of Supervision, 44 were
granted bail by the Court, 15 were released on bond through the
immigration courts, 15 were (or were soon scheduled to be)
deported, and five new individuals were added by ICE.  Of the 148
Detainees held at BCHOC at the start of the litigation, there
remained 80 after the Court's last bail order on May 5, 2020.

The Court received briefing on the motion for a preliminary
injunction.  After a hearing held on May 7, 2020, the Court orally
issued the preliminary injunction and explained its reasoning.  The
memorandum of decision further explicates the basis for the
preliminary injunction.

Judge Young holds that the Court has matched the unusual health
emergency with an unusual procedural maneuver.  Before addressing
the merits of the petition, the Judge relied on the Courts inherent
authority expeditiously to review bail applications for all of the
detainees in the class, one by one, and released almost a third of
them to house arrest under strict conditions.  These releases have
meaningfully reduced the crowding at the detention center and, one
hopes, hindered the virus' spread.  The Judge then turned to the
pending motion for a preliminary injunction and, after briefing and
oral argument, preliminarily ordered the government (1) to test all
detainees and staff who come into contact with them; and (2) not to
admit any more detainees to this facility.

Judge Young reaches three essential conclusions.  First,
withholding the preliminary injunction would likely cause the
detainees irreparable harm because some number of them would get
seriously ill or die.  Second, the government's response likely
amounts to deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious
harm to the detainees' health.  This deliberate indifference is
proven by the government's near-blanket opposition to the release
of detainees throughout the bail process (though it did somewhat
reduce the population through limited bond releases and
deportations), as well as by its minimal efforts at testing and
contact tracing.

Third, the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in
favor of the injunction.  In so finding, the Judge notes that the
injunction does not prohibit the government's (and the public's)
two primary interests in enforcing the immigration laws --
deporting those unlawfully present and confining those who are
dangerous or flight risks.  Yet, to the extent it reduces the risk
of an uncontainable outbreak in the facility, the injunction
secures the safety of the detainees, the guards and other staff,
their families, and ultimately the public at large.  The scale thus
tips lopsidedly toward the interim equitable relief ordered by the
Court.

Having found that all factors point towards awarding interim
equitable relief, Judge Young issued the following preliminary
injunction:

      1. As soon as reasonably possible, all immigration detainees
at Bristol County House of Correction and staff who come into
contact with them must be tested for COVID-19.  The Court will be
satisfied with a polymerase chain reaction test approved by the
Food and Drug Administration for this purpose.  The test will be
provided at no cost to the detainees or BCHOC staff; if there are
costs, ICE is to bear them.  Anyone covered by this order may
decline to be tested, but a declination will be treated as a
positive COVID-19 result and that person will be presumed to be
carrying the COVID-19 virus.

      2. No new immigration detainees may be admitted to Bristol
County House of Correction.  Any detainee who was already admitted
but has left or will leave the facility, for whatever reason, will
not return.

      3. The above orders will automatically dissolve upon the
latter of the following two events: (a) the Judicial Conference of
the United States rescinds its authorization under the CARES Act
for the use of video and teleconferencing during certain
proceedings; (b) the Supreme Judicial Court rescinds the rebuttable
presumption of release for certain inmates it has described in
Committee for Pub. Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial
Court, 484 Mass. 431, 142 N.E.3d 525 (2020).

      4. At a hearing held on May 11, 2020, the Court modified the
preliminary injunction as follows: No immigration detainee will be
transferred from the Bristol County House of Correction to another
detention center until the testing required by the preliminary
injunction has been performed and the Court has been informed that
the test was negative.  If the individual declines the test, then
that person may be moved upon proper notice to the Court so long as
existing ICE protocols having to do with the health of the
individual are followed.  The order in this paragraph will dissolve
together with the rest of the preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Memorandum
Decision is available at https://is.gd/LvplRD from Leagle.com.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 7 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

LOPE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7803&wire=1
CONN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/conns-inc-information-request-form?prid=7803&wire=1
BKD Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7803&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

LOPE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 5, 2018
- January 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7803&wire=1

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

Conn's, Inc. (CONN)

CONN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 3,
2019 - December 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/conns-inc-information-request-form?prid=7803&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Conn's,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in
first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a
result, Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its
provision for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting
adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers
and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store
sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (BKD)

BKD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 10, 2016 -
April 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7803&wire=1

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Court Authorizes Nunavik Class Action v. Quebec Gov't
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rogers, writing for Nunatsiaq News, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court judge has authorized a class action against the
Quebec government seeking punitive damages for Nunavik detainees.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2018, seeks compensation for
Nunavimmiut who are held in custody for more than three days
awaiting a hearing, due to a lack of correctional facilities in the
region.

Quebec Superior Court Judge Gary D.D. Morrison authorized the class
action on June 29.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has, on more than one occasion,
concluded that the Canadian criminal justice system has tragically
failed this country's Indigenous peoples," Morrison wrote in his
judgment.

"The Court cannot conclude at the authorization phase that such is
the case in this present matter . . . but it is too important an
issue to be ignored."

At the time is was filed, the class action was estimated to include
some 2,400 Nunavik residents affected by long detention periods,
although it's unclear where that number could stand today. The
action seeks damages of $50,000 for each class member.

Montreal lawyers Victor Chauvelot and Louis-Nicholas Coupal filed
the action in 2018 on behalf of Kangirsuk resident Michael Carrier,
who was arrested on July 5, 2018, in his home community.

Like many Nunavimmiut who are remanded into custody, Carrier was
flown to Kuujjuaq, then onto Montreal where he was checked in as an
inmate at the St-Jérôme detention centre.

From there, he was transferred to the detention facility in Amos,
where he made a court appearance on July 10 to set his bail hearing
for July 13.

But the Crown changed its position on the 13th and consented to
Carrier's release on an undertaking. Carrier finally returned home
on July 15, after spending 10 days in custody.

The Superior Court has now appointed Michael Carrier as the
representative plaintiff on behalf of all Nunavimmiut who have been
charged with a criminal offence in the region after Sept. 4, 2015,
and who were detained for a period exceeding three days.

The class action argues that "adjournments beyond three clear days
result in unlawful detention, unless there has been consent." It
also alleges that Quebec has failed to provide a justice system in
Nunavik that is able to facilitate bail hearings held within three
clear days.

"It is this alleged systemic and systematic failure and the
unlawful detentions which are said to violate the rights of accused
in Nunavik," the judgment noted.

In rendering his judgment, Morrison also drew on the Supreme Court
of Canada case in R. v. Myers, in which Chief Justice Richard
Wagner ruled that courts must ensure that people awaiting trial in
custody in jail really need to be there.

"Delays in routine bail and detention matters are a manifestation
of the culture of complacency denounced by this court … and must
be addressed," Wagner wrote.

The class action will be heard before the Superior Court in
Montreal, though no date has been set. [GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY LEAGUE: Ex Sting Player Launches Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sarnia Journal reports that a former Sarnia Sting player is
part of a class action lawsuit launched against the Canadian Hockey
League alleging physical and sexual abuse of players.

Daniel Carcillo, who played three seasons with the Sting, filed a
statement of claim June 19 with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, naming the CHL, it's three member leagues, and all 60
teams as defendants.

Carcillo alleges he and other rookies experienced extensive abuse
during the 2002-03 season in Sarnia. Garrett Taylor, who played in
the Western Hockey League from 2008-10, is also listed as a
plaintiff.

"This case is on behalf of underage minors who suffered violent
hazing, physical and sexual assault and psychological trauma while
playing major junior hockey," Carcillo said in a statement. "I was
one of those kids when I played in the OHL. I know there are many
more just like me."

Carcillo said in 2018 he and other rookies were beaten with a
goalie stick and forced into a bus bathroom stall naked while
senior players spat at them through vents.

Other former Sting players have backed Carcillo's allegations and
shared their own detailed stories of abuse.

Asked for comment, Sting marketing director Jake Bourrie issued the
following statement: "As it is a legal matter the Sarnia Sting
cannot comment."

In 2018, former club president Bill Abercrombie said the club has
"zero tolerance" for hazing and bullying and has programs in place
to ensure all players are treated professionally. [GN]

CARGILL LTD: Faces Class-action Suit Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC.ca reports that a Calgary law firm has filed a class action
lawsuit against Cargill Ltd. in connection to a COVID-19 outbreak
that was at one point the largest in North America, at the
company's beef-processing plant near High River, Alta.

The lawsuit, filed by the Calgary-based Guardian Law Group and
James H. Brown and Associates, alleges Cargill ought to have known
"that the lack of protective measures [at its facility near High
River] would affect not only their own employees, but those close
to them as well."

Mathew Farrell with Guardian Law Group said the company isn't being
blamed for the coronavirus.

"Yes, there's a pandemic--that part's not your fault. You can't do
anything about that," he said  "But there are things that you can
do to make sure that your workers don't get sick, and that if they
do get sick, they don't get a lot of other people sick.

"And those are the very things that Cargill, it is alleged, failed
to do."

According to the release, the plaintiffs in the class action are
individuals who had close contact with employees, but doesn't
include the employees themselves because employees are covered by
labour and workers' compensation laws.

The lawsuit still needs to be approved by a judge, and the
allegations have not been proven in court.

Daniel Sullivan, a spokesperson with Cargill, said the company had
no comment on the class-action lawsuit at this time.

"I can share that at Cargill, we take seriously our responsibility
to feed the world and that keeping people safe is core to our
values," Sullivan said in an email.

                        Cargill Outbreak

After employees began to test positive for COVID-19, some told CBC
News they continued to work in close quarters with colleagues
despite physical distancing measures put in place by the company.
Others said Cargill lured them back to work from self-isolation.

Cargill's facility at High River employs more than 2,000 people,
many of whom are temporary foreign workers.

During the outbreak, more than 1,500 cases of COVID-19 were linked
to the plant, according to health officials, with more than 940
employees testing positive.

Three deaths were also linked to the facility--51-year-old union
shop steward Benito Quesada; Hiep Bui, a 67-year-old woman who
worked at the plant; and Armando Sallegue, an employee's
71-year-old father, who was visiting from the Philippines.

Two weeks and a day after Bui's death from COVID-19, Cargill
reopened, saying it had implemented measures to keep employees
safe, including installing protective barriers on the production
floor and carpooling workers using buses with protective barriers
between the seats.

Many of the employees live in large households and share
transportation.

Cargill Ltd. is a Canadian subsidiary of the U.S.-based Cargill,
which reported revenue of $113.5 billion US and net earnings of
$2.56 billion last year.

The High River plant is back at full operation and processes about
4,500 head of cattle a day--more than one-third of Canada's
beef-packing capacity. [GN]

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Bid to Certify Class in Harvey Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
LLC and COORDINATED CARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00012-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied
the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of all Ambetter customers
between 2012 and the present.

Plaintiff Harvey alleges that the Defendants administered a health
insurance plan, the Ambetter product, with a legally inadequate
network of medical providers and, when members were forced to seek
care outside the Ambetter network, illegally allowed them to be
billed more than they would have paid for in-network services.

Centene is a provider of health insurance coverage throughout the
country, including in Washington State, where it sells the Ambetter
insurance plan at issue in this case in 19 different counties.
Federal law requires health insurance plans like the Ambetter
product offer coverage for 10 categories of "essential health
benefits" and provide a network that is sufficient in number and
types of providers so that all services will be accessible without
unreasonable delay.

Washington law independently requires health insurance plans to
provide certain benefits and an adequate network of providers,
including in certain specialties.  It also obligates insurers to
disclose limitations on their networks and maintain up-todate
provider directories.  Where an insurer's provider network is
inadequate, Washington law requires it to ensure that an insured
may obtain the covered service from a provider or facility within
reasonable proximity of the insured at no greater cost than the
insured would pay in-network.  The Ambetter "evidence of coverage"
-- Centene's contract with plan members -- describes each of these
rights.

The crux of the Plaintiff's allegations is that Centene has for
years failed to maintain an adequate network of providers, forcing
members to receive care at outof-network facilities and from
out-of-network providers.  She alleges Centene fails to prevent
members forced to seek care outside the Ambetter network from being
billed for the difference between what the provider or facility
charges and what the member would pay had they received care
in-network—socalled balance billing.  She asserts that between
2014 and 2018, Centene denied thousands of claims because the
member received care from an out-of-network facility or provider.

In 2017, Washington's Office of the Insurance Commissioner ("OIC")
notified Centene it had received hundreds of complaints from
Washington consumers concerning inadequacies in the Ambetter
network and balance billing.  The OIC brought enforcement action
against Centene, and the two eventually entered into a Consent
Order by which Centene agreed to pay $1.5 million, admitted its
network was inadequate and failed to provide members sufficient
access to care, and agreed to follow a "Compliance Plan" approved
by the OIC.  The Compliance Plan required Centene to address
network inadequacies in certain areas and provide reimbursement to
members who paid out-of-network charges when no in-network option
was available.  Centene agreed to hire an independent auditor to
oversee the Compliance Plan's implementation.

Centene thereafter notified more than 70,000 members that
reimbursement may be available for amounts paid to out-of-network
providers or facilities where no in-network option was available;
the auditor subsequently sent follow-up letters to more than 10,000
members identified based on their claims history.  Several hundred
members submitted requests for reimbursement, of which Centene paid
113.  In January 2019, the OIC determined Centene had satisfied the
requirements of the Compliance Plan, though Centene remains subject
to the federal and state statutory and regulatory requirements
described.

On Jan. 11, 2018, the Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendants
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.  She alleges
Centene continues to maintain an inadequate network and continues
to allow balance billing, in breach of its contract with members
and in violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act.  

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiff seeks an order certifying a class of all who purchased
the Ambetter product between Jan. 11, 2012 and the present.  The
Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing herself as the class
representative and appointing her counsel as the class counsel.
The Defendants oppose class certification.

Having reviewed the briefing and the file in the matter, Judge
Mendoza is fully informed and will deny the motion because a class
action is not a superior vehicle to adjudicate the putative class'
claims, and issues common to the class do not predominate over
individualized questions of law and fact.  He finds there are
superior alternatives to a class action to resolve the Plaintiff's
claims, and necessary individualized determinations make a class
action impractical.

The Plaintiff credibly contends she and others like her were
deprived of an adequate network of in-network medical providers and
facilities -- benefits for which she and other Ambetter members
paid, and to which the law entitled her.  But Centene has
established that those aggrieved by this alleged inadequacy may
avail themselves of at least three adequate -- and, presumably,
cheaper and quicker -- mechanisms by which to seek reimbursement.
Even if adjudicating those claims in a federal court were the most
efficient approach, the scores of individualized determinations
required for the Court to award relief render a class action
inappropriate.

Accordingly, Judge Mendoza denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/z3i6fz from Leagle.com.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Cheetah Mobile Inc. (NYSE: CMCM)
between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cheetah
Mobile investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Cheetah Mobile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1886.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with
the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) as a result, there was
a reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Cheetah Mobile's ability to attract new users would be adversely
impacted; (4) as a result, Cheetah Mobile's revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Cheetah Mobile's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1886.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.  Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies.  Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEMI)
Class Period: March 12, 2020 - June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding their COVID-19
test's accuracy.

Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR)
IPO: February 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that Casper was holding a
glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at
steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the
Company's profitability; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that Casper's core operations
were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over
$40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020
alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) that
as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve
profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand
internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents,
as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all
international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global
corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings
in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone
achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.

Endo International plc (NASDAQ: ENDP)
Class Period: August 8, 2017 - June 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the full scope of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries'
contributions to the opioid crisis, including, but not limited to,
their opioid products' disproportionately negative impact on New
York, one of the most populous states in the U.S., as well as the
fraud that Defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market;
(2) that part of that contribution to the crisis included Endo
publishing and disseminating false information to health care
providers regarding the risks and benefits of opioids; (3) that the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject Endo
and/or its subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement, as well as significant financial and/or reputational
harm, particularly with respect to New York; and (4) that, as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSE: USO)
Class Period: March 19, 2020 - April 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing
substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI
futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, USO's
purported investment objective and strategy was unfeasible due to
market conditions in early 2020, including a "super contango" in
which the futures prices for oil substantially exceeded the spot
price because storage facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma approached
capacity. Instead of revealing the known impacts and risks, USO
held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March
2020.

To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:  CEMI) ("Chembio") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Chembio on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Chembio common stock between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline Reminder:  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Chembio common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/chembio-diagnostics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chembio.

According to the complaint, Chembio develops diagnostic solutions
and offers products for treatment, detection, and diagnosis of
infectious diseases. Chembio claims to have developed and patented
a new and innovative technology called the Dual Path Platform
("DPP(R)"), which allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a variety
of chemical substances. On its website, Chembio maintains that its
products "meet the highest standards for accuracy and superior
performance to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases" and
that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual Path Platform
(DPP(R)), make [point-of-care] testing faster, more accurate, and
more cost effective."

