/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200731.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 31, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 153

                            Headlines

ACACIA RESEARCH: Pays $75,000 Plaintiff's Counsel in Wilson Suit
AEY CAPITAL: Faces TCPA Theisen Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Akers Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Dill Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Fitak Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants

ALLERGAN INC: Faces Milburn Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Pomush Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Valerie R. Sues Over Dangerous Breast Implants
AMINI'S GALLERIA: Paguada Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
AT&T SERVICES: Faces Ponce Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Sues Over Inaccurate Bankruptcy Report
BANK OF AMERICA: Profitwise Suit Seeks to Recover PPP Agent Fees
BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend College Books Retailers' Suits
BAYER AG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline
BED BATH: Continues to Defend Vitiello & Kirkland Class Suits

BELMONT VILLAGE: Yadao Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
BIOGEN: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
BRISTOL CTY, MA: Court Dismisses Class Suit v. Sheriff, Securus
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved From Texas to D. Delaware
C&K TRUCKING: Exploits & Underpays Owner-Operators, Stephens Says

CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Young Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
CALIFORNIA: Briand Sues State Bar Alleging Malice and Oppression
CAMERON ALF: Serrano Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Eicher Action over Grand Princess Cruise
CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Grand Princes Guests' COVID-19 Class Suit

CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Lindsay and Zehner Class Suit
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Service Lamp & Elmensdorp Securities Suits
CARNIVAL CORP: Facing Turner's COVID-19 Class Action in Florida
CARNIVAL CORP: Grand Princess Guests File Class Suit in California
CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess Faces COVID-19 Class Suit in Calif.

CATTARAUGUS CONTAINERS: Westfall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Cotchett Pitre Files Class Action
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Securities Suit over COVID-19 Test Kits
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Facing Hayes Securities Suit in New York
CHRISTIE NY: Quizhpilema Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

CNA FINANCIAL: Kennard Suit Removed From Dist. Ct. to S.D. Texas
CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Failed to Obtain Dismissal of Beyers Suit
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CORPORATE COACHES: Walowitz Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA

CREDIT PROTECTION: Teitelbaum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CRST EXPEDITED: Smith Seeks Damages for Drivers Under ICFA & FLSA
CULVER CITY, CA: 9th Cir. Vacates District Ct. Ruling in Biberovic
DEUTSCHE BANK: Vecchione Sues Over Spoofing & Market Manipulation
DREAMERS AND CREATORS: Promotes Illegal Lottery, Stoia Suit Says

DRIVESMART AUTO: Brown Sues in S.D. New York Over TCPA Violation
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
E.W. SCRIPPS: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ECO SCIENCE: Consolidated Raschke Class Suit Stayed
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Myrick Claims

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces Visser Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
EVEREADY BODY: Faces Torres Wage and Hour Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
EXECUPHARM INC: Clemens Sues in E.D. Pa. Over Breach of Contract

EXXON MOBIL: D.C. Suit Removed From Superior Court to D.D.C.
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated SDNY Class Suit
FEDEX CORP: Overpeck Files Further Amended Class Complaint
FISKARS BRAND: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
FLINT, MI: Dismissal Bid Denial in Flint Water Suits Partly Upheld

FORESCOUT TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline
GEISINGER HEALTH: Freitas ERISA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
GENERAL MOTORS: Lupis Product Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Mich.
GEO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Remins of September 8 Deadline

HAPPY STREET: Faces Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline
HOMECLICK LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending

INSIGHT SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Gaston Claims
INVESTORS BANCORP: Board Appeals Order in Elburn Stockholder Suit
ISBAZ CORP: Schulke Seeks to Recover Owed & Misappropriated Wages
J. FLETCHER CREAMER: Hewitt FMLA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
JOLO INC: Violates Dancers' Gratuity Retention Rights, Saad Says

KRG KINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, McDonnell Claims
KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss May Class Suit Still Pending
LIFE PROTECT: Vousoghian Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
LVNV FUNDING: Can Amend Answer to Add Affirmative Defense in Norton

LYNN UNIVERSITY: Gibson Student Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MARGON RESTAURANT: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MATRIX TRUST: Faces MBA ERISA Suit Over Unlawfully Retained Funds
MICROSOFT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Sharing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Davidovitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ga. Class Suit
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: October 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Slaughter Suit
NC3 SYSTEMS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
NEW YORK: $289,000 in Legal Fees Okayed in Parker Suit v. City

NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 13 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 14 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Defends 3 Securities Class Suits Over COVID-19

NUTRITION EXPRESS: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ONFIDO INC: Sosa BIPA Suit Moved From Cir. Court to N.D. Illinois
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 4 Deadline
PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
POLTI USA INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

PORTMEIRION GROUP: Paguada Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of ADA
PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year
PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Pending
PRIME COMMS: Faces Ly Employment Suit in California Super. Court
PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Removes Acker et al. Suit to E.D. Arkansas

RCN TELECOM: Faces Grillo Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey
RICK'S CUSTOM: Faces Peer Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
RMS BEAUTY LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
SHIFTPIXY INC: Still Defends Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action
SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Lewis Claims

SK ENERGY: Ritual Coffee Alleges Price-Fixing of Gas Prices
SOLARM INC: Ortega Sues Over Wrongful Employment Termination
SPIRALEDGE INC: Riveles Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Denies Tuition Refunds, Gallagher Alleges
STATE AUTO: Refuses Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Planet Alleges

STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Young ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Sargony et al. Claim
TEAM HEALTH: Faces Fraser RICO Suit Over Inflated Medical Bills
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Reisfelt Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Cota Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Siperavage Balks at Vehicle Restrictions
UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Faces Angel Suit Alleging Violation of Tucker Act
UNITED STATES: Faces Subramanya Suit Over Failure to Issue EADs
US OIL FUND: Defends Wang Securities Class Action

USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Appeals Decision to Delaware Supreme Court
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Palma Files Employment Suit in California
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger Suit Obtains Class Status
WALMART INC: Three Former Employees Drop COBRA Lawsuit

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals Order & Judgment in FLSA Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Employees Sue Over Black Lives Matter Masks

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Class Suits v J&J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.04BB Noncurrent Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.4BB Bendix Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $826MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Bid to Nix Claims Accounting Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Has Disclosure Statement Hearing on Aug. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Dismiss New Mexico's Consumer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. has $1.2MM Litigation Expense in Q2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 610 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.13BB Liability at June 30


                            *********

ACACIA RESEARCH: Pays $75,000 Plaintiff's Counsel in Wilson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acacia Research Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has paid
$75,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in
full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses
in the case, Wilson v. O'Connell, et al., Case No. 2019-1049-JTL.

On December 31, 2019, the company and the members of its board of
directors were named as defendants in a putative stockholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court") styled as Wilson v. O'Connell, et al., Case No.
2019-1049-JTL.

The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants violated their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by
failing to disclose in the Preliminary Proxy Statement allegedly
material information about the financing transaction with Starboard
Value.

Among other remedies, the plaintiff sought to hold the company's
directors liable for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties.

After the complaint was filed, and without admitting that the
allegations in the complaint had any merit, the Company determined
to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement by including
additional disclosures concerning the Purchase Agreement, Nasdaq
Proposal, and Charter Amendment in a Schedule 14A filed with the
SEC on February 5, 2020.

On February 25, 2020, the Court approved a stipulation under which
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to
himself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class
member. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the
Schedule 14A filed on February 5, 2020.

Without admitting that the allegations in the complaint had any
merit and while continuing to maintain that such allegations were
without merit, the Company decided it was in its and the
stockholders' best interests to resolve the plaintiff's counsel's
claim for a mootness fee and avoid further litigation of the issue
by agreeing to pay $75,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys'
fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the action.

The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.  

Acacia Research Corporation develops, acquires, and licenses
patented technologies. The Company controls patent portfolios
covering technologies used in a variety of industries. Acacia
Research serves customers worldwide. The company is based in
Irvine, California.


AEY CAPITAL: Faces TCPA Theisen Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANE THEISEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AEY CAPITAL LLC d/b/a GAGE CANNABIS, a Michigan Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-11965-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich., July
21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telemarketing text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a cannabis dispensary. To promote its services,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands
of consumers in the process, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Akers Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA REILLY-AKERS and CRAIG AKERS, h/w, v. ALLERGAN PLC, now
known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES
1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09054 (D.N.J., July 17, 2020), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are
defective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angelica Reilly-Akers is a breast cancer survivor who was implanted
with Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants as part of a
reconstruction procedure following bilateral mastectomies.
As a result of having the BIOCELL products implanted, she has
endured pathological evaluation, capsulectomy and explant of the
recalled BIOCELL textured implant due to the risk of BIA-ALCL, as
well as reconstruction and re-implantation of an alternative
implant.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Dill Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY DILL v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09080
(D.N.J., July 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL
textured implants are defective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Dill was implanted with Natrelle 120 Silicone-Filled Textured
Breast Implants. She did not receive any update or warning from
Allergan any time before or after her surgery in April 2011 about
the clearly established link between Allergan's BIOCELL Textured
Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Fitak Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA FITAK v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09074
(D.N.J., July 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL
textured implants are defective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Fitak was implanted with Natrelle 120 Silicone-Filled Textured
Breast Implants. She did not receive any update or warning from
ALLERGAN any time before or after her surgery in January 2016 about
the clearly established link between Allergan's BIOCELL Textured
Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Milburn Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER MILBURN and WILLIAM MILBURN h/w v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known
as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES
1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-09161 (D.N.J., July 21, 2020), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are
defective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dominick Smith, Esq.
          David Randolph Smith, Esq.
          DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES
          1913 21st Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 742-1775
          Facsimile: (615) 742-1223
          E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com
                  drs@drslawfirm.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Pomush Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE POMUSH and STEVE POMUSH v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as
ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09068 (D.N.J., July 17, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging
that the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonnie Pomush was implanted with Natrelle 168 BIOCELL Textured
Round Saline Breast Implants. She did not receive any update or
warning from Allergan any time before or after her surgeries in
December 2009 and March 2014 about the clearly established link
between Allergan's BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants and BIA-ALCL.