On March 12, 2020, Chembio entered into a worldwide strategic
partnership with LumiraDx Limited, a company focused on developing,
manufacturing, and commercializing industry-leading point-of-care
diagnostic platforms, with the aim of developing a diagnostic test
for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies
on both of their DPP(R) platforms (the "DPP COVID-19 Test").
Following this news, Chembio's shares jumped 65% during pre-market
trading. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted their
progress in developing the DPP COVID-19 Test, representing that it:
(i) successfully aided in determining current or past exposure to
the COVID-19 virus; (ii) provided high sensitivity and specificity;
and (iii) was 100% accurate. The defendants' overly positive
progress updates convinced some entities to place purchase orders
for the DPP COVID-19 Tests worth millions of dollars. These events
further boosted the price of Chembio shares, including on March 20,
2020, when Chembio's shares rose 54%. Chembio's representations
ultimately drove its stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share
on March 11, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on
April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%.

The complaint alleges that, on June 16, 2020, after the market
closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a
press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for its DPP COVID-19 Test. In a public
announcement, the FDA informed that its decision was "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test." More
specifically, the FDA informed that the DPP COVID-19 Test
"generate[d] a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device." As a result, the FDA concluded that the "test's benefits
no longer outweigh its risks."  The next day, on June 17, 2020,
Chembio publicly acknowledged the receipt of the FDA's June 16,
2020 letter and informed the public of the FDA's revocation of its
EUA.  Following this news, Chembio shares declined from a closing
price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per
share on June 17, 2020, a decline of more than 60%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 Test did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the accuracy of its DPP COVID-19 Test.

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) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Chembio investors may, no later than August 17, 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).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.

CONTACT:

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


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. between
March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of
the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chembio investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Chembio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Chembio's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological
point-of-care test did not provide high-quality results and there
were material performance concerns with the accuracy of the
Company's DPP COVID-19 test; (2) the Company's DPP COVID-19 test
generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher
than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device, and
was not effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19; (3)
accordingly, it was not reasonable to believe that the test may be
effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19 and, as a
result, there was a material risk to public health from the false
test results; (4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Summary Judgment Motions in Reynolds Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al, Civil Action No. 19-2184 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania denied both (i) the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, and (ii) Reynolds' motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff Reynolds, a former server at Iron Hill Brewery and
Restaurant, alleges her former employers failed to pay her (and
other servers) the minimum wage because they improperly calculated
her pay using a tip credit for time she spent performing untipped
side work.  Reynolds brings the putative collective and class
action against her former employers, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act ("PMWA").

Defendants Chesapeake & Delaware and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC own 16
restaurants doing business as Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant.  At
each restaurant, the Defendants employ servers to wait on
customers, take orders, deliver food, and ensure customers enjoy
their dining experience.  They consider servers to be
front-of-house employees who receive tips directly from customers.

Although all servers are required to perform side work, the
Defendants do not track servers' individual side work
responsibilities.  As a result, there is no record of what side
work tasks were assigned to which servers, or how long a server
spent performing the assigned tasks.  Even though side work is not
on its own directed toward generating customer tips, the Defendants
consider all server duties, including side work, to be tipped
work.

Reynolds was employed as a server at the Iron Hill restaurant in
North Wales, Pennsylvania from January 17 until March 30, 2019.
She spent 10 days training as a server and was paid $7.25 per hour
during that period.  On Feb. 8, 2019, Reynolds began working as a
server and was paid $2.83 per hour plus tips.

Reynolds testified that throughout her tenure at Iron Hill, she was
required to complete excessive amounts of side work.  According to
Reynolds, when working the opening shift, she was required to clock
in before the restaurant opened and complete side work before she
was assigned a table.  During these shifts, Reynolds completed side
work from the time she clocked in until approximately 15 minutes
after the restaurant opened while she waited to receive her first
table assignment.  Without a table assignment, Reynolds had no
ability to earn a tip during this time.  There were also times in
the middle of her shifts when she did not have any table
assignments.  During these "lulls," Reynolds was required to
complete side work tasks.

On May 20, 2019, Reynolds filed a putative collective and class
action Complaint, alleging the Defendants violated the FLSA by
paying her less than minimum wage for hours she spent performing
untipped side work. She asserts an identical claim under the PMWA.
The Defendants move for summary judgment on both of Reynolds's
claims.  Reynolds moves for partial summary judgment on her PMWA
claim and the narrow issue of whether the Defendants acted
willfully under the FLSA.  The Court heard oral argument on the
motions on April 2, 2020.

Judge Sanchez concludes there is a 20% limit on the amount of time
an employee may spend performing untipped side work while still
being classified as a tipped employee under the FLSA.  The 20% rule
applies equally to the PMWA because the two statutes are
substantially parallel.  Because there is a dispute of material
fact regarding whether Reynolds spent more than 20% of her time
performing untipped side work, summary judgment is inappropriate on
both claims.  Also, because there is a dispute of material fact
regarding the Defendants' willfulness under the FLSA, summary
judgment is precluded on that issue as well.  

Accordingly, Judge Sanchez denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on both claims and Reynolds's motion for partial
summary judgment on her PMWA claim and the issue of willfulness
under the FLSA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/UYkkxr from Leagle.com.


DONEGAL MUTUAL: Faces Mahoney ADA Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donegal Mutual
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. DONEGAL MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03230-KSM (E.D. Pa., July 1,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Karen S. Marston.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Donegal operates as a mutual property and casualty insurance
carrier. The Company provides full lines of personal, farm, and
commercial insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981-5400
          E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com


ELIZABETHTOWN COMMUNITY: Court Junks Jantzer's Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD JANTZER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETHTOWN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
and UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT HEALTH NETWORK INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00791 (BKS/DJS) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Plaintiff Jantzer brings the putative class action against
Defendants Elizabethtown Community Hospital ("ECH") and University
of Vermont Health Network, Inc. ("UVM Health").  The action arises
from a data breach at ECH that allegedly exposed the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of 32,000 ECH patients in October
2018.  Jantzer is a patient of ECH.

UVM Health is Vermont Corporation headquartered in Burlington,
Vermont that consists of a six-hospital and home health and hospice
system located in Vermont and northern New York.  ECH is a New York
corporation headquartered in Elizabethtown, New York and is part of
the UVM Health network.

On Dec. 17, 2018 -- two months after ECH discovered the data breach
-- the Plaintiff received notice from ECH that his PII, along with
approximately 32,000 other patients, had been improperly exposed to
unauthorized third parties. The notice informed him that the
compromised email account contained some of his personal
information, including his name and limited medical information.
It also stated that his Social Security number was not present in
the account, and ECH does not believe he's at any financial risk.

The Plaintiff has spent time monitoring and protecting his
financial well-being by, among other things, corresponding with the
major credit bureaus.  He alleges he will continue to spend
significant amounts of time and money in an effort to protect
himself from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and will
forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud.

The Plaintiff brings claims of: (1) negligence, (2) invasion of
privacy, (3) breach of implied contract, (4) unjust enrichment, (5)
breach of fiduciary duty, (6) breach of confidence, and (7)
deceptive, unfair, and unlawful trade acts or practices.  The
complaint invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiff contends he suffered an injury -- and thus has
standing -- for two reasons: (1) the threat of future harm is
sufficiently imminent, and (2) he has suffered an injury by time
spent protecting himself.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
is unable to demonstrate any injury-in-fact because he did not have
sufficiently sensitive information stolen in the Data Breach and
thus does not face a risk that is substantial or imminent.

Judge Sannes finds the harm of increased risk of future identity
fraud too speculative to support standing in the case.  The Judge
finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite injury in
fact necessary for standing.  Even assuming that the Second Circuit
allowed standing based on an increased risk of future identity
theft, it would be of no help to the Plaintiff in the case because
the type of information exposed is not sensitive enough such that
identity theft is "certainly impending" or there is a "substantial
risk" that it will occur.  The limited nature of information
exposed undercuts the Plaintiff's assertion that there is a
substantial risk of future harm.

In addition, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's allegation that
he has spent time monitoring and protecting his financial
well-being, by, among other things, corresponding with the major
credit bureaus," is thus not sufficient to confer standing.  The
case is unlike Rudolph, where the plaintiff's specific allegations,
detailing the time and expense she had incurred in obtaining a
replacement debit card, established a concrete injury sufficient
for Article III standing.  The Judge agrees with the Defendants'
contention that the Plaintiffs are not permitted to use unspecified
monitoring to manufacture an injury because mitigation expenses do
not qualify as actual injuries where the harm is not imminent.

For these reasons, Judge Sannes granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.  The Judge dismissed the Complaint
without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020
Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/fvPdxQ
from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff: Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP New York, NY.

Jean S. Martin, John Y. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com --
Morgan & Morgan Tampa, FL.

Paul C. Whalen, Law Office of Paul C. Whalen, P.C. Manhasset, NY.

For Defendants: Allyson Himelfarb --
allyson.himelfarb@arnoldporter.com -- Kenneth L. Chernof --
ken.chernof@arnoldporter.com -- Arthur Luk --
arthur.luk@arnoldporter.com -- Stephen Ryck --
stephen.ryck@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Washington, DC.


EMPLOYERS INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss First State Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of the Superior Court of Delaware denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, FIRST STATE
ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, et
al. Defendants, C.A. No. S19C-01-051 CAK (Del. Super.).

Plaintiff First State Orthopaedics, P.A. ("FSO") filed a Complaint
alleging violation of the Delaware Workers' Compensation Act by the
Defendant insurers.  FSO proposes to proceed as a class action.  

In general terms, Delaware law requires worker's compensation
claimants, or their health providers, to submit medical bills for
medical treatment alleged to be related to the work injury to the
responsible insurance carrier.  The carrier then either pays the
bill or gives a reason for not paying.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants when refusing to pay
routinely gave the following reason (or one substantially similar):
The service is not authorized by case manager.  They should contact
the case manager for further information.

FSO alleges it provides medical services to many injured workers
and received the notice, along with many other health care
providers. FSO is seeking a judgment, and nothing else, for itself
and the class of medical providers, declaring that Defendants'
conduct violates Delaware Workers' Compensation law.

The Defendants' initial response was to seek removal to Federal
District Court.  The Federal Court remanded the case back to the
Court in late August 2019.  The Defendants then moved to dismiss
the Complaint.  Briefing ensued and oral argument was held in
February 2020.  Judge Karsnitz allowed additional briefing on the
issue of whether the Plaintiff's claim was moot, and that briefing
was concluded in March.  The Defendants claim the controversy is
moot because they stopped the complained-of practice before the
Complaint was filed when they stopped using a certain computer
software program.

When the Defendants initially filed the motion to dismiss they made
two arguments.  First, they asserted the Plaintiff's claim should
have been reviewed by the Delaware Industrial Accident Board and
not the Court.  In the alternative, they argued that the challenged
notice was in compliance with law.

In response to the first argument FSO referred the Judge to a
Delaware Supreme Court case which allowed claims associated with a
work injury to be adjudicated outside the normal system.  The
Plaintiff disagrees with the Defendant's claim the notice given was
sufficient since it provided no meaningful or substantive
information.

After the filing of the Complaint, motion practice seeking removal
to Federal Court, remand back to the Court, the filing of a motion
to dismiss and filing of Opening and Answering briefs on the
motion, the Defendants in their Reply brief raised a third reason
for dismissal.  In their Reply brief, they, for the first time,
told the Judge they had discontinued the complained of practice,
and thus dismissal was appropriate since the Plaintiff lacked
standing and its claim was moot.  The Judge finds it relevant that
the Defendants raised the mootness argument after many months of
defending the practice.

Judge Karznitz initially found merit in the argument that the
Plaintiff's allegations should be resolved by the Industrial
Accident Board.  After all, the Board has original jurisdiction
over workers' compensation claims.  The Federal Court's decision
gives further support that the case is about claims handling, as in
Pierce v. Int'l. Ins. Co. of Ill., and not individual benefits.

In the Defendants' opening brief they argue that the response to a
claim for payment of medical bills which stated the service was
"not authorized by case manager" satisfies the statutory mandate.
According to them, the plain language of the statute allows the
tautological response "we deny it because we deny it".

The Judge disagrees.  Delaware law jealously guards the right and
obligation of the legislature to control outcomes through selection
of statutory language.  Courts should not rewrite statutes to meet
their view of policy.  But for him, it does not rewrite subsection
2322F(e) by requiring any denial be meaningful.  More than "we
won't pay because we say so, talk to the manager" is required.  In
any event, the Judge is unwilling to accept the Defendants'
position at this stage of the litigation that the proferred
explanation satisfies the notice provision as a matter of law.

Finally, the Defendants first raised these related issues in their
Reply Brief in support of their motion to dismiss.  In their filing
they explained that before the lawsuit was even filed, they were
using different software which eliminated the "see the manager"
denial.  As a result, according to them, the issue was moot, the
Plaintiff had no standing to challenge the denial, and the
Defendants' motion should be granted.

Two points are relevant to the Judge.  First, he has no information
as to why it took until 10 months into the litigation to raise the
issue.  Second, even though the Defendants claim they are not
currently using the form of denial, they are still defending the
practice leaving the specter of its use in the future.  The
mootness issue is a more difficult one.  The fact that the
Defendants no longer use the complained-of practice creates a
theoretical tone to the proceeding, a "tilting at windmills"
flavor.  The mootness claim implicates the doctrine of voluntary
cessation.  The voluntary cessation of wrongful conduct does not
moot a case or controversy or deprive a court of its power to
determine the legality of a practice.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Karsnitz denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiff's complaint for
declaratory relief may continue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/OYVoSC from
Leagle.com.

John S. Spadaro, Esquire, John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC, 54 Liborio
Lane, Smyrna, DE 19977, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Kevin J. Connors, Esquire -- kjconnors@mdwcg.com -- Marshall
Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Nemours Building, 1007 N. Orange
Street, Suite 600, P.O. Box 8888, Wilmington, DE 19899, Attorney
for Defendants.

D. Andrew Hatchett, Esquire -- andrew.hatchett@alston.com --
Tiffany Powers -- tiffany.powers@alston.com -- Esquire & Robert
Poole, Esquire -- robert.poole@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, One
Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA
30309-3424, Pro Hac Vice Counsel for Defendants.


ENPHASE ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a nationally ranked investor rights law firm,
on July 6 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of stock, options, and derivatives of Enphase Energy,
Inc. (ENPH) between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Enphase investors under the federal securities laws.

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

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

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

If you would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

                        About the Firm

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

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


EQUITY ONE: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity One
Franchisors, LLC. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. EQUITY ONE
FRANCHISORS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03233-JMY (E.D. Pa., July 1,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John M. Younge.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Equity One is the franchisor of independently owned insurance
agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981-5400
          E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com


FUELROD: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit With New Founders Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIS News reports that FuelRod, which offered guests "free
unlimited" swaps on portable chargers, has resolved a class-action
lawsuit brought about by their intent to begin charging for swaps.
The terms of the agreement include the creation of a "Founders"
status, which will allow existing customers to continue to receive
free, unlimited swaps.

FuelRod portable charging kiosks are available at both Walt Disney
World and the Disneyland Resort. For $30 guests receive a FuelRod
that can be exchanged for a fully charged unit at any kiosk.

Last fall, FuelRod announced that they would begin charging $3 per
swap, prompting the class-action lawsuit.

Customers who purchased their FuelRod charger prior to October 26,
2019 should fill out a questionnaire to receive Founders status and
get free, unlimited swaps.

Customers will then need to download the FuelRod app on their
smartphone, using the same email address as in the questionnaire.
The app will generate a QR code that can be scanned at any kiosk,
allowing Founders to receive their swap for free. [GN]

GARUDA LABS: Faces Basu-Kesselman Suit in Calif. Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garuda Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as ISHAN BASU-KESSELMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. GARUDA LABS, INC., A CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH
50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20585229 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., June 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will be held on Dec. 2, 2020.

Garuda Labs operates as a consultancy agency for companies that
wish to hire workers on a permanent or temporary basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


GEO GROUP: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investors rights law firm,
announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased The Geo Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GEO) securities between February 27, 2020 and
June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). GEO Group investors
have until September 8, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you suffered a loss on your GEO Group 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/the-geo-group-inc/.You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

On June 17, 2020, The Intercept published an article entitled "GEO
Group's Blundering Response to the Pandemic Helped Spread
Coronavirus in Halfway Houses." The article described details of a
significant COVID-19 outbreak at the Grossman Center, a halfway
house in Leavenworth, Kansas, operated by GEO Group—which "was
for weeks the hardest hit federal halfway house in the country" in
terms of confirmed cases of COVID-19. Citing interviews with
residents of the Grossman Center, The Intercept characterized GEO
Group's response as "blundering" and reported "that the virus
spread not in spite of the facility's efforts to contain it, but
because of it." According to the article, the Grossman Center
continued to keep its residents in overcrowded conditions without
implementing personal protective measures even as COVID-19
diagnoses at the facility increased.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.03 per share, or
7%, to close at $12.17 per share on June 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

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 GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective
COVID-19 response procedures; (2) that those inadequate procedures
subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant
health risks; (3) that accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to
significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased GEO Group securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

GEO GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the
"Company")(NYSE: GEO) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and indexed under 20-cv-81063, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GEO Group securities
between February 27, 2020, and June 16, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GEO Group securities during
the class period, you have until September 7, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

GEO Group is purportedly the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of secure facilities, processing
centers, and community reentry centers in the U.S., Australia,
South Africa, and the United Kingdom.  GEO Group is also
purportedly a leading provider of enhanced in-custody
rehabilitation, post-release support, electronic monitoring, and
community-based programs.  The Company's worldwide operations
include the ownership and/or management of, among other facilities,
halfway houses in the U.S.