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

The Plaintifs are represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: Valerie R. Sues Over Dangerous Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie R. and April C., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION,
ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-02099-MVL-KWR (E.D. La., July 22, 2020), alleges that
Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants have increased the
Plaintiffs' risk of developing breast implant-associated anaplastic
large cell lymphoma.

On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL
after the US Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") called for the
action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants
were tied to cases of BIA-ALCL. Allergan has known about the
connection between its textured implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL since at least 2011. However, the Plaintiffs
contend, Allergan did not disclose the connection between the
BIOCELL textured implants and BIA-ALCL to the FDA, or the public.
The Plaintiffs assert that Allergan did not accurately report
adverse events each time an injury or malfunction occurred about
the BIOCELL textured implants.

According to the complaint, until 2017, Allergan buried evidence of
ruptures and other injuries with its implants by reporting these as
routine events that required no public disclosure. Allergan hid
these incidents in "Alternative Summary Reports" ("ASR"), which do
not have to be reported to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility
Device Experience Database, or "MAUDE". The ASR program should
exclude severe or unexpected events or injuries. Severe or
unexpected events or injuries must be reported through MAUDE.
Allergan manipulated the ASR program to hide these serious events
from public disclosure. Because Allergan deceptively and
inaccurately used ASR instead of MAUDE to report adverse incidents,
Allergan misled the FDA, medical personnel, researchers, its
customers, and the general public. Allergan's customers were
exposed to harm. And Allergan did not report to the FDA adverse
events from its required post-market approval studies. These
post-market approval studies indicate that the recalled BIOCELL
textured implants have caused or contributed to death and/or
serious injury by increasing the risk of BIA-ALCL.

The Plaintiffs contend that because Allergan failed to file adverse
event reports, consumers, medical personnel, and the FDA could not
detect trends in Allergan's products. This deprived the market and
consumers of the information to make an informed decision about
whether Allergan's products were safe and effective. Had Allergan
complied with its obligations under federal law, disclosing the
risk of BIA-ALCL and BIOCELL textured implants would have allowed
the Plaintiffs and their surgeon to make an informed decision
whether to use the BIOCELL implants, the Plaintiffs aver. They add
that Allergan acted recklessly and with intentional disregard for
the safety of the Plaintiffs and its customers.

Besides Allergan's failure to comply with reporting requirements,
Allegan continued to distribute the textured implants commercially.
This distribution violated federal law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs had Allergan Biocell textured implantation surgery.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Lea, Jr., Esq.
          724 East Boston Street
          Covington, LA 70433
          Phone: (985) 292 2300
          Email: paul@paullea.com


AMINI'S GALLERIA: Paguada Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amini's Galleria,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. American Art Clay Co. Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05711 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Amini's Galleria, Inc. provides home furnishing products. The
Company offers pool tables, game room, pinball, theater seating,
barstools, and outdoor furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


AT&T SERVICES: Faces Ponce Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04924-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2020), arises from
the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, thereby, invading
the Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system", to send
its text messages to the Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit its
business services, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff
requested for the Defendant to stop texting the Plaintiff in
response to one of the initial text messages from the Defendant,
thus revoking any prior express consent that had existed and
terminating any established business relationship that had
existed.

The Plaintiff is natural persons residing in Las Vegas, Nevada.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., is a telecommunications company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Sues Over Inaccurate Bankruptcy Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01348-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal., July 16, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to comply with its
responsibilities to accurately use and report consumer information
by:

     -- systematically failing to obtain and use adequate
identifying information to distinguish between an individual who
has filed for bankruptcy and a distinct individual who has not;

     -- inaccurately reporting the existence of a bankruptcy filing
to consumer credit reporting agencies, and

     -- routinely failing to correct this inaccurate reporting when
notified by consumer credit reporting agencies that the consumer
makes a dispute.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant inaccurately reported to
the consumer credit reporting agencies that he had filed for
bankruptcy. As a result of the Defendant's inaccurate reporting,
the Plaintiff's credit score dropped substantially, which caused
him great distress.

Bank of America, NA is a national bank with over 4,500 retail
branches. It is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Tammy Hussin, Esq.
         HUSSIN LAW FIRM
         1596 N. Coast Hwy 101
         Encinitas, CA 92024
         Telephone: (877) 677-5397
         Facsimile: (877) 667-1547
         E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com

                 - and -

         James A. Francis, Esq.
         Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
         FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
         1600 Market St., Suite 2510
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 735-8600
         Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
         E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Profitwise Suit Seeks to Recover PPP Agent Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Profitwise Accounting Inc., a California corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.; FIRST HOME BANK; FROST BANK; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
PACIFIC ENTERPRISE BANK; READYCAP LENDING, LLC; U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:20-cv-01395-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2020), seeks to obtain
fees owed to the Plaintiff as a result of its work as an agent to
assist small business borrowers in getting federally guaranteed
loans through the Paycheck Protection Program, a federal program
implemented to provide small businesses with loans to combat the
economic impact of COVID-19.

According to the complaint, federal regulations require the
Defendants to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed Class for their
work as agents, who facilitated loans between the Defendants and
small businesses. Despite precise regulatory requirements stating
that agent fees are owed to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have
failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members. Instead, the
Defendants have kept the agent fees for themselves. Although the
Plaintiff assisted its clients with preparing their application(s)
for a PPP loan from the Defendants, the Defendants have failed to
pay the Plaintiff the agent fees Defendants owe the Plaintiff for
its work in securing the PPP loans.

The Plaintiff, Profitwise Accounting Inc., is a corporation
organized and authorized to do business, and doing business, in the
State of California since December 2004.

Bank of America, N.A., is a national bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post St., Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

               - and –

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255


BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend College Books Retailers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2020, that the company continues
to defend 11 purported class action complaints initiated by
retailers of collegiate course materials or current or former
college students.

Between January 22, 2020, and May 20, 2020, eleven purported class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, and the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, along
with several publishers, another collegiate bookstore retailer, and
an industry association.

The plaintiffs are retailers of collegiate course materials or
current or former college students.

Although the specific allegations vary slightly, they claim, on
their own behalf and on behalf of the purported classes, that the
Company and the other defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1), Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 2), Section 13(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 13(a)), and various state antitrust and unfair trade
practices laws for alleged activities in connection with inclusive
access and the sale of course materials to universities and their
students.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is
considering whether to consolidate these and other related cases in
a consolidated proceeding.

Barnes & Noble said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter
and are currently unable to estimate any potential losses."

Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is one of the largest contract
operators of physical and virtual bookstores for college and
university campuses and K-12 institutions across the United States.
The company is also one of the largest textbook wholesalers,
inventory management hardware and software providers, and a leading
provider of digital education solutions. The company is based in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey.


BAYER AG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 20
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC:
BAYRY, BAYZF) between May 23, 2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Bayer investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Bayer class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1899.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
material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not false and
misleading. Specifically, defendants willfully or recklessly made
and/or caused the Company to make false and misleading statements
that failed to disclose that the Monsanto acquisition would burden
Bayer with significant exposure to the risk of suffering billions
of dollars in judgments and reputational damage, among other
things, if lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure
to its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer, were
successful. As a result, defendants' positive statements about the
prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would
create for Bayer's business were materially false and/or 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 September
14, 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-1899.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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. 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]


BED BATH: Continues to Defend Vitiello & Kirkland Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2020 that the company continues to
defend putative securities class action suits entitled, Vitiello v.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH and
Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH.

A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.

A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020.

That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was
founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global
1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey.


BELMONT VILLAGE: Yadao Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANITA YADAO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22064 (Filed June 8, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06403 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code for their failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods, failure to pay meal period and rest period premium
compensation for non-compliant meal and rest periods, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.

Belmont offers assisted living, independent living and memory care
programs tailored for elder residents' needs.[BN]

The Defendant Belmont Village is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
          Kelley M. Fox, Esq.
          Derek S. Sachs, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 250 1800
          Facsimile: 213 250 7900
          E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Kelley.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Derek.Sachs@lewisbrisbois.com


BIOGEN: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
------------------------------------------------
Emile Hallez, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that participants
in Biogen's $1 billion 401(k) plan recently lobbed a class-action
lawsuit against the company, alleging it mismanaged the plan by
failing to reign in expenses.

The plan sponsor, which specializes in therapies for neurological
diseases, allegedly breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by failing to opt for the
lowest-cost share classes of funds on the investment menu, not
considering mutual fund alternatives such as collective investment
trusts and using actively managed funds, rather than lower-cost
passively managed ones, according to the complaint. The plan also
had high annual record keeping fees, at $119 per participant in
2018, the plaintiffs stated.

The Fidelity Freedom target-date mutual fund share class included
the plan menu was as much as 50% more expensive than the cheapest
share class available, the plaintiffs wrote. That firm, which is
not named as a party in the lawsuit, is also the plan's record
keeper, according to the complaint.

The case is similar to numerous others filed this year.
Representing the plaintiffs are law firms Brooks & Derensis and
Capozzi Adler, the latter of which has brought class-action cases
on behalf of plaintiffs in many other 401(k) plans. The suit was
filed July 14 in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

"The structure of this plan is rife with potential conflicts of
interest because Fidelity and its affiliates were placed in
positions that allowed them to reap profits from the plan at the
expense of plan participants," the complaint read. "This conflict
of interest is laid bare in this case where lower-cost Fidelity
mutual funds--materially similar or identical to the plan's other
Fidelity funds (other than in price)--were available but not
selected because the higher-cost funds returned more value to
Fidelity."

A spokesperson for Biogen said the firm had no comment on the
lawsuit. [GN]


BRISTOL CTY, MA: Court Dismisses Class Suit v. Sheriff, Securus
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge INDIRA TALWANI of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings in the
case captioned KELLIE PEARSON, ROGER BURRELL, BRIAN GIVENS, and THE
LAW OFFICES OF MARK BOOKER, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS M. HODGSON, individually
and his official capacity as Sheriff of Bristol County, and SECURUS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-11130-IT,
(D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs allege that Thomas Hodgson, the Sheriff of Bristol
County, Massachusetts, has acted outside of the authority granted
to him by the Massachusetts Legislature by procuring an inmate
calling service that was deployed, in part, to raise revenues for
the office of the Sheriff. Plaintiffs have also brought suit
against Securus Technologies, Inc., the inmate calling service
vendor, alleging that Securus engaged in unfair and deceptive
practices under Massachusetts law. Pending before the court were
Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings [#61], [#65] and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I [#70]
and Motion for Class Certification [#76].

The lynchpin of Plaintiffs' claims--set forth in Count I as a claim
for declaratory judgment--is that Sheriff Hodgson used the inmate
calling contract with Securus to generate revenues in violation of
Massachusetts law as set forth by the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ("SJC") in Souza v. Sheriff of Bristol Cty., 455
Mass. 573 (2010). Defendants argue that the Massachusetts
Legislature has, in fact, authorized inmate calling as a source of
revenue in a 2009 Session Law. Plaintiffs counter that Defendants
are misinterpreting and overextending the 2009 law and that the
Legislature never endorsed the Sheriff's practices. The parties
agree that the question of law underlying these motions--whether
the Sheriff may collect revenue from inmate calling services--is
ripe for resolution.

According to the court, "Plaintiffs' concern that the Sheriff is
generating revenue through charges paid by inmates' families and
attorneys for phone service is timely as our communities consider
how the criminal justice system may best achieve its stated goals.
However, these policy questions are for the Legislature not the
court. The court is tasked instead with determining the legal
question of whether the Massachusetts Legislature granted the
Sheriffs authority to generate revenues from inmate telephone
services. On that question, the court finds that the Legislature
has granted the Sheriff that authority and, accordingly, the claims
brought against him and Securus must be dismissed. Thus, Sheriff
Hodgson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#61] and Securus's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#65] are ALLOWED. Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I [#70] and Motion for
Class Certification [#76] are DENIED."

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 22, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79yl5to from
Leagle.com.

BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved From Texas to D. Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN INGALLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BUCKEYE PARTNERS,
L.P., CLARK C. SMITH, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M. BAUMANN, BARBARA J.
DUGANIER, JOSEPH A. LASALA, JR., MARK C. MCKINLEY, LARRY C. PAYNE,
OLIVER G. RICHARD, III, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, and MARTIN A. WHITE,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02645, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on July 17, 2020.

The District of Delaware Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00960-UNA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that Buckeye violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and seeks to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Buckeye will be acquired by
IFM Investors Pty Ltd., through its IFM Global Infrastructure Fund,
Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC.

Mr. Ingalis brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons
and entities that own Buckeye common stock. Excluded from the Class
are the defendants and their affiliates, immediate families, legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in
which defendants have or had a controlling interest.

Buckeye is one of the largest independent liquid petroleum products
pipeline operators in the United States in terms of volumes
delivered, with approximately 6,000 miles of pipeline. Buckeye also
uses its service expertise to operate and/or maintain third-party
pipelines and perform certain engineering and construction services
for its customers.[BN]

Plaintiff John Ingalls is represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

Plaintiff Walter E. Ryan, Jr. is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett., Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3889
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com


C&K TRUCKING: Exploits & Underpays Owner-Operators, Stephens Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valinda Stephens; Bernard Shurn, d/b/a BNVS TRANSPORT LLC; and
Damien Muhammad, d/b/a MEIN & MEEN TRUCKING; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&K TRUCKING, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04305 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2020), is brought under the
Truth in Leasing Act and Illinois common law of contract and fraud,
as a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with its contracts
and TILA regulations, exploiting owner-operators and unlawfully
underpaying them.

The Defendant's standardized contracts with the owner operators
require it to pay the owner-operators a certain amount for hauling
loads tendered by the Defendant, less certain "withholdings."
However, the Defendant has a pattern and practice of paying the
owner operators substantially less than the amount to which it
agreed, according to the complaint. The Defendant also calculates
the owner operators' pay in an opaque, confusing, arbitrary, and
contradictory fashion, without providing the owner-operators
visibility into the way the calculations are being performed, or
sufficient information to verify or challenge the calculations.
This results in the owner-operators constantly being short-changed
on their pay.

According to the complaint, the Defendant also fails to make clear
how much it will pay owners, in violation of its contracts and the
regulations. C&K fails to itemize and explain how it computes
"charge-backs," or deductions, despite its legal obligation to do
so under TILA and its contracts, and despite the owner-operators'
requests that it do so. Consequently, C&K significantly underpays
owner-operators. C&K also refuses to provide owner-operators
documentation necessary to understand charge-backs and settlement
statements, in violation of its contracts and the regulations.
Similarly, the Defendant fails to provide proper accounting for
owner-operators' escrow accounts, in violation of its standardized
contracts and the regulations.

C&K Trucking's dishonest and unlawful conduct results in
owner-operators receiving far less compensation than it owes them,
the Plaintiffs contend. In the Plaintiffs' situation, for example,
C&K Trucking underpaid them to the tune of tens of thousands of
dollars, if not more, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Ms. Stephens and Mr. Shurn, d/b/a BNVS Transport LLC,
signed contracts with C&K Trucking on May 28, 2019, and January 10,
2020. Mr. Muhammad, d/b/a Mein & Meen Trucking, signed a contract
with C&K Trucking on October 2, 2019.

C&K Trucking is in the business of providing "intermodal drayage"
services to shippers across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stacey Vucko, Esq.
          VUCKO LAW LLP
          2208 Midwest Road, Suite 104
          Oak Brook, IL 60523
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 312.522.2517
          Email: svucko@vuckolaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          James Bloom, Esq.
          Sarah McCracken, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                 jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
                 smccracken@schneiderwallace.com


CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Young Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Baptist
University. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. California
Baptist University, Case No. 1:20-cv-05729 (S.D.N.Y., July 23,
2020).

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

California Baptist University is a private, Christian university in
Riverside, California.[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


CALIFORNIA: Briand Sues State Bar Alleging Malice and Oppression
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS BRIAND, individually, on behalf of himself, the general
public and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly
situated v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, a public corporation
within the judicial branch of the government, doing business in the
County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity Under Laws of and in the
State of California, individually, et al., Case No. 20STCV25717
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2020), alleges that through
their vile conduct, the Defendants acted with malice and
oppression, and with the intent to vex, annoy, frighten, and
severely injure the much older Plaintiff, who is up in age and past
the age of 50.

The Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the Defendants were
negligent and the overt acts were the legal (proximate) cause of
injuries and damages to him. The Defendants' negligent overt
actions allegedly occurred from February 5, 2018, thru July 31,
2020.

The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants for general
damages in the sum of $500,000,000; special damages in the sum of
$500,000,000; punitive damages in the sum of $500,000,000; treble
damages; compensatory damages; and monetary damages.

Mr. Briand, a citizen of the State of California, contends that he
is competent adult. He alleges that the Defendants negligently,
recklessly, intentionally, tortuously and unlawfully responsible
for the injury and damages to him and the class.

The Defendants include CRAIG EUGENE HOLDEN, individually and in his
official capacity as CEO of The State Bar of California, a public
corporation within the judicial branch of the government. Doing
business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity Under Laws
of and in the State of California, individually; ROBERT A. HAWLEY,
individually and in his official capacity as DIRECTOR of The State
Bar of California, a public corporation within the judicial branch
of the government, Doing business in the County of Los Angeles as a
Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California,
individually; LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. BRODY, aka: STEVEN ANDREW
BRODY, individually; STEVEN ANDREW BRODY, individually, and in his
official capacity as owner of Law Offices of Steven A. Brody,
individually; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE, an independent state agency within the judicial branch
of the government, Doing business in the County of Los Angeles as a
Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California,
individually; SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as Jurist/Judge in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, individually; JOHN DOES AND
JANE DOES, individually, and in his and her official capacity as
Executive Officer(s)/Clerk(s) of Court in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, individually; and DOES 1
through 200, inclusive.