Between late 2019 and early 2020, a novel strain of the coronavirus
disease, commonly referred to as COVID-19, became an ongoing global
pandemic, with the outbreak first identified in Wuhan, China, in
December 2019.  The virus quickly spread to other countries,
including the U.S., prompting state, federal, and private parties
to enact various health and safety measures to halt the spread of
the disease, which has since claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, with over one hundred thousand deaths in the U.S. alone.  To
date, the State of Kansas ("Kansas") has experienced at least
12,970 cases and 261 deaths related to COVID-19.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group maintained woefully
ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those inadequate
procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to
significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company was
vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 17, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Intercept published
an article entitled "GEO Group's Blundering Response to the
Pandemic Helped Spread Coronavirus in Halfway Houses."  The article
reported details of a significant COVID-19 outbreak at the Grossman
Center, a halfway house in Leavenworth, Kansas, operated by GEO
Group—which "was for weeks the hardest hit federal halfway house
in the country" in terms of confirmed cases of COVID-19.  Citing
interviews with residents of the Grossman Center, The Intercept
characterized GEO Group's response as "blundering" and reported,
"that the virus spread not in spite of the facility's efforts to
contain it, but because of it."  According to the article, the
Grossman Center continued to keep its residents in overcrowded
conditions without enforcing personal protective measures even as
COVID-19 diagnoses at the facility increased.

On this news, GEO Group's stock price fell $1.03 per share, or
7.8%, to close at $12.17 per share on June 17, 2020.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Student A Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D.D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Student A, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-05937, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia on July 13, 2020.

The District of Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01886-DLF to the proceeding.

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

Georgetown University is a private research university in the
Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[BN]


GOLDEN STATE: Faces Diller Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden State Supply
LLC. The case is captioned as Chris N. Diller and all others
similarly situated v. Golden State Supply LLC and Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2020-00281372-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July
1, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. A case
management conference will be held on Jan. 7, 2021.

Golden State Supply is an auto parts retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen A. Van Dyke, Esq.
          Matthew R Schoech, Esq.
          VAN DYKE LITIGATION & TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          11025 Pioneer Trail, Unit 101A
          Truckee, CA 96161-0492
          Telephone: (530) 587-2130
          Facsimile: (530) 587-2829
          E-mail: glen@vdlitigation.com


GOYA FOODS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goya Foods, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of himself and of all
other persons similarly situated v. Goya Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05388 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020).

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

Goya Foods, Inc., is an American producer of a brand of foods sold
in the United States and many Hispanic countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


GRANA Y MONTERO: Settles Odebrecht-Related Class Action for $20MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Hicks, writing for Global Investigations Review, reports
that Grana y Montero, a Peruvian construction company, has agreed
to settle a Odebrecht-related class action lawsuit for $20 million.
[GN]

GRAND CANYON: Portnoy Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. investors
("Grand Canyon" or the "Company") that acquired Grand Canyon
securities between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020.

The complaint alleges that the Company inflated Grand Canyon's
financial results by using a non-profit independent entity, Grand
Canyon University ("GCU") as an off-balance-sheet entity to which
Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for
a disproportionate amount of revenue. Defendants repeatedly made
false and misleading statements to investors describing GCU as a
"non-profit" and "independent" institution and misstating Grand
Canyon's role as a third-party provider of education services. As a
result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Grand Canyon's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period. Investors slowly began learning the truth of the
relationship between the Company and GCU, culminating with Citron
Research publishing a report on January 28, 2020 outlining the
intricate and allegedly unlawful relationship between the Company
and GCU. Following the publication of the Citron Research report
the Company's shares fell sharply in value.

Founding partner, Lesley Portnoy, informs interested investors,
"Grand Canyon investors can seek an active role in the pending
litigation by petitioning the court for appointment as a lead
plaintiff. Lead plaintiffs are appointed by the court to act as a
fiduciary on behalf of other injured investors. Also, notably for
investors concerned about time and expense of the litigation, the
lead plaintiffs do not bear any direct cost or expense of the case,
and on the upside are eligible to receive a monetary award for
participating in the case."

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information. If you suffered a loss you have until July
13, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

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

         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         Admitted CA and NY Bar
         The Portnoy Law Firm
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
         Tel. No. 310-692-8883

HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Vanilla Soy Milk Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on June 26, 2020, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., on
behalf of a proposed class of Plaintiffs, filed a class action
lawsuit against Hain Celestial Group, Inc. asserting that the
company had deceptively labeled its "Organic Plus Vanilla Soymilk"
because it (1) contained non-vanilla flavor and (2) disguised sugar
as "Evaporated Cane Juice."

On the first claim, Plaintiffs alleged that the ingredient list's
disclosure of "Vanilla Flavor With Other Natural Flavors" indicated
that the product contained non-vanilla flavor. Furthermore, they
alleged that this non-vanilla flavor contained vanillin.
Additionally, they alleged that because vanilla is governed by
standards of identity (see 21 CFR 169.175 ("Vanilla extract); 21
CFR 169.177 ("Vanilla flavoring")), the general flavoring rules of
21 CFR 101.22, including the designation of "with other natural
flavors," do not apply and any non-vanilla flavor must be disclosed
as an artificial flavor.

As to the sugar claim, Plaintiffs alleged that consumers expect an
ingredient with the term "juice" to be derived from a consumable
fruit or vegetable, that "evaporated cane juice" "had little in
common" with this definition of juice because it was "another name
for . . . 'sugar,"' and that the choice of labeling resulted in the
misleading impression that the product was a better nutritional
choice than comparable products.

Plaintiffs' vanilla claim echo a plethora of similar class-action
lawsuits, many dozen of which have been filed by the same firm.
However, unlike some of these cases, including one that was
recently dismissed, Plaintiffs did not solely rely on the
declaration of "natural flavors" in the ingredient list to conclude
that a non-vanilla flavor was present, but rather specifically
allege that the challenged product contains vanillin. [GN]


HANOVER INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, T&L Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
T&L CATERING, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC. and CITIZENS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-07934-FLW-ZNQ
(D.N.J., June 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendants denied the
obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage
to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil
authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump
declared the COVID-19 pandemic to be a national emergency. On March
16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
members of the national Coronavirus Task Force issued to the
American public guidance, styled as "30 Days to Slow the Spread"
for stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Following this advice for individuals to adopt far-reaching social
distancing measures, many state government administrations across
the nation recognized the need to take steps to protect the health
and safety of their residents from the human to human and surface
to human spread of COVID-19. As a result, many governmental
entities entered civil authority orders suspending or severely
curtailing business operations of non-essential businesses that
interact with the public and provide gathering places for the
individuals.

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that the Defendants are liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.

As a result of the closure orders, the Plaintiff had to cease
operations with respect to sit-down dining and was limited to take
out business.

The Hanover is a carrier of property and casualty insurance for
businesses and individuals in the United States. Citizens Insurance
Company of America, based in Howell, Michigan, is a leading
provider of personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance, primarily in the Midwest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridge field Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100

               - and -

          Samuel H. Madman, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER MADMAN & DOWDY LL
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100


HOSTWAY CORP: Settles Deceptive Trade Practices Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Saxena White P.A. on
July 7 disclosed that a settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of Hostway Corporation and Hostway
Services, Inc. ("Hostway") customers whose email accounts utilized
Hostway's shared servers located in Florida that were "blacklisted"
at any time from November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (the
"Class Period"). The Plaintiff claims that Hostway violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breached the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjustly enriched
itself. Hostway denies any wrongdoing. No Court or other entity has
made any judgment or determination of any wrongdoing or that the
law has been violated.

Who Is Included?

The Settlement Class includes customers who directly or indirectly
subscribed to email services provided by Hostway, including email
services provided by Defendants' predecessors, affiliates,
subsidiaries and/or parents, and whose email accounts utilized
Hostway's shared servers located in Florida that were "blacklisted"
at any time during the Class Period.

How can I get a Settlement benefit?

You must make a claim by October 5, 2020 in order to receive any
Settlement benefit. To file your Claim Form electronically or by
mail visit www.HostwaySettlement.com and provide your Unique ID
number.

If you did not receive a Notice of Class Action Settlement directly
via email and do not have a Unique ID, but believe you are a Class
Member, you can contact the Settlement Administrator toll-free at
1-855-917-3476 or via e-mail at claims@HostwaySettlement.com to
review your status as a Class Member and if you are a Class Member,
obtain your Unique ID.

Your other options.

You can exclude yourself from the Settlement by informing the
Settlement Administrator that you want to "opt-out" of the
Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, this is the only
option that allows you to retain any rights to sue Hostway for any
claims related to the blacklisting that occurred during the Class
Period. If you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to
receive any Settlement benefit. The deadline to exclude yourself
from the Settlement is October 5, 2020. If you do not exclude
yourself, you can object to any part of the Settlement by October
5, 2020. The detailed Notice available at www.HostwaySettlement.com
explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on November 6, 2020, in
Courtroom #WW14150, Broward County Courthouse, 201 SE 6th Street,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to consider whether the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court may listen to people who
appear at the hearing and who have provided notice of their intent
to appear. For more information, call toll-free 1-855-917-3476 or
visit www.HostwaySettlement.com. [GN]


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

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

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


ILLINOIS: S.D. Ill. Dismisses Parker Suit Over Inmate Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER, #S07242 v.
ROB JEFFERYS, IDOC RECORDS OFFICE, and GLENN JACKSON, Case No.
19-cv-00530-SMY (S.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) and is currently incarcerated at
Big Muddy River Correctional Center. He brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to challenge the
constitutionality of 730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(d), which governs
the procedure for seeking discharge of mandatory supervised release
("MSR") for certain sex offenders, and 730 ILCS Section
5/3-14-2.5(e), which tolls MSR for any period of incarceration. He
claims that, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, he was denied credit toward his term of MSR for 906 days he
spent in IDOC custody following re-incarceration for violations of
his MSR. He seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and
money damages.

The Plaintiff makes these allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint: the Plaintiff was convicted of criminal sexual assault.
Pursuant to 730 ILCS Section 5/5-8-1(d)(4), he was required to
serve a term of MSR for three years to life, following completion
of his term of imprisonment.

The Plaintiff "fulfilled the lawful portion of [his] court imposed
5-year, 3-month determinate sentence of imprisonment" and began
serving his statutorily-required MSR term. On September 12, 2012,
he was arrested and re-incarcerated for violating unspecified
conditions of his MSR. The Illinois Prisoner Review Board ("PRB")
approved the Plaintiff for re-release on condition that he find a
suitable host site. Despite meeting with the PRB every few months,
the Plaintiff was unable to secure a suitable site and remained
incarcerated. He was issued another violation report for failure to
find suitable housing in September 2014. The PRB approved him for
re-release on condition that he find a suitable host site. The
Plaintiff was again released to MSR on May 12, 2015.

In July 2015, three years after Plaintiff's original release from
incarceration, Supervising Agent Robert Schmid prepared the
paperwork necessary to seek discharge of his MSR pursuant to 730
ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(d). The IDOC Records Office informed him
that Plaintiff would not receive credit for his period of
re-incarceration pursuant to 730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(d) based
on the tolling provision in 730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(e).

The Plaintiff claims that his confinement has been excessive due to
application of 730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(d) and (e), in violation
of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and the
Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Plaintiff is attempting to employ Section 1983 to attack the
length of his sentence. He maintains his sentence was unlawfully
extended by application of 730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(e), which
tolled his MSR during periods of re-incarceration and prevented him
from seeking discharge of MSR at the earliest possible date under
730 ILCS Section 5/3-14-2.5(d). The Plaintiff attacks both statutes
on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds (Counts 1 and 2) and he
seeks money damages for each day of wrongful incarceration on
Eighth Amendment grounds (Count 3). He complains that the statutes
toll certain sex offenders' terms of MSR during periods of
incarceration without providing a clear process for seeking
discharge of MSR or defining the reasons for denying applications
for discharge when extending a term of MSR beyond the three-year
minimum.

Habeas corpus is the sole federal remedy for an inmate who wishes
to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Even when, as here, an inmate
seeks monetary relief, habeas is the only available remedy when a
decision in the inmate's favor would call his continued confinement
into question. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Pursuant to
Heck, in order to recover damages under Section 1983 for an
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for "other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction
or sentence invalid," an inmate must show that the sentence has
been previously invalidated, i.e., "reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus."

The Court's review of public records reveals that the Plaintiff
remains incarcerated on the sentence he now challenges. Although he
was last paroled on May 1, 2019, he was reincarcerated on July 9,
2019, and has a projected parole date of July 9, 2021. Thus, his
sentence has not been discharged, overturned or reversed, and he
cannot proceed with a Section 1983 claim for money damages against
the Defendants. Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint and this
action shall be dismissed as Heck-barred.

Disposition

The Court ruled that the Second Amended Complaint and this action
are DISMISSED without prejudice as being Heck-barred. The Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to close this case and to enter judgment
accordingly. Plaintiff is ADVISED that the dismissal does not count
as a "strike" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).

If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice
of appeal with this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of
judgment. Because he "struck out" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g)
before filing this action, the Plaintiff will be liable for the
$505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. Finally, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, the
Plaintiff may also incur another "strike." A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
toll the 30-day appeal deadline. A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed
no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the
judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8eub58k from
Leagle.com


IOVATE HEALTH: Sabatano Warranty Breach Claims Survives Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned TOM SABATANO
and DANIEL BARZOLOSKI, each individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. INC.
a/k/a Muscletech, Case No. 19 CV 8924 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Sabatano's claim for breach of express warranty shall
proceed and Plaintiff Barzoloski's claims for breach of express
warranty and breach of implied warranty shall proceed. All other
claims are dismissed.

Plaintiffs Tom Sabatano and Daniel Barzoloski bring this putative
class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated against defendant Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. a/k/a
Muscletech ("Iovate"). The Plaintiffs bring claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the
California False Advertising Law (FAL) and the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
Section 349, 350. The Plaintiffs also bring claims for breach of
warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

The Defendant, a Delaware corporation, manufactures, packages, and
sells the dietary supplement Platinum 100% BCAA 8:1:1 ("Platinum
BCAA"). BCAA stands for branched-chain amino acids.

The Plaintiffs allege that Platinum BCAA purports to facilitate
muscle growth through the consumption of three essential amino
acids ("EEAs")--leucine, valine, and isoleucine. According to the
Plaintiffs, there exist nine EEAs in total, and building muscle
requires all of them, not just leucine, valine, and isoleucine.

The Plaintiffs allege Platinum BCAA's marketing contained
misrepresentations which led them to believe that consuming the
product would facilitate muscle growth. According to the
Plaintiffs, such misrepresentations induced their purchase of
Platinum BCAA. However, the Plaintiffs claim that ingesting
Platinum BCAA alone--without the other six of nine total
EEAs--negatively impacts muscle protein synthesis, and, therefore,
ingesting Platinum BCAA had the inverse effect of its intended
use.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot state a plausible
claim for deceptive trade practices under New York or California
consumer protection statutes because defendant's statements would
not mislead a reasonable consumer.

The Court agrees.

The Courts notes that the core issue in the complaint is whether a
reasonable consumer could reasonably believe he would build muscle
if he consumed the dietary supplement Platinum BCAA and only
Platinum BCAA. The Court concludes the Plaintiffs cannot plausibly
plead that the statements on the packaging for Platinum BCAA would
mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking that ingesting Platinum
BCAA alone would build muscle.

First, and most importantly, the Plaintiffs' amended complaint
includes an image of the Platinum BCAA packaging, which states in
large and clearly visible letters at the bottom: DIETARY
SUPPLEMENT. Here, the words "DIETAERY SUPPLEMENT" are displayed in
large, upper-case font, in a different color, on the front of the
Platinum BCAA packaging. No reasonable consumer, acting reasonably,
would be misled into believing Platinum BCAA a dietary supplement
would supplant one's diet and build muscle on its own. This is in
line with other courts that have similarly dismissed claims in
which consumers allege to have read a true statement on a package"
and nevertheless assumed things about the product, disregarding
well-known facts of life.

Second, the Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege the statements
identified on the Platinum BCAA packaging were actually misleading.
The Plaintiffs point to the following statements and claim such
misrepresentations induced their purchases: Promotes Muscle Protein
Synthesis; ensures that his muscles are primed for musclebuilding
and provides key building blocks of muscle. None of these
statements suggests that ingesting Platinum BCAA, absent food or
exercise, builds muscle. Indeed, the statements say the product
promotes and primes muscles for growth statements that belie any
suggestion that Platinum BCAA alone is enough.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs fail to plead plausible
misrepresentation claims under New York and California statutory
law.

The Court also agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs cannot
plausibly allege claims for breach of warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the Plaintiffs fail to specify a
time period for a specified level of performance. The Plaintiffs
also have not adequately pleaded a claim for a breach of warranty
under the MMWA.

The Court, however, disagrees with the Defendant's argument that
the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims fail because they failed to
provide timely notice of such claims. The Court is skeptical that
there was a breach of express warranty and that the Plaintiffs'
notice was timely. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that neither
the issue of the alleged breach, nor whether notice was timely, is
appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

The Defendant also argues the Plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranty claims must be dismissed because they were not in privity
with the Defendant.

The Court agrees with respect to Plaintiff Sabatano but disagrees
with respect to Plaintiff Barzoloski. The Plaintiffs concede to the
Defendant's lack of privity argument with respect to Sabatano's
claim. However, because Barzoloski, who purchased Platinum BCAA in
California, alleges he relied on the written labels of Platinum
BCAA's packaging, lack of privity does not bar his claim.
Sabatano's breach of implied warranty claim must be dismissed, but
Barzoloski's breach of implied warranty claim shall proceed.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
is duplicative of their other claims and, therefore, must be
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaf26mkl from
Leagle.com.


J2 GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on July 8, 2020, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:
JCOM). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is October 5, 2015 through June 29, 2020.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-j2-global-inc/.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all J2 Global, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]

J2 GLOBAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against J2 Global,
Inc. ("J2" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) for violations of Sec.
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 5,
2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. J2 participated in undisclosed
related-party transactions. The Company hid impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions by using misleading accounting
techniques. Members of the Company's board of directors and audit
committee that were described as independent were not in fact
disinterested. Based on this news, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about J2, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

JACKY JASPER: S.D.N.Y. Wants Nygard to Confirm if Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a Show Cause Order in the case captioned PETER NYGARD,
NYGARD INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, and NYGARD INC. v. JACKY JASPER
and JOHN OR JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 14 Civ. 1313 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.).

In the Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that an
unidentified Defendant--an individual with several aliases, who is
residing in the State of California--has engaged in malicious
posting and dissemination of material over the Internet containing
defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff Peter Nygard and the
Entity Plaintiffs, unauthorized reproductions of Mr. Nygard's name,
image, and voice and unauthorized reproductions of federally
registered trademarks owned by Plaintiff Nygard International
Partnership and licensed and used by Nygard Inc., which is
headquartered in New York.

The Plaintiffs allege that the unidentified Defendant has posted
untrue allegations regarding Mr. Nygard's private personal life,
including allegations that the Plaintiff engages in sexually
repugnant activities in his personal life. Some of the alleged
salacious content on the Defendant's Web site,
http://DiaryofAHollywoodStreetKing.com,includes headlines, such as
"Fashion Tycoon Peter Nygard Paid $10K [t]o Make Scat Video [] Go
Away!" and "Peter Nygard's Sadist Wrath Caught on Camera!"

The Third Amended Complaint alleges defamation and libel per se;
trademark dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1125;
trademark dilution in violation of New York General Business Law
Section 360-1; invasion of privacy in violation of New York Civil
Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
cyberharassment in violation of New York Penal Law Section 240.30,
defamation and libel by implication; and injurious falsehood/trade
libel.

Since this case was filed, numerous articles in prominent,
nationally-distributed publications have reported allegations that
Plaintiff Nygard engages in the type of behavior described on the
DiaryofAHollywoodStreetKing.com Web site.

Moreover, the unidentified Defendant has not appeared in the
instant lawsuit and remains unidentified, and the
DiaryofAHollywoodStreetKing.com Web site appears to be defunct.

Given these circumstances, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to
submit a letter on June 29, 2020, addressing whether or not this
case should be dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yak7r5ah from Leagle.com


JGM CONSTRUCTION: Faces CS Illumination Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JGM Construction
Development, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as CS ILLUMINATION,
INC., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST OF WHICH JGM CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT,
LLC IS TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO LIEN LAW ARTICLE 3-A v. JGM
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 652786/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., June 29, 2020).

CS Illumination operates as an electrical contractor. The Company
provides lighting, wiring, maintenance, tape light, new track
installation, replacement, site survey, and auditing services for
doorbells, breakers, tape lights, emergency, exit fixtures, and
sockets. CS Illumination serves retailers, hotels, and commercial
properties in North America.

JGM Construction is a full service construction company.[BN]


KELLOGG SALES: Zaback Suit Over Misleading Granola Labels Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Request
for Judicial Notice in the case captioned HARLAN ZABACK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00268-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal.).

In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly allege the vanilla flavor in Bear Naked Granola
is not in fact derived exclusively from vanilla beans.

Harlan Zaback (Plaintiff) alleges Defendant Kellogg Sales Company's
(Defendant) Bear Naked Granola V'nilla Almond is falsely and
misleadingly labeled and advertised as being flavored with vanilla
flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans when the
ingredient list reveals otherwise.

The Plaintiff's Complaint makes only two factual allegations that
the Product is not flavored with vanilla flavoring derived
exclusively from vanilla beans. First, that a close inspection of
the ingredient list reveals the Product is flavored with natural
flavors. Second, the Plaintiff alleges that if the Product was
actually made with vanilla flavoring derived exclusively from
vanilla beans, the Defendant would not have used the term natural
flavors but would have instead listed a more expensive and higher
quality ingredient, vanilla extract or vanilla flavor, on the
ingredient list.

The Plaintiff provides no other factual basis for the contention
that the product is mislabeled. The Defendant responds that the
Plaintiff is merely speculating and misstates the law with respect
to the listing of natural flavors on an ingredients list.

The Court agrees.

The Plaintiff alleged the Product does not contain vanilla
flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans but provides no
factual basis for this argument other than the lack of vanilla's
inclusion on the ingredients list. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has
not alleged sufficient facts to nudge his claims across the line
from conceivable to plausible.

With respect to preemption, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations require the label of a food to which flavor is added
shall declare the flavor in the statement of ingredients in the
following way: spice, natural flavor, and artificial flavor, may be
declared as spice, natural flavor or artificial flavor or any
combination thereof, as the case may be. The Plaintiff's Complaint,
as pleaded, does not allege a violation of these regulations and,
thus, fails to state a claim pursuant to the underlying California
causes of action. Other courts have reached the same conclusion in
similar cases.

District Judge Roger T. Benitez, accordingly, ruled that the
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted, and the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted without prejudice. The
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days of the
order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaee5q4n from Leagle.com


KING COUNTY, WA: Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Dolan Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN DOLAN and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Respondent, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Washington, Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS, Appellant, Case No. 52253-5-II (Wash. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Washington, Division Two, affirmed the superior court's
order awarding attorney fees and costs to the class counsel.

In the class action litigation, the superior court awarded attorney
fees and costs to class counsel based on the common fund doctrine.
On appeal, the Department of Retirement Systems ("DRS") argues that
the superior court erred by exempting class member Judge Laura
Inveen from paying a pro rata share of the class' common fund
attorney fees.  DRS argues that the exemption violates the common
fund doctrine principles set forth in Bowles v. Department of
Retirement Systems, and CR 23(b)(1) and (2).  DRS also requests
guidance on how it should implement the process for assessing
common fund attorney fees for other class members who, like Inveen,
are members of the judiciary or may become members of the judiciary
in the future.

In 2006, Kevin Dolan filed a class action lawsuit against King
County on behalf of all employees of public defender agencies with
which the County had contracted to provide legal defense services.
The complaint alleged that the class members were entitled to
membership and benefits in the Public Employees' Retirement System
Plan ("PERS"), but that the County had not reported their services
to DRS or made retirement contributions on their behalf.  The class
members requested declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the
County's obligation to provide PERS benefits and an order requiring
the County to make all contributions needed to fund those benefits.
The superior court certified the class as a mandatory injunctive
class action under CR 23(b)(1) and (2).

The case proceeded to a bench trial.  The superior court ruled that
the class members should be considered county employees for
purposes of receiving coverage under PERS.  Based on its decision,
the court issued a permanent injunction requiring the County to
enroll class members in PERS.

The County appealed to the State Supreme Court.  The State Supreme
Court affirmed the superior court, holding that the class members
were county employees for purposes of PERS and were entitled to be
enrolled in PERS.  It remanded for further proceedings regarding
remedies.

On Dec. 18, 2012, the County and the class reached a settlement.
The County agreed to make retroactive payments to PERS on behalf of
the County as the employer and on behalf of the class members as
the employees without receiving reimbursements from the class.  The
County also agreed to make payments from the date that the County
should have enrolled the class members.  Pursuant to the
settlement, the class members received retroactive benefit
eligibility and service credits in PERS from the date that the
County should have enrolled the class members.

DRS was not a party to the settlement.  Shortly after the superior
court's preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, DRS moved
for full intervention.  The superior court allowed DRS limited
intervention to object to the settlement and to have the right to
appeal.  The superior court entered a final order approving the
settlement over DRS' objections.

DRS appealed the superior court's approval of the settlement
agreement to the Court.  It argued that the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") removed the superior court's original subject
matter jurisdiction for matters affecting PERS, and the court erred
by denying DRS' motion to intervene and in ruling that the
settlement agreement bound DRS.  The Court affirmed the superior
court's original jurisdiction but reversed and remanded the court's
order denying DRS' motion for full intervention and final order
approving the settlement agreement.

On remand, the class moved to modify the superior court's April
2009 permanent injunction to clarify issues of service credit for
the class members.  On June 5, 2015, the court entered an order
modifying the permanent injunction.  The County and DRS agreed to
its entry. The modification order stated that the class was
entitled to receive retroactive PERS service credit for work as
county employees between Jan. 1, 1978 and March 31, 2012.
Additionally, the County would be required to pay DRS retroactive
employer and employee contributions of approximately $32 million.
The order did not resolve the issue of whether DRS could assess
interest on retroactive service credit contributions.  The order
also did not resolve the issue of whether class members had an
obligation to pay attorney fees or the method of paying attorney
fees.

The class moved for approval of an attorney fee award of
$12,554,000 pursuant to the common fund doctrine.  On Aug. 28,
2015, the superior court entered an order granting the class'
request.  Under that theory, the superior court ordered the
attorney fees to be taken from the class members' overall pension
benefits recovered through the suit.  It ordered the attorney fees
to be immediately paid by the County from employee PERS
contributions that the County would have otherwise paid to DRS.
The reduced pension benefits created a reduction from each class
member's pension.

The Class members' monthly pension checks would then be reduced by
a maximum of about 13% to account for each class member's pro rata
share of the attorney fees from the common recovery.  The reduction
assured that DRS would be repaid by the class as a whole for the
attorney fees paid by the County from the contributions to be made
by the County.  The class members were also provided the option to
repay DRS by paying their pro rata share of the attorney fees in a
lump sum to DRS directly before receiving monthly pension
benefits.

The County and DRS disputed whether the County should be required
to pay interest in the amount of about $64 million on the
retroactive contributions (omitted PERS contributions) for the
service credits.  DRS also contended that under the APA, the
superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to address
whether the County was required to pay interest because it had not
exhausted all administrative remedies.  The court disagreed.  It
ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the
interest issue and it could exercise equitable authority in
ordering a fair remedy.  After considering the equities of each
party, the superior court assessed the County interest in the
amount of $10.5 million on retroactive contributions.  The
remaining interest would be socialized among PERS participants.

DRS appealed the superior court's order on jurisdiction and
assessment of interest, arguing that the superior court erred in
applying equitable principles to determine the County's interest
obligation, and in the alternative, equity did not support imposing
only a portion of the interest.  The Appellate Court held that the
superior court had subject matter jurisdiction regarding the
interest matter.   It also held that the superior court did not err
in exercising its exclusive and equitable authority in ruling that
the County was required to pay a portion of the interest on
retroactive PERS contributions.

On March 11, 2016, the superior court entered an agreed order
implementing the class repayment plan for pension contributions
used for the attorney fees.  It ordered the Office of the State
Actuary ("OSA") to calculate the amount each class member owed in
common fund attorney fees by calculating the total pension
liability (value) added by service credits obtained though the
Dolan litigation.  The court also ordered OSA to calculate a
reduction percentage to be applied to each class member's pension.
On Aug. 30, 2017, the superior court entered an agreed order that
approved notices to be sent to class members.

On May 21, 2018, the class moved to correct the notices and pro
rata attorney fee amounts for five class members -- Anne Dederer,
Robin Jones, Carolyn Frimpter, Linda Moland, and Inveen.  Dederer
and Jones received notices from DRS, but the notices did not
include all their service credit.  DRS opposed the class's motion.


The superior court granted the class's motion in part, ruling that
DRS will not withhold any sums from Ms. Inveen's retirement based
on the Dolan litigation.  It found that DRS' reduction of Inveen's
pension due to the attorney fees was inherently unfair and an
unintended consequence of the Dolan litigation.  The court ruled
that Inveen should not unjustly enrich third parties for payment of
assessed attorney's fees which apply in her unique fact pattern.

The superior court denied the class' request to order DRS to send
corrected notices to Dederer and Jones and to send notices to
Frimpter and Moland.  It found that any fault regarding the
miscalculation lays with the County or DRS and ruled that DRS will
not recalculate pro rata fees as a result of the order.

DRS appeals the superior court's ruling ordering DRS to not
withhold any sums from Inveen's retirement based on the Dolan
litigation.

The Appellate Court holds that the superior court did not violate
the common fund doctrine when it exempted Inveen from paying a pro
rata share of the attorney fees based on the Dolan litigation.  The
superior court invoked its equitable power to prevent other
successful litigants from being unjustly enriched at Inveen's
expense.  The Appellate Court agrees with the superior court that
requiring Inveen to be responsible for her pro rata share of the
common fund fees is inherently unfair and an unintended consequence
of the Dolan litigation.  Holding otherwise would be contrary to
the equitable principle that litigants who benefit from a common
fund or have the ability to "share the harvest" of a common fund
also share the burden of the attorney fees.  Without this
principle, those who benefit from the lawsuit without contributing
to its cost are unjustly enriched at the expense of a successful
litigant.

Next, the Appellate Court holds that Inveen's exemption from paying
a pro rata share of the common fund attorney fees did not
effectively exclude Inveen from the class in violation of CR
23(b)(1) and (2).  The County contributed funds to PERS on Inveen's
behalf.  In order to fully exempt Inveen from the class, the County
must subtract all 27 months of service credit Inveen earned through
the Dolan litigation for her past employment as a public defender.
However, the County already paid the PERS fund for the retroactive
service credit on behalf of itself as the employer and on behalf of
Inveen as the employee.  For Inveen to be deemed fully opted out of
the class, the PERS fund would have had to reimburse the County for
these payments because Inveen would no longer be a class member
entitled to the 27 months of service credit for her past employment
as a public defender.  That did not occur.

DRS argues that if the Appellate Court affirms the superior court's
order, it should provide guidance to DRS on how it should implement
the Dolan common fund attorney fees process for other class members
who are members of the judiciary or who will become members of the
judiciary in the future.

Because DRS requests guidance on a hypothetical future dispute as
opposed to an actual present existing dispute or the seeds of a
mature one, the Appellate Court refrains from addressing DRS'
request and hold that its claim is not justiciable.  Providing the
requested guidance would require the Appellate Court to speculate
on scenarios that do not exist in the present case.  Were it to
issue such an opinion, it would be advisory.  Any future dispute
that arises from the Dolan litigation must be decided on the basis
of the evidence presented in that forum.

Finally, the class argues that the Court should impose monetary
sanctions under RAP 18.9 against DRS because DRS' appeal is
frivolous.  The Appellate Court disagrees and holds that DRS'
appeal is not frivolous.  DRS raises a debatable issue of whether
the superior court properly exempted Inveen from assessment of
common fund attorney fees under both the common fund doctrine and
CR 23, and DRS provided factual and legal support for its claims.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court denies the class' request to
impose sanctions under RAP 18.9(a).

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court holds that the invited
error doctrine does not apply to the court's ruling regarding
Inveen, the subject of the appeal.  The Appellate Court holds that
the superior court did not abuse its discretion when ordering DRS
to not reduce Inveen's pension due to common fund attorney fees
assessed to her as a class member of the Dolan litigation.  The
Appellate Court does not provide DRS with guidance regarding future
challenges to the common fund attorney fees and decline to impose
monetary sanctions under RAP 18.9 against DRS because DRS' appeal
is not frivolous.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's May 12, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/IC6TJw from Leagle.com.

David Frank Stobaugh, Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC, 126 Nw Canal St
Ste 100, Seattle, WA, 98107-4970, Stephen Kolden Strong, Bendich
Stobaugh & Strong PC, 126 Nw Canal St Ste 100, Seattle, WA,
98107-4970, Stephen Kirk Festor, Attorney at Law, 66 S Hanford St
Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98134-1867, Counsel for Respondent(s).

Nam Duc Nguyen, WA Attorney General's Office, Po Box 40123,
Olympia, WA, 98504-0123, Solicitor General Division Attorney
General, Attorney at Law, 1125 Washington Street, Po Box 40100,
Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, Jeffrey A.O. Freimund, Freimund Jackson &
Tardif PLLC, 711 Capitol Way S Ste 602, Olympia, WA, 98501-1236,
Counsel for Appellant Intervenor(s).

Timothy J. Filer -- filet@foster.com -- Foster Garvey PC, 1111 3rd
Ave Ste 3000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3296, David Frank Stobaugh,
Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC, 126 Nw Canal St Ste 100, Seattle, WA,
98107-4970, Stephen Kolden Strong, Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC,
126 Nw Canal St Ste 100, Seattle, WA, 98107-4970, Stephen Kirk
Festor, Attorney at Law, 66 S Hanford St Ste 300, Seattle, WA,
98134-1867, Counsel for Other Parties.


KIRKLAND LAKE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on July 7 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland" or the "Company")
(NYSE: KL) between January 8, 2018, and November 25, 2019 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

On November 25, 2019--following months-long campaign of rosy
projections relating to the Company's key metrics--Kirkland
announced that it entered into a definitive agreement to acquire
all of the outstanding securities of Detour for $3.68 billion. On
this news Kirkland's shares declined 17%, to close at $39.44 on
November 25, 2019, on unusually high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Kirkland securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/kirklandlakegoldltd-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-281/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contacts
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


KIRKLAND LAKE: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of August 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 7 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland" or the Company")
(NYSE: KL) from January 8, 2018 to November 25, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Kirkland Lake Gold
Ltd., you may, no later than August 28, 2020,  request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd.  