The State Bar of California is California's official attorney
licensing agency. The State Bar is responsible for managing the
admission of lawyers to the practice of law.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


CAMERON ALF: Serrano Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA M. SERRANO v. CAMERON ALF CORP., ALEXIS ARTEAGA, and NERY A.
RODRIGUEZ, individually, Case No. 8:20-cv-01642-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
July 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
current and former similarly situated employees seeking to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum wages, half-time overtime pay, and
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours for the Defendants during one or more weeks on or after
September 2018, without being properly compensated.

Cameron is an assisted living facility that provides home
healthcare services to the elderly and infirm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Eicher Action over Grand Princess Cruise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a purported class
action suit initiated by Gregory Eicher.

On June 4, 2020, Gregory Eicher, a former guest from Grand Princess
filed a purported class action against Princess in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, seeking
compensation based on alleged severe emotional distress associated
with being exposed to COVID-19 onboard and/or alleged physical
injuries and severe emotional distress associated with contracting
COVID-19 onboard.

The action asserts claims for negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Grand Princes Guests' COVID-19 Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the company and subsidiary Princess Cruise Lines
Ltd. are defendants in a purported class action suit initiated by
former guests from the Grand Princess cruise ship.

On April 8, 2020, numerous former guests from Grand Princess filed
a purported class action against Carnival Corporation & plc and two
of its subsidiaries, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. ("Princess") and
Fairline Shipping International Corporation, Ltd. ("Fairline"),
seeking compensation based on alleged severe emotional distress
associated with being exposed to COVID-19 onboard, contracting
COVID-19 onboard, and/or contracting COVID-19 while onboard and
subsequently passing away as a result of COVID-19.

The complaint asserts claims for negligence and gross negligence.

This action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, however, on May 4, 2020, the
parties entered into a stipulation, which was approved by the court
on May 5, 2020, that the case be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California pursuant to the terms
of the plaintiffs' ticket contracts.

Following the transfer, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint on June 2, 2020 that named Carnival Corporation and
Carnival plc as defendants in place of Carnival Corporation & plc
and removed Fairline as a defendant, and also added claims for
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Defends Lindsay and Zehner Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by
Leonard C. Lindsay and Carl E.W. Zehner.

On June 24, 2020, Leonard C. Lindsay and Carl E.W. Zehner, former
guests from Zaandam filed a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle
against Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc, Holland America Line,
Inc., and Holland American Line – U.S.A., Inc. seeking
compensation based on alleged serious personal injury and emotional
distress, for those contracting COVID-19 and those claiming
exposure to COVID-19.

The action asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

This case also seeks injunctive relief in the form of certain
disclosures to passengers and medical monitoring.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Service Lamp & Elmensdorp Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the company is a defendant in purported class
action suits initiated by Service Lamp Corporation Profit Sharing
Plan and John P. Elmensdorp.

On May 27, 2020, Service Lamp Corporation Profit Sharing Plan filed
a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Carnival Corporation, Arnold
W. Donald and David Bernstein on behalf of all purchasers of
Carnival Corporation securities between January 28 and May 1, 2020.


On June 3, 2020, John P. Elmensdorp filed a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the same defendants, and adding Micky Arison as a
defendant.

This action is on behalf of all purchasers of Carnival Corporation
securities between September 26, 2019 and April 30, 2020.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to Carnival Corporation's
COVID-19 knowledge and response, and seek to recover unspecified
damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and
omissions.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Facing Turner's COVID-19 Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the company is a defendant from a purported class
action suit initiated by Paul Turner, a former guest from Costa
Luminosa.

On April 7, 2020, Paul Turner filed a purported class action
against Costa Crociere, S.p.A. ("Costa") and Costa Cruise Line,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida seeking compensation based on alleged severe emotional
distress associated with being exposed to COVID-19 onboard and/or
alleged physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated
with contracting COVID-19 onboard.

The action asserts claims for negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
misleading advertising in violation of Florida Statute Section
817.41, and negligent misrepresentation.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.

CARNIVAL CORP: Grand Princess Guests File Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the company is a defendant in a class action suit
initiated by former guests from the Grand Princess cruise ship.

On June 4, 2020, another group of former guests from Grand Princess
filed a purported class action against Carnival Corporation,
Carnival plc, and Princess in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, seeking compensation based on
alleged severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to
COVID-19 onboard, contracting COVID-19 onboard, and/or contracting
COVID-19 while onboard and subsequently passing away as a result of
COVID-19.

The action asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess Faces COVID-19 Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that Ruby Princess is a defendant from a purported
class action suit, initiated by its former guests.

On June 4, 2020, numerous former guests from Ruby Princess filed a
purported class action against  Princess in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, seeking compensation based
on alleged severe emotional distress associated with being exposed
to COVID-19 onboard and/or alleged physical injuries and severe
emotional distress associated with contracting COVID-19 onboard.

The action asserts claims for negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.


CATTARAUGUS CONTAINERS: Westfall Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Westfall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CATTARAUGUS CONTAINERS, INC. AND JAMES LEMKE,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a victim of the
Defendants' common unlawful policies, including maintaining a
company-wide impermissible rounding policy that only rounds down
time spent performing pre-shift work. As a result, there were many
weeks in which the Plaintiff and others did not receive
compensation calculated at time-and-a-half of their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid press
operator.

CATTARAUGUS CONTAINERS, INC. "manufactures corrugated and solid
fiber boxes."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          11 Town Square P1, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07210
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Cotchett Pitre Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of telescope consumers, Sigurd Murphy and Keith Uehara, in
the United States against the leading telescope suppliers,
Celestron Acquisition, LLC, Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical
Technology Co., Ltd., Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Olivon USA,
LLC, Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd., SW Technology
Corp., Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd., Synta
Technology Corp. of Taiwan (together, "Synta"), and Ningbo Sunny
Electronic Co. Ltd. ("Sunny") for engaging in a conspiracy to
unlawfully fix prices, allocate the market for products and
customers, and unlawful monopolistic conduct in the United States
for consumer telescopes. These telescope suppliers manufacture and
sell telescopes branded Celestron, Meade, Sky-Watcher, and Synta,
among others.

In November 2016, a California-based distributor and seller of
telescopes, Orion Technologies, Inc. ("Orion") filed a lawsuit
against Sunny and its affiliates, identifying their primary
competitor, Synta, for conspiring to "divide the market, fix
prices, [and] throttle competition" in violation of the Sherman,
Clayton, and California Cartwright Acts, as well as California's
unfair competition law. See Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny
Electronic Co., Ltd. et al., No. 5:16-cv-06370-EJD (N.D. Cal.)
("Orion Litigation"). Following a six-week jury trial, the jury
delivered a verdict in favor of Orion in December 2019, awarding
Orion $16.8 million in single damages, which was trebled to $50.4
million.

Plaintiffs Murphy and Uehara allege that as a direct result of the
anticompetitive and unlawful conduct revealed in the Orion
Litigation, consumers paid artificially inflated prices for
telescopes during the period from and including January 1, 2005
through August 31, 2019 ("Class Period") and have thereby suffered
antitrust injury.

According to Adam Zapala, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP, one of the attorneys for Sigurd Murphy, Keith Uehara, and the
consumer classes,

"Plaintiffs claim that telescope suppliers have illegally colluded
to divvy up the U.S. telescope market, buy out competitor Meade,
box out other competitors, and raise prices for consumers. Through
this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to recover the illegal overcharges
consumers paid for telescopes as a result of this long-running
conspiracy."

If you purchased a telescope for your own use and not for resale
during the period from and including January 1, 2005 through August
31, 2019, please contact us for more information.

               About Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

Based in the San Francisco Peninsula for over a half-century,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP--http://www.cpmlegal.com--engages
exclusively in litigation and trials. The firm's dedication to
prosecuting or defending socially just actions has earned it a
national reputation. With additional offices in Los Angeles and New
York, the core of CPM is its people and their dedication to
principles of law, their work ethic, and their commitment to
justice. [GN]


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Securities Suit over COVID-19 Test Kits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 7, 2020, that the
company is a defendant in four purported class action lawsuits
related to its DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System.

As of July 7, 2020, four purported class action lawsuits had been
filed by alleged stockholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, including: (1)
Sergey Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly,
and Gail S. Page, 20-cv-2706, filed on June 18, 2020, or Chernysh;
(2) James Gowen v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly,
and Gail S. Page, 2:20-cv-02758, filed on June 22, 2020, or Gowen;
and (3) Anthony Bailey v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Richard J.
Eberly, Gail S. Page, and Neil A. Goldman, 2:20-cv-02961, filed on
July 3, 2020, or Bailey.

The Chernysh, Gowen and Bailey complaints are brought by purported
individual stockholders of the company on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the company's publicly traded stock during
the alleged "class period" and purport to state claims for
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Chernysh and Bailey complaints define the "class period" as
April 1, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive, whereas the Gowen
complaint defines the "class period" as March 12, 2020, through
June 16, 2020, inclusive.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally purport to allege that
the defendants named therein misrepresented and failed to disclose
that the company's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System's accuracy, including that it
generates false results at a rate higher than expected and higher
than reflected in its authorized labeling and was not effective in
detecting antibodies against COVID‑19.

The Chernysh, Gowen, and Bailey complaints seek an award of damages
ostensibly sustained as a result of the company's alleged
wrongdoing in an amount to be proven at trial as well as an award
of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, including expert fees
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York.


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Facing Hayes Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 8, 2020, that the
company is facing a purported class action suit entitled, Ken Hayes
v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, Gail S. Page,
Katherine L. Davis, Mary Lake Polan, and John G. Potthoff,
1:20-cv-02918.

On July 1, 2020, the following purported class action lawsuit was
filed by an alleged stockholder of the company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Ken Hayes v.
Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, Gail S. Page,
Katherine L. Davis, Mary Lake Polan, and John G. Potthoff,
1:20-cv-02918.

The Hayes complaint purports to state claims for violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
declaratory relief, and state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, brought by plaintiff on behalf of himself and all of our
other public stockholders against the company and members of its
board of directors to remedy alleged misstatements of material
information in the proxy statement disseminated by the company in
advance of its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on July
28, 2020, which the company refers to as the Annual Meeting.

The Hayes plaintiff alleges that the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement
filed by the company on June 16, 2020 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the Proxy Statement, in which the comapny
is soliciting stockholder approval of, inter alia, a proposal to
change the company's state of incorporation from the State of
Nevada to the State of Delaware, which the company refers to as the
Reincorporation Proposal, contains four misrepresentations of
material fact: (1) the voting standard applicable to the
Reincorporation Proposal; (2) the treatment and effect of broker
non-votes on the Reincorporation Proposal; (3) the number of votes
needed to approve an amendment of the company's certificate of
incorporation under the Delaware General Corporation Law; and (4)
the company's prospective compliance with the Delaware General
Corporation Law as it relates to the vote required for the removal
of directors.

The Hayes plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Proxy Statement is
false and misleading and entry of an order enjoining the
stockholder vote on the Reincorporation Proposal until such time as
the Proxy Statement has been corrected as well as an order finding
the company's directors liable for breaching their fiduciary duties
and awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action,
including attorneys' and expert fees.

Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York.


CHRISTIE NY: Quizhpilema Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Quizhpilema, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. CHRISTIE NY SALON, INC. d/b/a CHRISTIE NAIL SALON, and
CHRISTIE DOE (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), Case No. 1:20-cv-05666 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 22, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum
wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was compensated at a fixed rate of eighty 80 and then
90 dollars per day, regardless of how many hours she worked,
according to the complaint. The Defendants compensated the
Plaintiff at a rate that was below the New York statutory minimum
wage of (i) $13.00 per hour for 2018, and (ii) $15.00 per hour for
2019, due to the Defendants' fixed salary compensation. The
Plaintiff says she is owed her unpaid wages, including overtime
compensation, for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week she
was employed by Defendants.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a nail
technician.

The Defendants have operated a nail salon under the trade name,
"CHRISTIE NAIL SALON" in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


CNA FINANCIAL: Kennard Suit Removed From Dist. Ct. to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KENNARD LAW, P.C., on behalf
of Itself and all others similarly situated v. CNA FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Case No. 202036565-7 (Filed June 18, 2020), was
removed from the Texas District Court, Harris County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on July
17, 2020.

The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-02534 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's original petition alleges that CNA's denial of
Plaintiff's claim for business interruption due to the coronavirus
pandemic was a breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
negligence, a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Consumer Protection Act, and a violation of Texas Insurance Code.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for itself and the putative class of
"no less than $1,000,000," as well as exemplary damages, treble
damages under the DTPA and Texas Insurance Code for knowing and/or
intentional conduct, attorneys' fees, costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

CNA is a financial corporation based in Chicago, Illinois, United
States. CNA's principal subsidiary, Continental Casualty Company,
was founded in 1897.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin T. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNARD LAW P.C.
          2603 August Drive, Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  kevin.kennedy@kennardlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David. H. Timmins Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
          1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 999-6185
          Facsimile: (214) 999-6170
          E-mail: david.timmins@huschblackwell.com


CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Failed to Obtain Dismissal of Beyers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM BEYERS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE
COMPANY, and LIBERTY MUTUAL AGENCY CORP, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01601-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denied the Motion to Dismiss as to Liberty
filed by the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Beyers initiated the action after he was unsatisfied with the
monetary amount his insurer offered to satisfy a claim under his
homeowner's insurance policy.  Liberty is an insurance provider
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts.  Consolidated, incorporated in Indiana but
also headquartered in Boston, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Liberty.  Consolidated is a mere instrumentality and alter ego of
Liberty.  

The two companies share common ownership of stock, common officers
and directors, a common marketing image, common use of the
trademark/logos and service marks, common use of employees, an
integrated sales system, and interchange of managerial and
supervisory personnel.  Consolidated and Liberty participate in an
insurance pooling arrangement by which premiums, losses, and
underwriting expenses are shared by pool participants.  Liberty
supervised, directed, and controlled Consolidated, including its
formulation of guidelines and policies for handling, adjustment,
and payment of claims.

Beyers was the holder of an insurance contract whereby Liberty
agreed to insure his home against property damage.  He incurred a
loss to the insured home due to hail damage on April 26, 2017, and
made a claim on his policy to recover for those damages.  Liberty
and Consolidated offered payment in an amount Beyers deemed to be
insufficient.  

Beyers has identified four categories of costs he alleges the
Defendants failed to account for in their damages estimate: (1)
overhead and profit, (2) removal costs, (3) starter strip, and (4)
cost of replacement shingles.  He seeks to certify four classes,
one each for Indiana-based Liberty policyholders who were not paid
one of these four costs on a claim in the last two years

On behalf of each of these four classes, Beyers alleges breach of
contract against Liberty and Consolidated.  He filed the original
Complaint on April 22, 2019, and asserted claims only against
Liberty.  However, his policy of insurance attached to the
Complaint states the policy was issued by Consolidated.  After the
counsel for Consolidated advised Beyers' counsel that "Liberty
Mutual Insurance" is a nonentity trade name and did not issue the
policy underlying Beyers' claims, Beyers moved to amend the
Complaint to add Consolidated and Liberty as Defendants.

Liberty Mutual Insurance, a Defendant in the original Complaint,
filed an opposition to Beyers' motion to amend arguing that leave
to file the proposed amended complaint should be denied because
Beyers failed to allege facts to support a plausible basis for
Liberty's liability.  Because of an upcoming deadline to respond to
the original Complaint, Liberty requested and the Court granted an
extension of time to respond of 14 days after the Court rules on
Beyers' Motion to Amend.

However, before the Court ruled on Beyers' Motion to Amend, Beyers
filed another motion, this one to withdraw his motion to amend, and
then simultaneously filed an Amended Complaint without waiting for
a decision on his motion to withdraw or motion to amend.  The Court
allowed Beyers' Motion to withdraw his motion to amend.  Liberty
filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Beyers' Amended Complaint.


On Feb. 27, 2020, after moving to amend again, Beyers filed a
Second Amended Complaint asserting the same basis for naming
Liberty as a party to the lawsuit.  In his Second Motion to Amend
Complaint, Beyers alleges, he has not made any material changes to
his Second Amended Complaint which would impact the Court's
analysis on the pending Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants
to dismiss claims against alleged Defendant, Liberty Mutual Agency
Corp.

In response, Liberty filed a second Motion to Dismiss, renewing the
arguments it had made in its first motion that, as Consolidated's
parent corporation, there is no legal basis to hold it liable on a
claim issued by Consolidated.  Beyers' First Amended Complaint and
Second Amended Complaint contain identical allegations related to
Liberty's status as Consolidated's parent, and Liberty's first and
second Motions to Dismiss contain identical arguments in
opposition.  Thus, the Court denies as moot Liberty's Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The Second Amended Complaint is the
operative complaint.  Thus, the Court considers Liberty's Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The issue before the Court is whether Beyers' Second Amended
Complaint alleges sufficient facts that would allow the Court, if
it ultimately ruled in Beyers' favor, to assess liability against
Liberty.  Because Beyers failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that the corporate form was ignored, and also that the misuse of
the corporate form sanctioned a fraud or caused harm to it, Liberty
argues that it cannot be held liable for the acts of its
subsidiary.  Beyers responds that his Second Amended Complaint
alleges that Liberty directly participated in Consolidated's
wrongdoing or that Consolidated is an instrumentality or alter ego
of Liberty, and those allegations are sufficient to for liability
against Liberty if Beyers ultimately succeeds on the merits.

The Defendants argue that Beyers "does not plead a single fact
asserting that Liberty's alleged use of Consolidated as its alter
ego resulted in fraud or caused him injustice."  Judge Pratt holds
that Beyers does not merely allege that Consolidated and Liberty
had an improper relationship; he alleges, in essence, that
Consolidated only existed on paper.  Consolidated used Liberty
employees and held itself out as Liberty by using Liberty's
branding on its policy.  The insurance policy itself has Liberty's
name and logo printed on every page and instructs the policyholder
to call a Liberty telephone number if he has questions about his
policy.  When Beyers filed his initial claim on the policy, a
Liberty employee conducted the property inspection.  When he
received an estimate on the claim, it was from someone with a
Liberty e-mail address.  Beyers alleges that Consolidated is a
corporate fiction -- all of its employees were Liberty employees,
all of its decisions were made by Liberty, and it held itself out
as Liberty by using Liberty branding and offices.  These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim that Consolidated was
the alter ego or the instrumentality of Liberty and that the scheme
resulted in fraud or injustice.