CLICK HERE TO JOIN CASE

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

The filed Complaint alleges that Kirkland made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that:

   * Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks,
reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs;

   * the Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve
grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading in
light of the impending acquisition of Detour;

   * the Company's financial statements and projections were not
fairly presented in conformity with International Financial
Reporting Standards; and

   * based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.

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

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

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

Contact:

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

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


KROTO INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kroto Inc. The case
is captioned as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kroto Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04965-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOCAL CANTINA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Credit Card Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Edwards, writing for ALIVE, reports that an employee of Local
Cantina has brought a potential class-action lawsuit against the
Tex-Mex restaurant chain and its owner, George Tanchevski, alleging
that, since May 2020, credit card tips have not been paid out to
tipped workers, nor were the workers paid overtime.

In a statement on Local Cantina's website, Tanchevski stated that
after reopening the restaurants following the dine-in ban, Local
Cantina began paying its workers more than they made pre-pandemic.
"I can say with confidence that every single staff member has
financially benefited from the plan. We are reviewing the situation
now, and it may be that we failed to comply with some technical
aspect of the law," the statement said. "If that is the case, then
that is my error." [GN]




LOGITECH INC: Motion in Porath Suit Transferred to Cal. District
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SUBPOENA OF AMAZON.COM JAMES PORATH, Plaintiff,
v. LOGITECH, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. C20-0450JLR, C18-3091WHA
(N.D. CAL.) (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Lobart of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
granted in part and declined to rule in part Plaintiff Porath's
motion to compel non-party Amazon.com to produce documents in
response to a subpoena issued in the Northern District of
California lawsuit.

The matter arises out of a proposed class action lawsuit that
Plaintiff Porath filed against Defendant Logitech and that is
presently pending in federal district court in the Northern
District of California in May 2018.  Mr. Porath alleges that
Logitech falsely advertised the number of "drivers" in a popular
set of computer speakers.  In November 2019, the court denied Mr.
Porath's motion for class certification, concluding that the
proposed class representative was inadequate.

After Mr. Porath's counsel notified the federal district court in
the Northern District of California that they would not be
proposing a new class representative, the court ordered Mr.
Porath's counsel to submit a proposed notice to absent class
members of the demise of the class action, as well as a plan of
distribution.  The federal district court in the Northern District
of California also directed that the proposed notice shall, among
other options, give putative class members 60 days to intervene as
the putative class representative, with their own counsel, before
the case will be dismissed.

Because Logitech does not possess contact information for members
of the putative class, Mr. Porath's counsel proposed a notice plan
centered on issuing subpoenas requesting documents to nine major
retailers of the Logitech speakers, including Amazon.com.  The
federal district court in the Northern District of California
approved Mr. Porath's counsel's proposed notice and plan of
distribution and ordered counsel to promptly notify the Court of
any delay in response to the subpoenas.

Mr. Porath's counsel issued subpoenas to nine retailers in January
2020.  Seven of the nine retailers produced documents.  Amazon.com
did not produce documents, but instead served objections in
response to the subpoena.  Mr. Porath's counsel filed the instant
motion in the Western District of Washington, where Amazon.com's
headquarters is located, asking the court to either enforce the
subpoena or to transfer enforcement of the subpoena to the Northern
District of California.  Amazon.com opposes both requests, but also
asks, alternatively, that the court permits it to send its own
direct email notice to its customers.

Judge Lobart concludes that he should transfer the motion to the
Northern District of California.  In the Court, the subpoena to
Amazon.com was a part of a broader plan, directed and approved by
the federal district court in the Northern District of California,
to provide notice to absent class members of the demise of the
class action, as well as a plan of distribution.  As a part of
their proposal to the federal district court in the Northern
District of California, Mr. Porath's counsel submitted an exemplar
of the Amazon.com subpoena to that court.  Thus, the federal
district court in the Northern District of California has already
reviewed the subpoena and provided its initial approval.  Because
the federal district court has already ruled on issues related to
the subpoena at issue "exceptional circumstances" exist warranting
transfer of this motion to the Northern District of California.

Nevertheless, Amazon.com argues that it would be unfairly burdened
by requiring it to litigate the motion to compel in the Northern
District of California notwithstanding Amazon.com's resources and
its counsel's presence in San Francisco.  The Judge is not
convinced.  In the case, he concludes that the interests of
judicial economy, case management, and the risk of inconsistent
rulings outweigh any burden Amazon.com suffers by litigating the
issue in the Northern District of California.

Because he granted Mr. Porath's counsel's request to transfer the
motion to the Northern District of California, Judge Lobart does
not consider whether to compel Amazon.com to comply with the
subpoena.  Instead, Judge Lobart reserved the issue for the federal
district court in the Northern District of California.

In sum, Judge Lobart granted in part and declined to rule in part
on Mr. Porath's counsel's motion.  The Judge granted Mr. Porath's
counsel's request to transfer the motion to the federal district
court in the Northern District of California pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f).  Accordingly, the Judge declined to
rule on the remainder of Mr. Porath's counsel's motion.  Finally,
Judge Lobart directed the Clerk to transfer the matter to the
federal district court in the Northern District of California and
to close the file.

A full-text copy of Judge Lobart's May 12, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JdvJW2 from Leagle.com.


M & L CLEANING: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jimenez
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a
Memorandum granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
Certification in the case captioned MANUEL JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. M & L
CLEANING, INC. and JOHN MELIA, Case No. 3:19-CV-00078 (KAD) (D.
Conn.).

The FLSA collective action is conditionally certified and
includes:

     all current and former non-exempt employees of M&L Cleaning,
     Inc. who were employed as cleaners for any period of time
     between January 15, 2017 and the present.

The action involves alleged violations of state and federal wage
laws by Defendants M&L Cleaning, Inc. (M&L Cleaning) and John Melia
(Melia) (Defendants). The Plaintiff, Manual Jimenez, (Jimenez)
asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA). The Plaintiff moved for
conditional certification of the FLSA collective action pursuant to
Section 16(b) of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff has made the requisite showing that he and other
"similarly situated" cleaners were victims of the Defendants'
common policy or plan and that the common policy or plan violated
the FLSA. Mr. Jimenez asserts, through his affidavit and complaint,
that he and his co-worker cleaners were regularly required to work
more than forty-hours per week without receiving any compensation
for overtime. Specifically, their work schedule and duties were
such that they were required to work from 7:40 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Thursday and from 7:40 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Friday.

Mr. Jimenez estimates that the Defendants, who have a high turnover
rate among their cleaners, employ approximately twenty-two cleaners
at any given time, and he has identified seven such cleaners by
name. Jimenez asserts that the named cleaners worked the same
schedule and performed the same duties as him. To his knowledge,
Jimenez asserts, none of these cleaners were compensated for the
overtime work, as required by the FLSA.

The Court finds that conditional certification of the FLSA
collective action is warranted at this time. For the reasons set
forth in the decision, the motion for conditional class
certification is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zvx7je from Leagle.com


MARCELLO'S CHOPHOUSE: Bid to End Gutierrez Harassment Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned MICHELLE GUTIERREZ v. MARCELLO'S
CHOPHOUSE, MARCELLO'S CHOPHOUSE LLC, UNITED RESTAURANT &
HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS, UNITED RESTAURANT & HOSPITALITY GROUP, JIM
HENNING/OWNER & COO, and ROBERT WALKER/PRESIDENT & CEO, Case No.
Civ. 19-124 JCH/JFR (D.N.M.).

The Memorandum Opinion and Order ruled that:

   (1) Defendant Jim Henning's Request Order & Motion of
       Dismissal is DENIED;

   (2) Defendant Marcello's Chop House, LLC's Rule 12(b)(1) and
       Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and
       Memorandum in Support is DENIED;

   (3) Defendant United Restaurant & Hospitality Consultants,
       United Restaurant Group, and Jim Henning's Rule 12(b)(1)
       and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
       and Memorandum in Support is DENIED;

   (4) Plaintiff Michelle Gutierrez's Pro Se Opposition Motion to
       Deny Defendant Marcello's Chop House, Reply in Support to
       its Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
       Plaintiff's Complaint and Memorandum in Support is GRANTED
       to the extent she requests the Court deny Defendants'
       motions to dismiss, but is otherwise DENIED as to her
       additional requests for relief;

   (5) The Clerk of the Court shall direct the U.S. Marshal to
       promptly serve the summons and complaint in this case
       personally on Defendant Robert Walker; and

   (6) The Clerk of the Court shall mail to the Plaintiff a copy
       of the Pro-Se Guide.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging unlawful employment practices
based on sex and gender, as well as sexual harassment, sexual
assault and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. She
asserts claims for (1) discrimination based on sex in violation of
Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a) (2)
retaliation arising from Plaintiff's opposition to unlawful
employment practices, including sexual harassment, in violation of
Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a) and (3)
discharge and/or constructive discharge because of her sex and in
retaliation for opposition to their unlawful employment practices
in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e-2(a) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e-3(a).

In her complaint, Plaintiff asserted that she was subject to
unwanted sexual touching by Defendant Walker, and when she
complained about it to Defendant Henning, the Defendants retaliated
against her by terminating her employment at Marcello's in
violation of Title VII.

The Defendants operated as an integrated enterprise under common
management by Defendants Henning, Walker, and United. The Plaintiff
additionally alleged that she sent the Defendants a letter of her
intent to sue and sought resolution of the matter on June 21, 2016;
more than 30 days prior to filing her lawsuit, Plaintiff filed an
EEOC charge; and she received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC
on November 19, 2018.

The Plaintiff alleged that an EEOC investigation occurred and found
that Defendants Henning and Walker continuously did business for
Marcello's. She attached to her complaint the November 13, 2018,
right-to-sue letter. The inferences to be drawn from the
Plaintiff's allegations and the fact that the right-to-sue letter
does not check the box that the charge was not timely filed with
EEOC indicate that Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies.
Although the right-to-sue letter was mailed to Jim Henning as owner
of United, the Plaintiff has alleged that he and United were an
integrated enterprise with Defendants Walker and Marcello's.

Consequently, from the face of the complaint and the exhibit
attached thereto, and construing all inferences in Plaintiff's
favor, the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust is not
apparent. Therefore, if the Court were to consider the motion
strictly on the pleading and the exhibit attached, the Plaintiff
has stated a claim for relief.

The Court finds that Plaintiff stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
and declines to exercise its discretion to accept the
extra-pleading materials submitted by the parties.

The Court will, therefore, deny the Defendants' motions to dismiss
based on exhaustion. Should the Defendants request the Court to
examine this issue again using evidence outside the pleadings, they
must follow the Tenth Circuit's recent directive to file a motion
for summary judgment. This course of action will ensure that the
Court is considering admissible evidence and will provide the
Plaintiff an opportunity to respond with admissible evidence,
including affidavits, depositions, admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56.

Defendant Henning, in his motion to dismiss filed pro se, asked the
Court to dismiss the case because Plaintiff's claims are false, and
she conducted herself in an unprofessional manner. On a motion to
dismiss, however, the Court must presume the Plaintiff's facts to
be true and ask whether she stated a claim based on her factual
allegations. The Court will not consider outside evidence at this
stage.

Having examined the factual allegations of the complaint, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff has stated a claim and will not grant
Defendant Henning's motion to dismiss based on the arguments made
therein.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yayu26mp from
Leagle.com


MDL 2672: Bosch Can't Enforce Settlement Against 61 Opt-Outs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MDL MARKETING,
PRACTICES, SALES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order
Relates To: Dkt. Nos. 6988, 6989, 7014, 7032, Case No. 2672 CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC's motion to enforce
settlement against 61 opt-out Plaintiffs ("reneging Plaintiffs")
who initially authorized their counsel to accept a proposed
settlement, but later changed their minds.

The dispute comes down to a basic tenet of contract law: that a
binding contract requires mutual assent.  The reneging Plaintiffs
agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement.  But Bosch did
not agree to those terms until after the Plaintiffs' counsel had
revoked their earlier acceptance.

The instant dispute can be traced to a mediation before the Court
on Jan. 25, 2019, between Bosch and 273 opt-outs from the Bosch
Class Action Settlement ("Plaintiffs") represented by the Richard
C. Dalton, LLC law firm and the Duck Law Firm ("Plaintiffs'
counsel").  At the mediation, the Plaintiffs' counsel and Bosch's
counsel agreed to a settlement term sheet they would recommend to
their respective clients.

Kevin Duck of the Duck Law Firm emailed Bosch's counsel on April 4,
2019, to inform them that 257 Plaintiffs had authorized him to
accept the Term Sheet.  Bosch's counsel, Brandon Adkins, suggested
giving it some more time to see what the 13 who have yet to respond
will decide to do and that it would be helpful to know what he's
planning to do with the 3 firm rejects.  Adkins did not indicate
that Bosch had authorized him to accept the settlement.

On April 8, 2019, Duck followed up, if they have a settlement
agreement.  Adkins responded the same day, saying they're still
discussing with their clients.  And asked if in the meantime, Duck
has a proposal for how to address that there is less than 100%
acceptance.

Duck responded that he did not.  He asked again whether Bosch had
authorized Adkins to accept the Term Sheet.  The next day, April 9,
Duck's legal assistant Vicki Abshire replied to both Duck and
Adkins to say that 261 Plaintiffs had authorized their lawyers to
accept the Term Sheet.  Adkins did not reply to Abshire's email.
He responded to Duck's email on April 11.  Duck did not agree and
the email chain ends there.

On May 7, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel Richard Dalton indicated in
a court filing that the Plaintiffs' had pending claims against
Bosch.  On May 22, 2019, the Court presided over a teleconference
between counsel for both sides.  Consistent with Dalton's filing,
Duck took the position that there was no binding agreement between
the parties.

Matthew Slater, the counsel for Bosch, emailed Duck after the
teleconference, stating that Bosch was prepared to move forward
with the Term Sheet as to the 261 Plaintiffs who authorized their
counsel to accept the settlement.  Duck responded that he would
take a poll of his clients to see who was still willing to move
forward with the Term Sheet.  As it turned out, only 200 of the
Plaintiffs still wanted to participate in the settlement.  Bosch
moved ahead with the settlement as to those Plaintiffs.

Bosch then brought the instant motion to enforce the settlement
against the 61 Plaintiffs who authorized their lawyers to accept
the Term Sheet, but changed their minds when Duck conducted his
post-teleconference poll.  The parties have conferred and agree
that the instant Motion may be referred to and decided by the
Court.

Magistrate Judge Corley holds that the Term Sheet is nonetheless
unenforceable, because there was never mutual consent to its terms.
Bosch appears to argue that the reneging Plaintiffs were bound by
the Term Sheet once they authorized their counsel to accept that
agreement.  At that point, Bosch suggests, the deal was done.  That
position conveniently ignores that Bosch, too, had to accept the
agreement's terms.  Because there was never mutual assent to be
bound as between Bosch and the reneging Plaintiffs, there was no
enforceable agreement between those parties.

Bosch and the Plaintiffs have each brought motions to file multiple
exhibits, declarations, and briefs under seal.  There is a strong
presumption in favor of access to court records.  All three motions
seek to file briefs, declarations, and exhibits under seal to keep
confidential the terms of the parties' settlement and the
settlement negotiations.  The parties seek to seal far more than
the proposed settlement's terms and the actual settlement
negotiations.  Further, the parties seek to file under seal the
entirety of the post-Term Sheet emails, including content that does
not involve settlement negotiations, but instead the parties'
positions on whether there is a binding settlement agreement.
Bosch's motion is denied.

Accordingly, the motions to seal are granted to the extent they
seek to seal the proposed settlement terms and actual settlement
negotiations and denied in all other respects.  For example,
Bosch's exhibits 2 and 7 (the Term Sheet and settlement agreement)
may be filed under seal in their entirety, as may exhibit 1 since
it was exchanged pursuant to the settlement negotiations.  The
emails, however, must be redacted only to conceal the proposed
settlement's terms and any actual negotiations on those terms.  The
parties' respective pleadings must be modified in accordance with
this Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).  The Court's redaction of
the Order gives the parties a roadmap on what material is
appropriately redacted.

The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 6988, 6989, 7014, and 7032.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/f3dIkZ from Leagle.com.


MEDIC AMBULANCE: Court Dismisses Silva Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGHAN SILVA, Plaintiff, v. MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00876-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a class action in the Superior
Court of California, County of Solano.  The Plaintiff was
previously employed by Defendant in Solano County as an Emergency
Medical Technician ("EMT") from June 2013 to June 2014.  The
Complaint alleges Defendant violated: (1) California Labor Code
Section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4 by
failing to provide its employees with adequate rest breaks; (2)
California Labor Code Section 226 by failing to provide regular
accurate itemized wage statements; and (3) California Labor Code
Sections 201-203 by failing to pay rest break compensation to the
Plaintiff and the class members who were not given rest breaks.  

Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant violated California Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., by violating the
aforementioned Labor Code sections which gave it an unfair
competitive advantage over law-abiding employers and competitors.

On April 25, 2016, the Defendant removed the action to the Eastern
California District Court.  In the notice of removal, the Defendant
asserted the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction because
one or more of the Plaintiff's claims is completely preempted by
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.  The Plaintiff
moved to remand on June 29, 2017.  The District Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion to remand on Oct. 12, 2017, finding that removal
was proper because Section 301 preempted her state law claims.

The Defendant filed the instant motion on Feb. 23, 2018, raising
various substantive and procedural grounds for dismissal.  The
Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 22, 2018.  The Defendant
filed a reply on March 29, 2018.  On Nov. 11, 2018, it filed a
notice of supplemental authority, citing the Emergency Ambulance
Employee Safety and Preparedness Act, California Labor Code
Sections 880, et seq. ("Proposition 11"), which was enacted while
the Defendant's motion was pending.

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff's primary claim is that
the Defendant employed her as an EMT and required her to remain "on
call" during her rest breaks.  It argues Proposition 11 expressly
provides that the alleged "on call" rest period practice was
allowable under existing law and further provides that the practice
is now required of all EMTs working for emergency ambulance
providers.  

As such, the Defendant argues Proposition 11 completely resolves
the Plaintiff's rest period claims and derivative claims and
provides additional grounds to dismiss her case with prejudice.
The Plaintiff responded to Defendant's notice of supplemental
authority and argued, among other things, that Proposition 11 has
no effect on this case because it does not apply retroactively.

On April 2, 2020, the Court issued a minute order directing the
parties to show cause as to why the action and the determination of
the Defendant's motion should not be stayed pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Appeal No. 15-56943, Stewart v. San Luis
Ambulance, Inc., 878 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2017).  The Court explained
that it expects a ruling in Stewart may be dispositive of the
instant matter because the Ninth Circuit had recently ordered the
parties in Stewart to file supplemental briefs regarding the
effects of Proposition 11 and its retroactivity.

Both parties filed written responses to the Court's order to show
cause.  The Defendant agrees the interests of judicial economy and
efficiency would be well-served by a stay pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Stewart.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand,
opposes a stay.  Notably, she does not contest that the issues
currently before the Ninth Circuit in Stewart bear on the merits of
her claims.  Instead, the Plaintiff argues the Court will not reach
the merits of her claims because the sole issue before the Court is
whether Silva's claims are preempted by Section 301.

More specifically, the Plaintiff argues the Court has only two
options at this juncture: (1) reverse its preemption finding and
remand the action to state court due to lack of jurisdiction; or
(2) uphold its preemption finding and grant the pending motion
because she failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration
procedures of the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") before
bringing her claims.

Judge Nunley is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's efforts to
relitigate her denied motion to remand.  Therefore, the Judge
declines to revisit its finding that Section 301 preempts the
Plaintiff's state law claims.  Having already found that Section
301 preempts the Plaintiff's claims, the issue before the Court is
whether the Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for failure to
exhaust grievance and arbitration procedures under the CBA.

The Judge finds that although the Defendant argues the Plaintiff
released her wage claims in the settlement agreement, nothing in
the settlement agreement specifically mentions "on call" rest
periods or wage claims.  Rather, it appears the settlement
agreement only covers the claims specifically related to
Plaintiff's termination and reinstatement.  But even if the
settlement agreement covered the Plaintiff's current wage claims,
the agreement states any dispute between the parties regarding this
settlement agreement will be resolved through the grievance and
arbitration procedure in the CBA.  Therefore, whether or not the
Plaintiff released her wage claims in the settlement agreement, the
result is the same: The Plaintiff was required to exhaust the
grievance procedures set forth in the CBA.

The Plaintiff repeatedly concedes she failed to do so.  She does
not argue her failure to exhaust should be excused, she does not
request leave to amend, and she does not give the Court any reason
to believe she can cure the defective pleading.  As such, the Judge
will dismiss her wage claim and derivative claims with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley granted the Defendant's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's claims.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/vdGOEm from Leagle.com.


MEDSTAR HEALTH: Employee Files ERISA Class Action in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a former MedStar Health Inc. employee hit the
hospital chain with a proposed ERISA class action in Maryland
federal court on July 6, alleging the company's retirement plan
made bad investments and hid the risk from workers. [GN]

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Employees Retirement System Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Floor Daily News reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against
Mohawk Industries Inc. by the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi has negatively impacted the company's stock value by
20%; according to analyst Stifel, the suit, "alleged among other
things that Mohawk executives engaged in a scheme to 'channel
stuff' its Conventional Flooring Products in an effort to make the
company's sales growth and performance appear far better than they
were."

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports, "The suit said the
products weren't delivered to customers and the intent was to
conceal from investors the true reasons for the company's
ballooning inventory . . .. Throughout the period from April 2017
to July 2019 at the end of each financial quarter, the suit said
that employees in Mohawk's North American distribution centers were
instructed to load goods on company trucks on Fridays and pretend
to deliver them on Saturdays to customers they knew were closed for
deliveries.

"The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
Georgia, said Mohawk also made repeated false statements to
misrepresent and conceal the truth behind the company's rising
inventory levels and slowing inventory turnover."

Adds Stifel, "The stock declined dramatically during the period
that encompasses this lawsuit for persons who bought the stock
between April 28, 2017 to July 25, 2019. The stock closed at
$238.88 on April 27, 2017 and climbed to $284.65 on December 4,
2017 but steadily declined to $111.31 on December 24, 2018. It
rebounded to $156.39 where it closed on July 25, 2019. This 50%+
decline over a period often times invites litigation."

The lawsuit, filed January 3, 2020 and amended June 29, 2020, is a
194-page document that was filed in U.S. District Court in Rome,
Georgia, and it demands a jury trial.

On July 13, Mohawk filed an 8K, disclosing, among other things,
that it received subpoenas from a U.S. attorney and the Securities
and Exchange Commission, shortly before a class-action complaint
alleging securities-law violations was filed.

The company reports that it will vigorously defend itself against
the accusations. [GN]

MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP disclosed
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: MYL)
between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased the common stock of Mylan during the Class Period,
you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no
later than August 25, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be
affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as
your counsel in the action.

Mylan investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

      Background on the Mylan Securities Class Litigation

Mylan, incorporated in the Netherlands and headquartered in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is the second largest generic drug
manufacturer in the world. During the Class Period, Mylan's largest
U.S. manufacturing facility was located in Morgantown, West
Virginia.

The action alleges defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding Mylan's failure to comply with U.S. federal
quality control regulations, particularly at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President,
defendant Rajiv Malik, Mylan chemists allegedly manipulated quality
control test data to create the illusion that Mylan's drugs had
achieved passing quality control results.

On June 28, 2018, Mylan disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had conducted an investigation into the
Morgantown facility in the spring of 2018, which culminated in the
FDA's issuance of its second citation in less than two years. The
FDA's investigation detailed 13 significant deficiencies in Mylan's
operations, including poor quality control oversight, major lapses
in equipment cleaning, and ineffective controls. On this news, the
price of Mylan stock fell $1.12 per share, or approximately 3%,
from a closing price of $37.45 on June 27, 2018, to close at $36.33
per share on June 28, 2018.

On August 8, 2018, during Mylan's second quarter of 2018 earnings
conference call, defendant Malik stated that Mylan had "undertaken
a restructuring and remediation program in Morgantown" that
included a "discontinuation of a number of products" and would have
a "negative impact on production levels, product supply and
operations." On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $2.62 per
share, or 6.69%, from a closing price of $39.23 on August 7, 2018,
to close at $36.61 per share on August 8, 2018, on extremely
elevated trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the FDA issued a formal warning letter
concerning "significant violations of current good manufacturing
practice[s]" at Mylan's Morgantown plant, and reporting that
products at the plant were "adulterated." On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $1.01 per share, or 2.73%, from a closing price
of $36.95 on November 9, 2018, to close at $35.94 per share on
November 12, 2018.

On February 26, 2019, during Mylan's fourth quarter and fiscal year
2018 earnings conference call, the Company announced an 18%
decrease in net sales from the prior year, attributing this
shortfall, in part, to its Morgantown restructuring, which included
the discontinuation of almost 250 products. On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $4.61 per share, or 15.05%, from a closing
price of $30.62 on February 26, 2019 to close at $26.01 per share
on February 27, 2019.

On May 7, 2019, Mylan reported that its revenues and
earnings-per-share were down year-over-year by 7% and 15%,
respectively, as the Company discontinued manufacturing certain
products in the Morgantown facility, and that its quarterly
adjusted free cash flow was severely lacking, now matching its 2015
levels. On this news, the price of Mylan shares fell $6.73 per
share, or 23.81%, from a closing price of $28.26 on May 6, 2019, to
close at $21.53 per share on May 7, 2019, on extremely heavy
trading volume. [GN]

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Franklin Personal Injury Suit in Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Gregg Franklin,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Arizona Board of Regents
ex rel. Arizona State University, Case No. 2:20-cv-01394-MHB (D.
Ariz., July 13, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com


NEW YORK BLACK: Parties in Kasiotis Suit Must File Joint Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Order directing Parties to File a Joint Letter in the
case captioned JOSEPH KASIOTIS, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated New York consumers v. NEW YORK BLACK CAR
OPERATORS' INJURY COMPENSATION FUND, INC., Case No. 18-cv-08057
(PMH) (S.D.N.Y.).

Pursuant to Rule 2(B) of this Court's Individual Practices, as
applied to this removed putative class action, the parties are
directed to file via ECF a joint letter setting forth the basis for
the assertion of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in
this case, including evidence of the citizenship of the potential
class members, on July 2, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9nd5kdd from Leagle.com


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 19 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 19 appeals from the District Court's rulings
in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

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

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

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-651;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-685;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-686;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-498;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-501;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-503;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-504;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-505;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-509;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-513;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-515;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-516;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-522;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-523;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-524;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-526;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-538;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-543; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-545.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Meredith Francis, Sabrina Alleyne, Gustavo
Rios, Maria Barrera, Chantale Islam, Cynthia Rhome, Iris Muniz,
Jessie Vasquez Mendoza, Arelis Agramonte, Thaddeus Expose, Christy
Armfield, Aretha Gabriel, Julius Coker, Ana Murga, Stacie Grant,
Dorcas Sostre-Mendez, Victor Moran, Hanice Tavares and Miriam Valle
are represented by:

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

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

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


NEWELL BRANDS: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands Inc.
The case is captioned Mary West, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04961-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Newell Brands retails consumer products. The Company offers
housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware,
and hair accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          sHackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


NOVAGOLD: Slams Potential Class Action
--------------------------------------
Mining News reports that Canada's Novagold, which is suing
short-selling firm J Capital Research for defamation, said a US law
firm's potential attempt to launch a class suit against the company
on alleged securities fraud would be based on "malicious and false
information".

Lawyers at Hagens Berman and Portnoy said they were investigating
whether Novagold had misled investors about the viability of its
Donlin gold project, in Alaska.

Novagold said the move by San Francisco-based Hagens Berman
appeared to be entirely based on JCAP's "tapestry of deceit" as
well as "false and misleading statements" about the company and its
50-50 development partner in the project, Barrick Gold (TSX: ABX)
(NYSE: GOLD).

In a report issued on May 28, JCAP accuses the gold junior of
"systematically" misleading investors about the proposed gold mine
over the last 15 years.

NovaGold and Barrick's Donlin project, with measured and indicated
resources of about 39 million ounces of gold is considered one of
the largest open-pit gold deposits in Alaska.

JCAP, a company founded in China a decade ago that usually targets
overvalued media and tech companies for short-selling, said the
Donlin Gold project would "never be built" and "in short, is a
stock promote, not a mining plan."

                     "Insignificant" Asset

JCAP backed its claim by saying that Donlin's "insignificance" can
be proven by Barrick's decision to not include the project in its
new 10-year production plan, which is aimed at becoming the world's
most valued gold company.

Novagold's chairperson, Thomas Kaplan, said Hagens Berman's
solicitation of shareholders was based on a "fundamentally flawed
report," a move somehow expected in a "dirty game."

"Even with Novagold's line-by-line factual rebuttal available to
them, the law firm did nothing more than repeat a slapdash mixture
of errors of fact, falsehoods, and discredited assertions," Kaplan
said.

While Novagold would not be issuing responses to "every dart aimed
at it", he said the company highlighted Hagens Berman's press
release, because it was "emblematic of the amateurishness and
abject ignorance of the public statements made recently about
Novagold by JCAP and now repeated by others."

Kaplan encouraged owners to assess whether they had suffered damage
from the reports and to seek advice regarding potential redress
available to them from the "real perpetrator of wrongs: JCAP."

Novagold and Barrick reopened the Donlin camp in June, following a
two-month hiatus brought by measures to help reduce the spread of
covid-19.

The companies anticipate that most of the planned program, aimed at
confirming recent geologic modelling concepts and testing potential
extensions of high-grade zones, will be completed by the end of the
year. [GN]

OCWEN LOAN: Smith Foreclosure Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cheryl A. Smith, on behalf of herself and all
others so similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, now
known as PHH Mortgage Corporation; HSBC Bank USA, National
Association, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-E,
Mortgage Backed Certificates, Series 2006-E, Case No. 2085CV0047,
was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on July 13, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-11315-TSH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Foreclosure Real Property.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, provides mortgage loans. The Company
offers consumer home, reverse mortgage, and investment property
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD S. DION
          15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Phone: (401) 965-4131
          Fax: (401) 535-1231
          Email: toddsdion@msn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven E. DiCairano, Esq.
          HINSAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          53 State Street, 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 213-7013
          Email: sdicairano@hinshawlaw.com


PARKCHESTER DPS: Court Okays $703K Settlement in Fitzpatrick Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Order granting Consent Motion for Final Approval of Class
and Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned ERIC
FITZPATRICK, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. PARKCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY LLC d/b/a PARKCHESTER DPS LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00211 (JGK)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Order grants the Consent Motion for Final Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement, Service Award, an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, and the Entry of Final Judgment, incorporates by
reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all
exhibits, addendums, stipulations, and schedules.

On behalf of the FLSA Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs, this Court
approves the Settlement, finds that it is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of Class Members,
and with respect to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3).

The Court has previously certified, and now grants in light of the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, final
certification to two Settlement Classes:

   a. under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all hourly non-exempt
      employees employed by Defendant at any time from
      October 27, 2014 to December 31, 2017, who were subject to
      the then-applicable collective bargaining agreement between
      Defendant and Special Patrolman Benevolent Association
      Local 1, and identified on the Class List produced by
      Defendant on February 6, 2020, and who negotiate their
      settlement checks to thereby opt-in to this action (Federal
      Class); and

   b. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all hourly
      non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in New York at
      any time from October 27, 2014 to December 31, 2017, who
      were subject to the then-applicable collective bargaining
      agreement between Defendant and Special Patrolman
      Benevolent Association Local 1, and identified on the Class
      List produced by Defendant on February 6, 2020 (New York
      Class).

The Settlement provides for a Settlement Fund of $703,527.83, of
which $428,660.56 is available to satisfy the claims of the
Settlement Class Members.

The Settlement provides for a service award to the Named Plaintiff
Eric Fitzpatrick in the amount of $20,000. The Settlement also
provides for a payment of $234,509.28, or the equivalent of 33.33%
of the total Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, plus $4,276.99 for
Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $238,786.27, to be
paid to Class Counsel. Class Administrator fees are to be paid to
Rust Consulting, Inc. (Rust) in the amount of $16,081.00.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ro3dd9 from Leagle.com


PETER NYGARD: Asks Court to Dismiss Class-Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Province reports that a Canadian fashion mogul is asking a U.S.
court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging he sexually
assaulted dozens of women.

Peter Nygard's motion filed in a New York court argues it does not
have jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit.

Fifty-seven women, including 18 Canadians, have joined the lawsuit,
which alleges that Nygard used violence, intimidation, bribery and
company employees to lure victims and avoid accountability for
decades.

The women are asking for a trial by jury and are seeking yet-to-be
determined damages.

Nygard, who is 78, has denied all allegations and blames a
conspiracy caused by a feud with his billionaire neighbour in the
Bahamas.

He stepped down as chairman of his company after the FBI and police
in New York City raided his offices in February soon after the
lawsuit was filed.

The original lawsuit against Nygard included allegations from 10
women accusing him of enticing them to his estate in the Bahamas.
Women continued to add their names to the lawsuit.

Some of the allegations date back 40 years.

In court documents, the women share stories about being brought to
Nygard's offices and properties with promises of modelling and
other career opportunities. Some of the women allege they were
given alcohol spiked with drugs before they were sexually
assaulted.

The lawsuit contains allegations that have not been proven in
court.

Nygard was once one of the richest people in Canada. The lawsuit
said Nygard has an estimated net worth of about $900 million.

He started his company in Winnipeg more than 50 years ago.

Nygard says Manitoba has been his primary residence since the start
of 2019. He considered Nassau in the Bahamas, where he has
permanent residency, his main home from 1970 until that time.

Court documents say he is not a citizen or permanent resident in
the United States and doesn't pay taxes in New York.

Nygard also says that while New York City was described as the
Nygard "world" or "corporate" headquarters, it was only done for
promotional and marketing purposes.

The motion argues that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York does not have jurisdiction for those reasons.