The Defendants' second argument to dismiss -- that Beyers'
allegations are conclusory and insufficient to show that the
corporate form was ignored or manipulated -- is also unpersuasive.
As the Judge said, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint
intertwine directly with several of the factors Indiana courts use
to determine whether to pierce the corporate veil.  Many of the
allegations are supported by the limited evidence in the record
already, namely, the insurance policy itself and the estimate
Liberty provided on Beyers' claim.  And to the extent the
allegations are unsupported, it is likely because discovery is
necessary to determine the true relationship between Consolidated
and Liberty.

For those reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint as to Liberty is denied, the Court orders.  The
Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Defendants
misused the corporate form and that the misuse resulted in the
damages claimed by Beyers and his proposed classes.

Liberty's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is denied as
moot.  The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint as to Liberty is denied.  Whether the claim against
Liberty can survive a summary judgment motion is a question for
another day.  For now, Beyers' breach of contract claim remains for
trial against both Consolidated and Liberty.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mLLG6W from Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY and CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02152-SKC (D. Colo., July 21, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, breach of contract, and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Business Income and
Extra Expense Coverage.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their insurance
policies with the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
entities by refusing to comply with their obligation to pay for
business income losses and covered expenses incurred by
policyholders as a result of the physical loss of their property.
The Plaintiff and Class members sustained business losses following
the closure of all hair salons in Colorado in compliance with the
government's stay-at-home orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
They also incurred extra expenses due to having to purchase
protective equipment upon re-opening. Those losses and expenses are
covered in the Defendants' policies. The insurance policies that
they purchased from the Defendants promise to indemnify them for
actual business losses incurred when business operations are
involuntarily suspended, interrupted, or curtailed because of
direct physical loss of or damage to the property. This coverage,
commonly known as business interruption or business income
coverage, is standard in most all-risk commercial property
insurance policies.

Holtzman Enterprises, Inc. is an operator of franchised Great Clips
hair salons in Colorado and Missouri, with a principal office at
8501 Turnpike Dr., Ste 103, Westminster, Colorado.

Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company incorporated
in Illinois with its principal place of business at 151 N. Franklin
Street, Chicago, Illinois.

CNA Financial Corporationis an insurance holding company
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business at
151 N. Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
         THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
         1641 Downing Street
         Denver, CO 80218
         Telephone: (303) 861-8800
         Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
         E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

                - and –

         Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
         Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
         1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 241-5799
         Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
         rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
         dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

                - and –

         Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
         Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
         Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
         THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
         555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 735-8100
         Facsimile: (314) 898-3078
         E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                 aj@bruninglegal.com
                 ryan@bruninglegal.com

                - and –

         Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
         ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
         6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA
         Telephone: (310) 844-9696
         Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
         E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Delmys Garcia, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00528 (M.D. Fla., July 23,
2020).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: yosef@cml.legal


CORPORATE COACHES: Walowitz Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cary Walowitz, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. CORPORATE COACHES, INC., a Florida Corporation,
LAURIE BARDER, individually, ANDREW BARDER, individually, Case No.
0:20-cv-61475-RKA (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid back wages and
gratuities, and additional equal amount as liquated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was only paid an hourly
wage for each job that he performed for the Defendants even though
they billed their clients a 20% driver gratuity on what was billed
for each and every job that the Plaintiff performed. The Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of one-half times his
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
work week.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly paid driver
on their behalf.

CC was a Florida profit corporation.

The Plaintiff of Hollywood, Florida, is appears pro se.[BN]


CREDIT PROTECTION: Teitelbaum Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Protection
Association, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Boruch Teitelbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Credit Protection Association, L.P., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-03321 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Credit Protection Association provides collections services that
span the entire delinquency cycle--from pre-disconnect payment
solicitation to third party write-off recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRST EXPEDITED: Smith Seeks Damages for Drivers Under ICFA & FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE SMITH, JEAN PAUL BRICAULT JR., and JOSE TORRES ROSADO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CRST
EXPEDITED, INC. and CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-11353-PBS (D. Mass., July 17, 2020), seeks to recover
damages for drivers, who have worked for the Defendants and have
suffered from unlawful practices.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have imposed an
unenforceable non-competition provision on drivers and have
enforced their non-competition provision against drivers in
contravention of the non-competition provision's own terms, in
violation of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that drivers have not been paid all wages
that they are owed and have had unlawful deductions taken from
their pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as truck drivers for the Defendants.

CRST operates the industry's largest fleet of team drivers.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com


CULVER CITY, CA: 9th Cir. Vacates District Ct. Ruling in Biberovic
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENAN BIBEROVIC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CULVER CITY, an
incorporated public municipality; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 19-55512 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing
Biberovic's complaint without leave to amend under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Biberovic was convicted in state court at a trial by declaration
and fined $490 under California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a) after
he turned right at a red light without first coming to a complete
stop behind the limit line.  He then filed a class action against
Culver City and its mayor under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
violation of the Eighth Amendment, alleging that he was at most
guilty of violating California Vehicle Code Section 21453(b), which
carries only a $290 fine, and that therefore his $490 fine was
excessive.

The Ninth Circuit holds that Biberovic's suit is subject to
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  In relevant part, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a federal district court from
exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de
facto appeal from a state court judgment, unless the judgment was
obtained through extrinsic fraud that prevented a party from
presenting his claims.

Biberovic does not contest that his suit is a de facto appeal from
a state court judgment, and he had a full opportunity to argue he
was not guilty of violating California Vehicle Code Section
21453(a) before the state court.  His suit is therefore barred
under Rooker-Feldman, the Court held.

The Ninth Circuit accordingly vacated the district court's
judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.  Costs will be taxed against
Biberovic.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 19, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/3e5nSS from Leagle.com.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Vecchione Sues Over Spoofing & Market Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Vecchione, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, and
JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 1:20-cv-04303 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2020),
is brought under the Commodities Exchange Act for losses suffered
when the Plaintiff purchased and/or sold Eurodollar futures
contracts or options on Eurodollar Futures contracts on domestic
exchanges at artificial prices that were the result of spoofing and
market manipulation by Deutsche Bank.

Spoofing, which Congress criminalized in 2010 as part of the Dodd
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is the
illegal trading strategy, where a trader creates artificial supply
and demand by placing large and small orders on opposite sides of
the market.

The central theory of this case is straightforward. In 2013,
unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank used an illegal trading
strategy called "spoofing"--entering orders to buy or sell
Eurodollar Futures though it never intended to execute those
orders--to fool everyone else and create an artificial appearance
of market demand and artificial prices, the Plaintiff alleges.

Although it has been publicly disclosed that Deutsche Bank agreed
to pay a penalty to settle claims related to spoofing Eurodollar
Futures and Treasury Futures, most details of their conduct remain
hidden from view, according to the complaint. Deutsche Bank's
illegal practices occurred on futures markets, where participants'
activities are shielded by anonymity in order to protect
proprietary trading strategies. Deutsche Bank also was aware that
their conduct was illegal and if exposed would subject them to
serious penalties. Accordingly, Deutsche Bank's misconduct was
concealed. Discovery is likely to yield additional facts to support
the Plaintiff's allegations.

Deutsche Bank's conduct caused actual damages to the Plaintiff in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Plaintiff seeks
damages caused by the Defendants' illegal spoofing and Defendants'
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Plaintiff Vecchione transacted in Eurodollar Futures during the
Class Period, including purchases and sales of Eurodollar Futures
on domestic exchanges.

Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company
headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Brian Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Phone: (224) 632-4500
          Fax: (224) 632-4521
          Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                 dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                 bhogan@fklmlaw.com


DREAMERS AND CREATORS: Promotes Illegal Lottery, Stoia Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giani Cosmin Stoia, and those similarly situated v. MIMI IKONN,
DREAMERS AND CREATORS LIMITED, Case No. CACE-20-011249 (Fla Cir.,
Broward Cty., July 12, 2020), seeks damages, declaratory judgment,
permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief from the Defendants for
organizing and promoting an illegal lottery, unjust enrichment,
fraud, and misrepresentation in violation of the Florida's Unfair
and Deceptive Practices Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Ms. Ikonn promoted this lottery on her
YouTube channel and listed the stores selling her book ("US Amazon"
being her first choice, followed by Canada and UK Amazon). The
"giveaway" was open internationally to anybody older than 18,
according to Ikonn, so Florida residents are invited to
participate. Plaintiff Stoia saw that Ikonn had a "giveaway" with
total prizes he valuated at over US$6,000.

In order to participate in this game of chance, the Plaintiff was
required to, and indeed purchased The Bingo Theory. She adds that
she was never contacted back with the results of the lottery and
she never received any prize. She alleges that the Defendants
engaged in deceptive and unfair acts in the conduct of their
commercial activity in Florida.

Ms. Stoia entered the lottery promoted by the Defendants in
Florida.