The documents also say the women's claims are not eligible for a
class-action suit. [GN]

PHILIPP PLEIN: Web Site not Accessible to Blind, West Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. PHILIPP PLEIN AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04959-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.billionaire.com/,and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because 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 her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

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 is a clothing and accessories company that owns and
operates the Web site that offers features, which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which the Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[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


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Sept. 1 Oil Spill Class Action Trial Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firms Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Keller Rohrback LLP, Cappello & Noel LLP,
and Audet & Partners LLP about the lawsuit Andrews v. Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-04113.

There is an update in a class action lawsuit against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. ("Plains Pipeline") about the May 19, 2015
oil spill near Santa Barbara.

This lawsuit claims that certain persons and businesses (and their
employees) that fished for seafood in certain areas off the Central
California Coast ("Commercial Fishers") or that purchased and
re-sold such seafood ("Processors") suffered financial losses due
to the Santa Barbara oil spill.  Plains Pipeline denies these
claims.  The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims
in Court.

In 2017, the Court decided that this case should be a class action
on behalf of a "Class" or group of people, including certain
fishers and processors.  Based on additional evidence and claims
regarding the scope of the oil spill, the Court recently approved a
change to the group of people who are included in the Class.  The
class definition now includes fishing blocks that better reflect
where Plaintiffs allege the oil went and some seafood species were
removed.

Individuals and businesses are included in the current Class if
they are a:

Commercial Fisher: A person or business who owned or worked on a
vessel between May 19, 2010 and May 19, 2015, that was in operation
as of May 19, 2015, that landed:

   -- Any commercial seafood within the California Department of
Fish & Wildlife fishing blocks 654, 655, or 656; or

   -- Any commercial seafood except groundfish or highly migratory
species, as defined by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife
and Pacific Fishery Management Council, in fishing blocks 651-656,
664-670, 678-686, 701-707, 718-726, 739-746, 760-765, or 806-809;
or

Processor: A person or businesses in operation as of May 19, 2015,
who purchased such commercial seafood directly from the Commercial
Fishers and resold it at the retail or wholesale level. Only
Processors who purchased fish or seafood directly from the
Commercial Fishers described above are included in the Class.

The website, www.PlainsOilSpill.com, has more information.

The Court has not decided that Plains Pipeline did anything wrong,
and the two sides have not reached a settlement.  The case is
currently scheduled to go to trial on September 1, 2020.  There is
no money available now and no guarantee that there will be.

Some individuals or businesses may have received a notice about the
lawsuit in the mail or seen a previous notice.  For those people
who believe they are Class Members but did not receive a notice,
they can visit www.PlainsOilSpill.com or call 1-888-684-6801 for
more information or to request a notice.

Important Information and Dates:
Individual and businesses who are now outside the Class because of
the Court's change to the class definition are not bound by the
final judgment in this case.  However, they have the right to sue
Plains Pipeline in a separate action.

Affected individuals and businesses have a choice to remain members
of the Class or exclude themselves.  Those who choose to exclude
themselves must do so by August 31, 2020.  Individuals and
businesses who already excluded themselves from the lawsuit in 2017
will continue to be excluded unless they notify Class Counsel by
August 31, 2020 that they would like to cancel their request and be
included in the current Class.  Those affected can get more
information by visiting www.PlainsOilSpill.com or calling
1-888-684-6801.

If the case is not dismissed or settled, Plaintiffs will have to
prove their claims at a trial that will take place on September 1,
2020, at the First Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street,
Courtroom 6A, 6th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012.  Updates
will be posted on the website, www.PlainsOilSpill.com.

For more information:

Visit: www.PlainsOilSpill.com
Call: 1-888-684-6801
Write to: Santa Barbara Oil Spill Class Action, PO Box 2820, San
Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Email: info@plainsoilspill.com
http://www.PlainsOilSpill.com[GN]


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

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

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1885.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


PREMIER GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Mahoney Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONH MAHONEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. PREMIER GROUP INSURANCE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03240-WB
(E.D. Pa., July 1, 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://e-premier.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 Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. 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.

The Defendant provides insurance quotes for auto, home, motorcycle,
and watercraft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
          123 South Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981 5400
          Facsimile: (267) 319 1993
          E-mail: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com


PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Suit Denied Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patrick R. Wyrick of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma denied Curtis' motion to certify a class in
the case, RACHEL CURTIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CIV-17-1076-PRW (W.D. Okla.).

The Plaintiff has sued Progressive alleging that its use of the
Mitchell International WorkCenter Total Loss program ("WCTL") to
determine the base value of vehicles involved in total loss vehicle
claims violates Oklahoma law because it sometimes provides lower
base values than those from generally recognized industry sources.

The Plaintiff believes it to be true because in 2017 she was
involved in a total loss collision while driving a vehicle covered
by a Progressive automobile insurance policy.  Progressive used the
WCTL program to determine the base value of her vehicle.  The
Plaintiff objected that the actual cash value of the WCTL report
assigned to her totaled vehicle was too low.  She also objected to
the report's methodology, arguing that it arrived at its value by
comparing vehicles that aren't comparable to hers.  To support her
objections, she provided Progressive with a printout of the
National Automobile Dealership Association valuation of her
vehicle, which was higher than the WCTL value.  Progressive stuck
to its guns, however, and insisted that the Plaintiff would be paid
based on the WCTL value.

The Plaintiff claims that constitutes a breach of contract, fraud,
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment; she also seeks an injunction.  She desires to prosecute
her claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
specifically a class of: All entities and adult persons domiciled
or residing in the State of Oklahoma who were covered by an
automobile policy from Defendant containing collision and/or
comprehensive coverage which resulted in a total loss utilizing the
Mitchell Workcenter Total Loss (WCTL) system from July 1, 2010 to
the date of notice of class certification.

The certification question presented here turns on the commonality
and typicality requirements.  The crux of the Plaintiff's
commonality argument is that Progressive, through its use of the
WCTL system, undervalued and underpaid her and the putative class
for their total loss vehicle claims in violation of Oklahoma law.
In other words, she argues that Progressive's use of the WCTL
system categorically violates Oklahoma law and that this
determination can be made on a class-wide basis.

Progressive disagrees, arguing that the alleged common questions
revolving around whether its use of the WTCL system violates
Oklahoma law or the auto policies of the insureds cannot be
answered on a class-wide basis.  In its view, the lawfulness of its
use of the WTCL system can only be determined by looking at the
unique facts of each class member's individual claim to determine
whether the WTCL unlawfully undervalued the claim.  For the same
reason, Progressive argues that the common questions do not
predominate as required by Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Wyrick agrees with Progressive that the mere raising of a
common question does not automatically satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement.  Instead, the common question must be
capable of generating a common answer and therefore class-wide
resolution -- which means that determination of its truth or
falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each one of the claims in one stroke.

While use of the WCTL system may theoretically violate Oklahoma law
or an insurance provision in some instances, the determination can
only be made after an extremely fact-specific inquiry into a total
loss claim.  So the answer to the question of whether Progressive's
use of the WCTL violated law or contract will not result in a
common answer for the purported class, and will require an in-depth
look at specific claims, which contravenes the purpose of class
litigation.

The Plaintiff also fails to point to a similar provision in either
her or any other putative class members' auto insurance contracts
that Progressive allegedly breached by relying on the WCTL system.
Rule 23 requires more than mere allegations; rather, it places on a
plaintiff seeking to certify a class the burden to affirmatively
support the request for class certification with evidence
demonstrating that Rule 23's requirements have been met.  The
Plaintiff has offered nothing that satisfies the commonality
requirement.

Progressive's arguments on this point largely go to commonality and
adequacy of representation.  But its argument regarding the
Plaintiff's valuation of her claim demonstrates lack of typicality.
On one hand, the Plaintiff argues that the putative class members'
claims should be valued using the difference between the NADA and
WCTL valuations, but on the other, she values her own claim using
her hired appraiser's opinion of the actual cash value of her
vehicle.  And even if the putative class members' damages were
evaluated like the Plaintiff's, such fact specific, individualized
assessments requiring appraiser opinions for each claim would
demonstrate lack of commonality.  Either way, there is a Rule 23
problem.  In sum, the maintenance of the Plaintiff's action as a
class action will not advance the efficiency and economy of
litigation.

Since the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) are
lacking, Judge Wyrick denied the Plaintiff's motion for
certification, and struck the hearing on the motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/S0LCCM from Leagle.com.


PURE & SIMPLE: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure & Simple
Clothing, Inc. The case is captioned Mary West, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pure & Simple
Clothing, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04968-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 29,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

The Defendant sells apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAILS RETAIL: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rails Retail 1 NY
LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Rails Retail 1 NY
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03107 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020).

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

Rails Retail 1 NY LLC is a switching and terminal railroad that
operates the only car float operation across Upper New York Bay
between Jersey City, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ROBERT BOSCH: Announces Emissions Class Action Proposed Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of emissions class actions were commenced across Canada
concerning 2009-2016 Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche vehicles equipped
with diesel engines (the "Emissions Claims"). The Emissions Claims
were already the subject of two court-approved settlements with
Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche (the "2&3L Settlements"), where
extensive benefits were made available to owners and lessees of the
affected vehicles. A separate action against Robert Bosch GmbH (the
"Bosch Action") has been certified and is now the subject of a
proposed settlement.

Who Should Read this Notice?

The certification and settlement of the Bosch Action affects the
rights of Bosch Settlement Class Members. Subject to some
exclusions*, you are a Bosch Settlement Class Member if:

(a) On September 18, 2015, you owned or leased a diesel-powered
2009-2015 VW Jetta, a 2009 VW Jetta Wagon, a 2010-2013 or 2015 VW
Golf, a 2012-2015 Passat, a 2010-2014 VW Golf Wagon, a 2015 VW Golf
Sportswagon or a 2010-2013 or 2014 Audi A3; or

(b) On November 2, 2015, you owned or leased a diesel-powered
2014-2016 Audi A6, A7, A8, A8L or Q5, a 2009-2015 Audi Q7, a
2013-2016 Porsche Cayenne or a 2009 to 2016 Volkswagen Touareg.

For a list of Excluded Persons*, which includes persons who
purchased their vehicles in Quebec, visit
www.BoschCanadaSettlement.com. Excluded Persons are not Bosch
Settlement Class Members.

                      The Bosch Settlement

The Bosch Settlement seeks to resolve the Emissions Claims advanced
against Bosch. The Bosch Settlement needs to be approved by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") before it is
effective. If approved, Bosch will pay the all-inclusive payment of
CAD $9,270,000 in exchange for a final release of all Emissions
Claims of Bosch Settlement Class Members. However, not all Bosch
Settlement Class Members will receive compensation. A proposed
Distribution Plan* that is subject to Court approval contemplates
payments only to 4 categories of Bosch Settlement Class Members. A
hearing to consider whether to approve the Bosch Settlement and the
Distribution Plan will take place at 10 am on August 28, 2020 at
the Courthouse located at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario
(the "Approval Hearing").

What are the options of Bosch Settlement Class Members?

Do nothing: Bosch Settlement Class Members will participate in the
Bosch Action and be bound by any court-approved settlements,
including any plans for distribution of settlement proceeds;

Exclude yourself (opt-out) by August 21, 2020: Bosch Settlement
Class Members will be excluded from the Bosch Action and not be
bound by any court approved settlements or be able to share in any
proceeds, if available;

Comment/Object to the Bosch Settlement by August 21, 2020: Bosch
Settlement Class Members may submit their views or comments
regarding the Bosch Settlement for consideration by the Court on
the Approval Hearing.

Delivery of requests to opt-out or comments/objections to the Bosch
Settlement must be delivered by mail to the Claims Administrator,
RicePoint Administration Inc. by August 21, 2020 in order to be
effective and considered. Visit www.BoschCanadaSettlement.com for
more information about how to submit a request to opt-out or
comment.

*Where Can I Get More Information?

This notice is just a summary. For more information, including to
view copies of the Settlement Agreement, proposed Distribution Plan
and a more detailed Long Form Notice with additional instructions
and contact information for Class Counsel, who are available to
assist with any questions or inquiries, please visit
www.BoschCanadaSettlement.com. [GN]

ROLFE & LOBELLO: Moore Sues in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rolfe & Lobello,
P.A., et al. The case is styled as Kashon Moore, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rolfe & Lobello,
P.A., John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-01589-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
July 13, 2020).

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

Rolfe & Lobello, P.A., is a law firm specializing in commercial and
consumer collections, real estate foreclosures, real estate
closings, creditor bankruptcy work, and the representation of
financial institutions, credit unions and businesses in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces Hawn FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou,
LLC. The case is captioned as Sueellen Hawn, on behalf of Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated v. Selip & Stylianou, LLC, Case
No. 6:20-cv-06438-EAW (W.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.

Selip & Stylianou is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Kaplan, Esq.
          DAVID M. KAPLAN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
          46 Helmsford Way
          Penfield, NY 14526
          Telephone: (585) 330-2222
          E-mail: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com

               - and -

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com


SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: $450K Deal in Shannon Lawsuit Gets Prelim. Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAVERNA SHANNON, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated and in a representative capacity,
Plaintiff, v. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01101-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement.

Plaintiff Shannon filed the employment class action against
Defendant Sherwood.  On Feb. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her
Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court.  After exhausting the
notice requirements under California's Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), she filed a First Amended Complaint on April 15,
2019.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant does business as Daniel's
Jewelers and has more than 100 retail stores in California.  She
worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in a sales
position.  She brings 10 wage-and-hour claims against the
Defendant, including claims regarding vacation wages, paid sick
time, and accurate wage statements.  The Plaintiff also brings
eleven claims under PAGA based on various purported violations of
the California Labor Code.

In June 2019, the Defendant removed the action under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  In its Notice of Removal, the
Defendant alleges the amount in controversy is at least $5.2
million.  To reach that valuation, it assumes the First Amended
Complaint alleges it violated the law 100% of the time for several
of the Plaintiff's employment claims.

In July 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand that
challenged the Defendant's assertion of jurisdiction, particularly
the alleged amount in controversy.  The parties later asked the
Court to continue the Plaintiff's motion to allow them to attend
mediation.  The Court granted the request.  And in September 2019,
the parties filed a notice of settlement, leading the Court to
terminate the remand motion.  The Plaintiff later filed her
preliminary approval motion in November 2019.

Although the Court terminated the Plaintiff's remand motion in
light of the parties' settlement, district courts have an
independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction.
Therefore, in January 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause
("OSC") that addressed the Defendant's Notice of Removal.  The OSC
reviewed CAFA's jurisdictional requirements and then focused on
whether Defendant sufficiently alleges that the amount in
controversy meets CAFA's $5 million threshold.

Although the Defendant's removal allegations appear to rely upon a
100% violation rate, the Court construed the Plaintiff's pleading
to allege a "pattern and practice" of violations; meaning, the
purported labor violations did not occur during every one of an
employee's shifts.  The Defendant's reliance on a 100% violation
rate, however, yielded a sum only $200,000 greater than the
jurisdictional minimum of $5 million.  Therefore, even if the Court
were to assume a high violation rate for the Plaintiff's pattern
and practice allegations, it reasoned, the Defendant's
jurisdictional allegations fall well short of the jurisdictionally
required amount.  The Court thus reasoned the Defendant has failed
to meet its burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction, and
ordered it to show cause as to why the action should not be
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In a detailed response filed Feb. 10, 2020, the Defendant argues
the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, even assuming a
lower violation rate.  Having reviewed the Defendant's response and
its revised liability calculations, the Court is persuaded that the
amount in controversy exceeded $5 million at the time of removal.
It also finds permitting the Defendant to amend its Notice of
Removal is appropriate.

In sum, the Defendant's response to the Court's OSC persuasively
demonstrates that CAFA's amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied.  Judge Bashant concludes the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction and will direct the Defendant to file its proposed
Amended Notice of Removal.

Now, before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement.  The proposed Settlement
applies to a Class defined as all exempt and non-exempt current and
former employees of the Defendant who worked in California at any
point during the period of Feb. 8, 2015 to Aug. 23, 2019.  The
parties estimate there are 2,150 Class Members.

To settle the Class Members' claims, the Defendant agrees to
deposit $450,000 into a non-reversionary, common fund.  The
Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows: (a) a minimum of
$250,000 for payments to Settlement Members, of which 20% will for
tax purposes be deemed wages subject to Form W-2 reporting, and 80%
will for tax purposes be deemed non-wages; (b) a maximum of
$135,000 (30% of the Settlement Amount) for the payment of the
Class Counsel's Attorney Fees; (c) a maximum of $20,000 for the
payment of Class Counsel's Costs; (d) $22,500 to the State of
California for its share of the Settlement Amount allocated for
settlement of the PAGA claims; (e) a maximum of $2,500 for the
payment of a Class Representative Service Payment to the named
Plaintiff; and (f) a maximum of $20,000 for Settlement
Administration Costs.  The Defendant has also agreed to separately
pay the employer-side payroll taxes due upon payment of the 20%
allocated to wages payable to the Settlement Class Members.

The Class Recovery will be apportioned among the Settlement Members
based on the number of pay periods each individual worked during
the Class Period.  Hence, assuming the Class Recovery is $250,000,
the average recovery per class member will be $116.28, although
this amount will presumably vary significantly based on an
individual's work history during the Class Period.  The Class
Members will not have to submit a claim to participate in the
Settlement.

To provide notice of the Settlement, the Defendant will compile a
list of all the Class Members from its records, including the
number of pay periods each Class Member worked for the Defendant.
The Class Members will have 45 days after the mailing of the Notice
Packets to opt out of the Settlement.