Defendant Mimi Ikonn is a citizen of Canada and the United Kingdom,
who resides in London, United Kingdom. Defendant Dreamers and
Creators is transacting business in Florida over the Internet and
actively soliciting business in Broward County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bogdan Enica, Esq.
          66 W Flagler St., Ste.900
          Miami, FL 33130
          E-mail: b.enica@fashio.law


DRIVESMART AUTO: Brown Sues in S.D. New York Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DriveSmart Auto Care
Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DriveSmart Auto Care
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05744 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

DriveSmart Auto Care Inc. is one of the Extended Warranty Contract
Service Companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01085-SCD (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff has a debt allegedly incurred from Second Round Sub, LLC
for personal, family, or household purposes.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a debt collection
letter from Defendant on or about April 8, 2020 which includes in
the payment remittance slip a symbol that is a trademark of ACA
International, a trade group in the U.S. that represents collection
agencies, creditors, debt buyers, collection attorneys, and debt
collection service providers. However, Defendant is not a member of
ACA because it can't be found in the Member Directory on ACA's
website. Thus, the collection letter from Defendant confused and
misled Plaintiff.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Tel: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          Emails: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


E.W. SCRIPPS: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The E.W. Scripps
Company. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
E.W. Scripps Company doing business as: Stitcher, Case No.
1:20-cv-03313-MKB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

The E. W. Scripps Company is an American broadcasting company
founded in 1878 as a chain of daily newspapers by Edward Willis "E.
W." Scripps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ECO SCIENCE: Consolidated Raschke Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2020, that the consolidated class
action suit initiated by Richard Raschke has been stayed.

On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company, Jeffrey and Don Taylor
(the Taylors), and Mr. Gannon Giguiere in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Class Action").


The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and
misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public
statements by or  on  behalf  of Company. The Class Action asserts
claims against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), violation of Section
20(a) of the Act against the Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of
Section 20(b) against Mr. Giguiere. The Class Action seeks (1)
certification of the purported class of plaintiffs, (2)
compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3) an award of
reasonable costs and expenses. Defendants have moved to stay this
action.  

By consent of the parties, the Court has agreed to suspend this
matter pending resolution of the consolidated derivative action in
Hawaii.

Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused
company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and
alternative medicine industry. Its services include business
location, localized communications between consumers and business
operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and
payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii.


EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Myrick Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOEROAM MYRICK, as an individual and as Representative on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON,
Jr., as Sheriff of Edgecombe county, COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE, and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL
(E.D.N.C., July 16, 2020) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act, and breach of contract in violation of Statutory Duty.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Deputy Sheriff.

According to the complaint, Defendants regularly required Plaintiff
and the Collective Class to work 13 28-day pay periods a year but
only compensated them for 12 28-day pay periods. As a result,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 171 hours in their 28-day
tours of duty.

Cleveland Atkinson Jr. is a Sheriff of Edgecombe County and the
elected chief executive and administrative officer of the Edgecombe
County Sheriff's office.

Edgecombe County is an independent governmental subdivision of the
State of North Carolina, which provides services to the people
within the geographic bounds of the County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Alvin L. Pittman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN
          5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 1685
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Tel: (310) 337-3077
          Fax: (310) 337-3080
          Email: office@apittman-law.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 18, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Endo International plc
("Endo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ENDP) securities between August
8, 2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Endo 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/endo-international-plc/. 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 10, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services
("DFS") announced that it "has filed charges and initiated
administrative proceedings against Endo International plc" and
certain of its subsidiaries in connection with "DFS' ongoing
investigation into the entities that created and perpetuated the
opioid crisis." According to the DFS press release, "Endo . . .
[k]nowingly furthered a false narrative to legitimize opioids as
appropriate for broad treatment of pain by downplaying their
long-known addictive nature and risks"; "[m]isrepresented the
safety and efficacy of opioids, without legitimate scientific
substantiation"; and "[d]eployed a large sales force to target
healthcare providers directly with these misrepresentations."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.66, or nearly 15%,
to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

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.

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

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


ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces Visser Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK VISSER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENERGY RECOVERY, INC. and JOSHUA BALLARD, JOEL GAY,
CHRIS M. GANNON, AND ROBERT YU LANG MAO, Case No. 1:20-cv-05647
(S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired common shares of Energy Recovery stock
between August 2, 2017, and June 29, 2020, both dates inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and financial
health, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different
strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq.

In December 2014, Energy Recovery announced the launch of VorTeq
hydraulic pumping system, which was designed to increase runtime
and reduce maintenance costs associated with pump failures. On
October 19, 2015, the Company announced that it has signed a
fifteen-year deal with Schlumberger Technology Corp., which gave
Schlumberger the exclusive right to the use of the Company's VorTeq
technology. The Plaintiff contends that the Schlumberger Licensing
Agreement represented one of two critical business relationships,
on which the Company solely depended in achieving the
commercialization of its leading VorTeq technology and securing a
stream of revenue. In fact, license revenue from VorTeq was
projected to reach $12 to $14 million in 2020, and thus,
represented a significant portion of the Company's total revenues.

On June 29, 2020--not even five years into the Schlumberger License
Agreement--the Company issued a press release, announcing the
termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger, citing to
"different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq
commercialization." This news caused a precipitous decline in the
price of Energy Recovery shares, which fell 15.8%, to close at
$7.59 on June 30, 2020, on unusually high trading volume.

The Plaintiff acquired Energy Recovery shares during the Class
Period and was damaged by the alleged federal securities law
violations.

Energy Recovery develops and manufactures technologies utilized in
the water desalination industry. The Individual Defendants are
officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914 997-0500
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  afarah@lowey.com


ENPHASE ENERGY: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-enph/

ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pra/

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

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

                            About KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


EVEREADY BODY: Faces Torres Wage and Hour Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVEREADY BODY SHOP SUPPLIES INC., ANTHONY CUZZANITI and
MICHELLE CUZZANITI, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-03284
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020), seeks to recover damages for egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.

Although the Plaintiff worked for 45 hours or more per week during
his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him
time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of
the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker,
stocker, and cleaner.

EVEREADY BODY SHOP SUPPLIES INC. is a corporation organized under
the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in
Mineola, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591


EXECUPHARM INC: Clemens Sues in E.D. Pa. Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Execupharm Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Jennifer Clemens, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Execupharm Inc. and
Parexel International Corp., Case No. 2:20-cv-03383-GJP (E.D. Pa.,
July 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert.

The lawsuit asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of
contract.

ExecuPharm, a Paraxel Company, is a Global Functional Service
Division of the Contract Research Organization, who provides
clinical research support services for the pharmaceutical industry
utilizing flexible business models.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          161 Washington St., Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com


EXXON MOBIL: D.C. Suit Removed From Superior Court to D.D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 441 4th
St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., 5959 Las
Colinas Blvd., Irving, TX 75039; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 5959
Las Colinas Blvd., Irving, TX 75039; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, Carvel
van Bylandtlaan 16, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands; SHELL OIL
COMPANY, 150 N. Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77079; BP P.L.C., 1 St.
James's Square, London SW1Y4PD; BP AMERICA INC., 501 Westlake Park
Blvd., Houston, TX 77079; CHEVRON CORPORATION, 6001 Bollinger
Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., 6001 Bollinger
Canyon Rd., San Ramon, CA 94583, Case No. 2020-CA-002892B (Filed
June 25, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on July 17, 2020.

The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01932 to the proceeding.

The Attorney General brought this action to limit and ultimately
end the Defendants' production of fossil fuels because of their
connection to climate change. The origins of this lawsuit
demonstrate the intent to regulate worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions--a task assigned exclusively to the federal government in
constitutional system.

In early 2016, a coalition of state attorneys general, including
the Attorney General, entered into a "Climate Change Coalition
Common Interest Agreement" in furtherance of their shared interest
in "limiting climate change" and "ensuring the dissemination of
accurate information about climate change."

ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil is the largest direct
descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and was formed on
November 30, 1999, by the merger of Exxon and Mobil.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel J. Toal, Esq.
          Justin Anderson, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
          E-mail: twells@paulweiss.com
                  dtoal@paulweiss.com
                  janderson@paulweiss.com


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated SDNY Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged
misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC
and other public statements during the period from September 19,
2017 to December 18, 2018.

FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability
of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this
stage of the litigation."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

FedEx Corporation (FedEx) provides a portfolio of transportation,
e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The
Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the
world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American
provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx
Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of
less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services. The company is based
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FEDEX CORP: Overpeck Files Further Amended Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HERMAN OVERPECK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07553-PJH (N.D.
Cal.), a further amended complaint has been filed to name contract
service providers (CSPs) as defendants.

A copy of the Further Amended Complaint dated May 26, 2020 is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y42wtmj4 from PacerMonitor.com.

The further amended filing was made possible as the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California entered a ruling on
Plaintiffs Overpeck, Kevin Sterling, and Shannon Sobaszkiewicz's
motion to amend complaint in a May 19, 2020 Order available at
https://is.gd/GdFAmK from Leagle.com.  The Court granted in part
and denied in part the Motion to Amend.

The original complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Overpeck and
Sterling against FedEx Corp. ("FedEx") and FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. on Dec. 14, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint on Jan. 29, 2020, which added Sobaszkiewicz, and alleged
twelve causes of action: (1) Common Law Fraudulent
Misrepresentation; (2) Common Law Conversion; (3) Failure to Pay
for All Hours Worked; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5)
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
(7) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (8) Failure to Keep
Accurate Payroll Records, Cal. Labor Code §§ 1174-74.5; (9)
Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; (10) Waiting Time
Penalties; (11) Unfair Competition and Unlawful Business Practices;
and (12) Private Attorneys General Act violations.

Defendant FedEx Ground, a subsidiary of FedEx, operates a network
of package handling terminals and freight transportation hubs.  The
Plaintiffs are current or former long-haul and local delivery
drivers who provided transportation and delivery services to FedEx
Ground in California.  They allege that previously FedEx Ground's
labor force was made up of individual drivers that FedEx Ground
hired directly and labeled as independent contractors.