Further, upon final approval, all the Settlement Members fully
release the claims raised against the Defendant in the First
Amended Complaint for the time period of Feb. 8, 2015 through Aug.
23, 2019, including any claims that could have arisen from the
facts and circumstances alleged in the case.  The release also
applies to any claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act that could
have arisen from the relevant facts and circumstances.

Judge Bashant ordered the Defendant to file its Amended Notice of
Removal no later than May 22, 2020.  Furthermore, the Judge granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge conditionally certified the following class for settlement
purposes only: all exempt and non-exempt current and former
employees of Sherwood Management Co., Inc. who worked in California
at any point during the period of Feb. 8, 2015, to Aug. 23, 2019.

Plaintiff Laverna Shannon is appointed as Class Representative of
the Class, and Diane E. Richard, Esq. of Richard Law, P.C. as the
Class Counsel.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and the
terms and conditions of the Settlement set forth therein, subject
to further consideration at the fairness hearing.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 21, 2020, at 10:30
a.m.

Any motion in support of the Settlement and any motion for an award
of attorney's fees and costs or the Plaintiff's service award must
be filed with the Court no later than the dates specified.  The
Plaintiff's counsel must submit her billing records with any fee
motion.  Any opposition must be filed no later than fourteen days
after the motion is filed, and any reply must be filed no later
than 21 days after the motion is filed.  All other deadlines in the
action are stayed pending the fairness hearing.

The Judge appointed CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator.

The Court approves the form of the "Notice of Class Action
Settlement" and directed the parties and the Settlement
Administrator to carry out their obligations under this order and
the Settlement Agreement.  The Court authorized the mailing of the
Notice to the Class Members by the deadline.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/VINZZA from Leagle.com.


SINGLE SOURCE: Underpays Drivers Under FLSA, Lucenti Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EONARD LUCENTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SINGLE SOURCE, INC., NATIONAL COATINGS & SUPPLIES,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02863-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020),
seeks redress for underpayment of minimum wage and overtime wages
against the Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a full-time driver, from
2015 until March 2020 at one of the Defendants' Brooklyn, New York
locations. The Plaintiff drove the Defendants' cargo vans.

The Defendants provide automobile repair services in and around the
City of New York, its metropolitan area and throughout the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Telephone: (646) 393-9550


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Layton Class Suit Removed to District of Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS R. LAYTON, an
individual v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company d/b/a SLS, Case No. A-20-815552-C, was removed
from Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on June 29,
2020.

The District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01225-JAD-EJY to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that SLS engaged in a deceptive pattern of
wrongdoing with respect to the servicing of mortgage loans of
consumers in the State of Nevada.

Based on the Plaintiff's allegation that the prospective class
includes as many as 4,000 members with a damages period reaching
back to 2014, the potential late fees alone place $25,920,000.00 in
controversy without accounting for any potential damages which
would accrue during the pendency of the case.

SLS operates as a financial company. The Company offers residential
mortgages, as well as provides loan modification and and planning
services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacob D. Bundick, Esq.
          Michael R. Hogue, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Telephone: (702) 792-3773
          Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
          E-mail: bundickj@gtlaw.com
                  hoguem@gtlaw.com


STATE FARM: McClure Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Earl L. McClure,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. State
Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-SMB (D. Ariz.,
July 13, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.

State Farm Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers life insurance products, as well as insures
cars, boats, motorcycles, homes, and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Fax: (816) 714-7101
          Email: lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Heather Lynne Hawthorne Goodwin, Esq.
          Jose de Jesus Rivera, Esq.
          MILLER PITT FELDMAN & MCANALLY PC
          2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 840
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-1069
          Phone: (602) 266-5557
          Fax: (602) 266-2223
          Email: hgoodwin@mpfmlaw.com
                 jrivera@mpfmlaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          4520 Main St., Ste. 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 561-6500
          Fax: (816) 561-6501


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Action for Negligence
------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2020, for the first time in history, crude oil futures
settled at a negative price of -$37.62. Crude oil has been the
lifeblood of industrialized nations since the 1950s--underpining
global transportation, energy, consumer goods, and commerce.

A class action lawsuit filed July 9, 2020 in the Northern District
of Illinois alleges that one of the largest brokerage firms in the
world, TD Ameritrade Inc., was informed that negative prices may
happen and took no steps to protect its customers, nor warn trading
clients about the possibility of negative oil prices.

The federal complaint alleges: TD Ameritrade and TD Ameritrade
Futures and Forex, LLC took no measures to warn its customers; did
not prepare its trading platform to handle negative prices and
liquidated positions in a "commercially unreasonable" manner
resulting in losses of millions of dollars by class members.

The suit further alleges that TD Ameritrade and TD Ameritrade
Futures and Forex, LLC have acted in bad faith by selectively
settling with some customers but not smaller traders and retail
customers.

Two law firms have joined the lead counsel in continuing to
investigate the brokerage firms conduct on and in the aftermath of
the historic drop in crude oil.

If you would like more information about this lawsuit, please call
(312) 913-9999 or email tamara@desilvalawoffices.com [GN]

TICKETMASTER: Wants Lawsuit Over Cancelled Baseball Games Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Ticketmaster and Live Nation are asking
a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by baseball fans who
allege they weren't given refunds for cancelled Major League
Baseball games this year.

The class action was filed earlier this year on behalf of
plaintiffs who said they purchased tickets to games that never
happened because of the coronavirus pandemic. It named dozens of
defendants, including the two ticket-selling companies.

Ticketmaster and Live Nation say any dispute they have with
customers is supposed to be subject to arbitration.

"Every fan that purchases tickets using a LN/TM website must accept
LN/TM's Terms of Use, which contains a mandatory arbitration clause
requiring the user to arbitrate essentially any disputes. . ." the
companies' lawyers wrote in a motion to dismiss filed July 2.

The motion also says the plaintiffs failed to allege they even used
those sites when buying their tickets. Since the case alleges fraud
and is subject to a higher pleading standard, the case against them
should be tossed, LN/TM says.

"They do not allege that they detrimentally relied on anything
LN/TM did or said, much less supply the requisite 'particularity'
required by the Federal Rules," the motion says.

"Plaintiffs choice to name (Live Nation) is particularly
mystifying. No plaintiff alleges any transaction with these
Defendants, much less any misconduct by them. Nor do Plaintiffs
allege a basis on which these Defendants could be held liable for
the alleged conduct of their corporate affiliate, Ticketmaster."

Major League Baseball is one of the many defendants in the case,
which alleges fans were stuck with "unusable tickets for unplayable
games." Milberg Phillips is representing the plaintiffs.

Latham & Watkins is representing LN/TM. [GN]


UNITED STATES OIL: Faces Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP diclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund, LP.
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased USO
securities pursuant to or otherwise traceable to the Fund's March
19, 2020 registration statement, as amended (together with the
prospectus, "Registration Statement"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act").  This action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California and is captioned Wang v. United States Oil Fund, LP,
et al., 3:20-cv-4596.

USO is an exchange-traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to
track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of
West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve
its investment objective by investing substantially all of its
portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract.  Due to
extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, USO's purported
investment objective and strategy became unfeasible.  According to
the complaint, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to
the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares
in March 2020.  Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars
in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy.  In
April and May 2020, USO belatedly acknowledged the extreme threats
and adverse impact that the fund had been experiencing at the time
of the March offering, but which defendants had failed to disclose
to investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020.  A lead
plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the USO class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the USO class-action
lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the USO class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.  If you are interested in learning more
about the case, please contact Jim
Baker--jimb@johnsonfistel.com--at 619-814-4471.  If you email,
please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you. [GN]

                       About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.  The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.  For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising.  Past results
do not guarantee future outcomes.


UNITED STATES: Court Allows Lee's Immediate Compassionate Release
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued
a Memorandum Opinion granting the Defendant's Emergency Motion for
Compassionate Release in the case captioned UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. LEWIS LEE aka STEVEN PANTOJA, Case No. 1:95-cr-58 (LMB)
(E.D. Va.).

Through counsel, Defendant Lewis Lee, also known as Steven Pantoja,
has filed an Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release in which he
seeks to be released from prison because of his unique history, the
coronavirus outbreak in his facility, and his underlying health
conditions. The Government opposes the Motion.

For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum Opinion, the Motion
will be granted and the Defendant will be ordered released after a
14-day quarantine to begin his three-year term of supervised
release, with the additional special condition that he remain in
home confinement until January 24, 2023, the date his term of
incarceration would otherwise have expired.

The Defendant, who is 46 years old, has been incarcerated for
almost 30 years as a result of two acts committed when he was 16
and 20 years old. The Defendant is currently incarcerated in the
District of Columbia jail ("D.C. Jail") and was scheduled to be
transferred to Federal Correctional Institution Coleman once he had
concluded meeting with his counsel; however, the Bureau of Prisons
has suspended all inter-facility transfers due to the coronavirus
crisis, and the Defendant has, therefore, been unable to transfer
to a federal facility.

The Defendant, who suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and
hyperlipidemia, and has a family history of heart disease,
contracted the coronavirus on May 23, 2020. Although he has been
largely asymptomatic, his counsel reports that he was returned to
his unit after spending just 10 days under observation for symptoms
of the virus, and is not scheduled to receive follow-up care for
another three months.

Because of the Defendant's underlying health issues, the
coronavirus poses unique threats to him. The World Health
Organization has indicated that "those with underlying medical
problems like cardiovascular disease and diabetes are more likely
to develop serious illness if they contract the coronavirus.
Although the Defendant has tested positive for the virus, which
suggests that he may have developed some antibodies to protect him
against future infection, this does not end the inquiry. Instead,
the analysis shifts to the adequacy of the available medical
treatment in defendant's facility.

As demonstrated by Defendant's reports of his treatment, and
confirmed by the descriptions of the conditions in the D.C. Jail in
the successful class action filed against the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections ("DOC"), the treatment available in the
Defendant's facility has been inadequate. Defendant was placed
under observation for coronavirus symptoms for only 10 days, and
was then returned to his unit. Despite his positive test result, he
is not scheduled to receive follow-up care for another three
months.

Although the D.C. Jail has been ordered to take additional measures
to protect inmates from the coronavirus, those changes will not
occur overnight, and the Defendant remains at risk in the meantime.
These factors, coupled with the Defendant's unique history, service
of almost 30 years in prison for offenses committed at an extremely
young age, and subsequent rehabilitation constitute extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction.

Although the Government argues that the Defendant may pose a danger
to the public because he tested positive for the coronavirus
earlier this year, the Court will order that Defendant be
quarantined for 14 days before release, which should eliminate this
concern.

The Defendant's release plan is among the most comprehensive the
Court has seen. Upon release, the Defendant will reside with his
aunt, Maria Pantoja, at her home in Haines City, Florida, which is
in close proximity to many other members of the Defendant's family,
all of whom have expressed their eagerness to support him in his
transition. The United States Probation Office has spoken with Ms.
Pantoja and does not object to the Defendant's release to her
custodianship.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmokxf3 from
Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sexual Harassment Class Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Evans, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that Doe v.
the Regents of the University of California, a class-action lawsuit
involving students accused of sexual harassment, was dismissed by
the Alameda County Superior Court on July 2

In 2018, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos released her
proposed changes to Title IX, which included "due process
protections" for all students and the requirement of live hearings
for formal sexual harassment complaints. Following these changes,
in December 2018, an appellate court decision ruled that
respondents have the right to cross-examine claimants, the right to
a hearing in higher education and the right to evidentiary hearings
for all requests.

Though the 2018 case concerned the University of Southern
California, the ruling was then applied to all private and public
higher education institutions in the state of California.

In response, the UC system changed its sexual violence and sexual
harassment policy, which became the basis for this class-action
lawsuit, filed by attorney Mark Hathaway on behalf of students
disciplined under the university's previous 2015 sexual harassment
and sexual violence policy.

According to legal documents from the case, the class action is
intended to represent all UC students who, under the university's
Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students
regarding sexual violence and harassment, faced suspension or other
serious punishments.

The class includes students whose cases specified credibility being
central to investigation findings, and in which the questioning and
cross-examination of claimants and witnesses were not provided by
their university.

The class action represents the third amended petition for the
case.

The court, however, took issue with the vagueness of the
plaintiff's definition of the class. Specifically, the court found
that the "suspension or other severe sanction" portion of the class
qualifications defines "severe" too vaguely.

In addition, the court took issue with the feasibility of absent
class members' ability to identify themselves as members.

The class action was dismissed on the basis that each case included
in the suit has to be reviewed individually, according to
Hathaway.

UC Office of the President spokesperson Stett Holbrook said in an
email that the university is "pleased" with the court's recognition
of individual adjudications.

"The University of California is committed to providing a
resolution process for sexual harassment that treats parties fairly
and with compassion, and results in just outcomes," Holbrook said
in the email. "By dismissing the class claims, the court recognized
the inherently individualized nature of each adjudication and the
importance of evaluating the unique circumstances of each case."

According to Hathaway, the ruling will be appealed. [GN]


URNEX BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urnex Brands, LLC.
The case is captioned Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Urnex Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04951-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

Urnex Brands provides cleaning products. The Company offers
cleaning products for coffee, espresso and tea equipments. Urnex
Brands serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELCH FOODS: Sued by Clevenger Over "Slack-Filling" Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN CLEVENGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WELCH FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01145532-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange
Cty., June 29, 2020), is a consumer protection class action
alleging that Welch Foods is engaged in the practice of
"slack-filling" boxes of its Welch's Reduced Sugar Fruit Snacks and
Fruit 'n Yogurt Snacks, in violation of the California Unfair
Competition and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Welch's (TM) Fruit Snacks with Reduced
Sugar and Welch's (TM) Fruit 'n Yogurt (TM) boxes contain eight
pouches of snacks, compared to ten pouches in other flavors of
Welch's (TM) Fruit Snacks. The boxes Welch's (TM) Fruit Snacks with
Reduced Sugar and Welch's (TM) Fruit 'n Yogurt (TM) Snacks contain
a significant amount of nonfunctional slack-fill compared to other
flavors of Welch's (TM) Fruit Snacks. In those boxes, Welch's (TM)
includes two more identically sized pouches and 33% more content by
volume.

By violating Federal and California slack-fill laws, the Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendant's products are deemed "misbranded" and
cannot legally be sold in interstate commerce. He adds that the
practice of using oversized containers with substantial,
nonfunctional, empty space inside them is called "slack-fill" and
is illegal under California and Federal law.

Mr. Clevenger purchased the Defendant's Welch's (TM) Fruit Snacks
for some time from various stores including Walmart and Albertson's
in Orange County, California.

Welch Foods is a cooperative based and headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts, and incorporated in Michigan. Welch's products
include grape juices, jams, fruit snacks, and jellies, which are
sold internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robert J. Stein, III, Esq.
         Anthony E. DiVincenzo, Esq.
         DIVINCENZO SCHOENFTELD STEIN
         3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (714) 881-7002
         E-mail: rob@DSS.law
                 aedivincenzo@dsschicagolaw.com

              - and -

         Anthony Lanza, Esq.
         Ramin T. Montakab, Esq.
         LANZA & SMITH, PLC
         3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949)221-0490
         E-mail: tony@lanzasmith.com
                 ramin@lanzasmith.com


WIRECARD AG: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 7
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF)
between August 17, 2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wirecard
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Wirecard class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants, including the Company's
auditor, throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated
its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming EUR1.9
billion; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial results, including
revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk
management or countermeasures; (4) Wirecard's auditor failed to
audit the Company in accordance with applicable auditing
principles; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


[*] Koskie Minsky, Merchant Law Commences Class Suit v. Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky and the Merchant Law Group have commenced a proposed
national class proceeding alleging that Canadian insurance
companies have breached their contracts with business owners by
refusing to pay for business interruptions caused by the
coronavirus pandemic.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the insurance industry has
conspired to deny coverage before claims are even made. Negligence
and breaches of the duty of good faith are also alleged.

Kirk Baert, a partner with Koskie Minsky, has stated: "Business
interruption insurance is designed for circumstances such as the
current pandemic. The insurance companies appear to be failing
small businesses when coverage is needed most."

For further information: If you are interested in participating in
the class action, please contact us at Toll Free: 1-866-777-6335 or
Email: businessinterruptionclassaction@kmlaw.ca; Please contact
Nathalie Gondek at ngondek@kmlaw.ca for media inquiries.
https://kmlaw.ca/ [GN]



[*] New York Gyms File Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------
Wshu.org reports that malls reopened on Long Island. But gyms and
movie theatres still have to wait.

Gym owners say the shutdown order is discriminatory and their
businesses will go under if they can't reopen soon. Hundreds of
gyms are suing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state to
reopen.

Attorney James Mermigis represents the gyms in the class action
lawsuit.

"They are being ordered to be shut down, through no fault of their
own, mind you. And they have been good citizens. They have been
shut down, they haven't said anything for five months. Now we've
reached the point where we feel like the virus has been controlled
and we need to allow these businesses to earn a living. All we're
asking the governor is to lift the executive order and allow gyms
to be treated the same as other businesses."

Cuomo says the state will not open gyms or movie theaters until
health officials learn more about how air conditioning may spread
the coronavirus.

Some other states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have
allowed most gyms to reopen at reduced capacity. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***