At some point, FedEx Ground pivoted to a so-called "Contract
Service Provider" ("CSP") model whereby a CSP entity employs the
drivers but then the drivers provide transportation and delivery
services on behalf of FedEx Ground pursuant to service agreements
between the CSPs and FedEx Ground.  The essence of the Plaintiffs'
claim is that they are actually FedEx (or FedEx Ground) employees
despite being employed by the CSPs, i.e., that the Defendants are
joint employers along with the CSPs.  In their FAC, the Plaintiffs
did not sue any CSP - only FedEx Ground and FedEx.

According to the FAC, FedEx and FedEx Ground treat the drivers as
if they were the Defendants' employees.  They do so by requiring
drivers to report to work at FedEx hubs or terminals; requiring
drivers to use specific equipment and have such equipment on their
vehicles; requiring drivers to wear FedEx uniforms and use the
FedEx logo on drivers' vehicles; supervising drivers' routes and
any customer complaints.  The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of
"subterfuge" by using intermediary CSPs to distance themselves from
the obligations of an employer under the California Labor Code.
Thus, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for
various Labor Code violations.

FedEx Ground previously moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
19 to join the CSPs that employed the Plaintiffs as necessary
parties to the litigation.  On April 1, 2020, the court issued an
order in which it found that the CSPs were required parties and
that joinder of these parties was feasible.  It ordered the
Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the
date of the order and to serve the CSPs within 21 days of the newly
filed second amended complaint.

Rather than filing a second amended complaint ("SAC"), the
Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Amend in which they attach a
proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that would dismiss several
claims against the Defendants and add new factual allegations that
would tend to establish the Defendants' direct (rather than
vicarious) liability.  As relevant to the Court's prior order on
the Rule 19 motion, the Plaintiffs also seek to clarify whether the
Court's prior order applies only to the FAC or to the proposed
SAC.

The Plaintiffs attach a proposed SAC to their motion in which they
propose two broad categories of changes from their FAC.  First,
they would voluntarily dismiss five causes of action: the third
cause of action for failure to pay for all hours worked; the sixth
cause of action for failure to pay minimum wages; the seventh cause
of action for failure to pay overtime compensation; the eighth
cause of action for failure to keep accurate payroll records; and
the tenth cause of action for waiting time penaltie.

Second, the Plaintiffs propose to add factual allegations and
refine existing allegations to clarify that FedEx is directly
responsible (rather than vicariously liable or liable through an
agency theory) for the injuries for which the Plaintiffs seek
relief.  The Plaintiffs assert that they are not alleging that the
CSPs have caused the violations of California law; rather, the
Plaintiffs analogize the CSPs to hiring recruiters and middle
managers of FedEx.  According to the Plaintiffs, it is FedEx's
policies and edicts that control the hours and working conditions
of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class members.  Further, FedEx
decided to exclude the Plaintiffs and the class members from the
FedEx employer-sponsored benefit plans.  As a result of these
proposed new allegations, the Plaintiffs' proposed SAC would not
name the CSPs as Defendants.

California District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton found that the
Plaintiffs meet the Rule 15 standard for amending their complaint.
The Defendants have not met their burden to deny leave to amend.
The Defendants have not demonstrated how the previously conducted
discovery and litigation is now inapplicable to the proposed SAC.
The Plaintiffs propose to eliminate several causes of action but
have not added any new causes of action.  Additionally, the
Defendants have not established that the Plaintiffs' proposed
amendments are clearly futile.  The Defendants have not argued bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the Plaintiffs.  To the
extent that the Plaintiffs seek to sidestep the Court's prior order
on FedEx Ground's Rule 19 motion, those issues are also addressed.

The Judge also found that the Plaintiffs' proposed SAC does not
alter the Court's analysis in its prior order.  The CSPs were and
remain necessary parties to the litigation.  The Plaintiffs'
proposed SAC does not fundamentally alter the nature of the
arrangement between the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the CSPs.
The Defendants and the CSPs enter into contractual arrangements to
which plaintiffs and putative class members are not a party; the
CSPs and the drivers have some sort of employment relationship; and
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are also employing the
drivers.  The Plaintiffs' additional factual allegations speak to
the magnitude and degree of the Defendants' relationship with the
Plaintiffs but do not alter the separate corporate existence of the
CSPs, their contractual arrangements with the Defendants, or their
relationship with the Plaintiffs.

Finally, the Judge found that a joint employer who satisfies its
duty under Labor Code Section 226.7 is not vicariously liable for
the breaches of a joint employer.  As the Court reasoned in its
previous order, if FedEx Ground (and FedEx) were to demonstrate
either at a dispositive motion or at trial that it fulfilled its
obligations under the Labor Code but the CSPs did not, then the
Court would not be able to accord complete relief between the
parties.  The additional allegations in the SAC do not change the
Court's analysis in its prior order.  Because the Plaintiffs
continue to bring a cause of action under section 226.7, the CSPs
remain necessary parties.


FISKARS BRAND: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiskars Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fiskars Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05712 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Fiskars Brands, Inc., manufactures and markets consumer and
commercial products. The Company offers products in a wide range of
categories, including housewares, outdoor recreation and garden
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FLINT, MI: Dismissal Bid Denial in Flint Water Suits Partly Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the
district court's denial of the motions to dismiss with respect to
every Defendant-Appellant except Treasurer Andy Dillon in the
litigation concerning the Flint water crisis in Michigan.

The appellate cases are IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LUKE WAID, Parent
and Next-Friend of SR, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs, ELNORA CARTHAN
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DARNELL EARLEY, GERALD AMBROSE,
HOWARD CROFT, MICHAEL GLASGOW, DAUGHERTY JOHNSON, and CITY OF
FLINT, MICHIGAN (19-1425); RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former Governor of
Michigan, ANDY DILLON, former Treasurer of Michigan, and GRETCHEN
WHITMER, present Governor of Michigan (19-1472); LIANE
SHEKTER-SMITH, STEPHEN BUSCH, PATRICK COOK, MICHAEL PRYSBY, AND
BRADLEY WURFEL (19-1477); and ADAM ROSENTHAL (19-1533),
Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 19-1425, 19-1472, 19-1477, 19-1533
(6th Cir.)

The case revolves around the Flint Water Crisis.  From 2014 to
2015, City of Flint and Michigan State officials caused, sustained,
and covered up the poisoning of an entire community with lead- and
legionella-contaminated water.  The crisis started in April 2014
when the City began delivering Flint River water to its
predominantly poor and African-American residents, knowing that it
was not treated for corrosion.  In a matter of weeks, Flint
residents reported that there was something wrong with the way the
water looked, tasted, and smelled, and that it was causing rashes.

In response, the City treated the water with additional chlorine --
exacerbating the corrosion in the old water lines.  The corrosion
contaminated the water with hazardous levels of lead and caused an
outbreak of Legionnaires' disease.  State and City officials failed
to stop the delivery of Flint River water and obstinately assured
the public that the water was safe, when they knew it was not. Now,
Flint residents can expect to see their children permanently
developmentally stunted.  It has been six years since the start of
the crisis and corroded pipes still infect the water and poison the
people of Flint.  The question before the Court is whether these
Defendants-Appellants allegedly responsible for the crisis are
immune from suit.

The complaint alleges constitutional violations that occurred
during two relevant periods: (1) the period leading up to the April
2014 switch to the Flint River, during which the Defendants were
callously indifferent to the facts showing that the water would be
dangerous; and (2) the 18-month period from April 2014 to October
2015, during which the Defendants were callously indifferent to the
mounting evidence that the water was actually causing serious harm,
including death.

The appeal arises out of the consolidated class action, In re Flint
Water Cases litigation.  It follows from the denial of motions to
dismiss certain Defendants based on qualified and absolute
immunity.  The Plaintiffs-Appellees are individuals affected by the
Flint Water Crisis.  The Defendants-Appellants are City and State
officials and the City of Flint.  The Plaintiffs-Appellees claim
that City and State officials' deliberate indifference to their
being poisoned violated their substantive due process right to
bodily integrity, a constitutional claim the Court has already
recognized in Guertin v. Michigan.  Acknowledging that Guertin
controls, the Defendants-Appellants contend that their alleged
individual conduct does not plausibly amount to a constitutional
violation. Or, in the case of the City of Flint and Governor
Whitmer, that the Eleventh Amendment requires their dismissal from
the action -- an argument the Court rejected in prior appeals.

The Defendants-Appellants are City and State officials, sued in
their individual capacities; the City of Flint; and Governor
Whitmer, sued in her official capacity.  The Defendants-Appellants
argue that they are immune from suit and that the district court
should have granted their Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Section 1983 bodily-integrity claim.  Given
the procedural posture, the Sixth Circuit construes the complaint
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and draw all reasonable
inferences in tehe Plaintiffs' favor.  At the same time, the
Plaintiffs' factual allegations must state a plausible claim.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the
motions to dismiss with respect to every Defendant-Appellant except
Treasurer Dillon, finding that the Plaintiffs-Appellees have
plausibly alleged that the Defendants-Appellants violated their
right to bodily integrity. Dillon was Treasurer for the State of
Michigan when the City was in the process of switching to Flint
River water.  Dillon was asked to assess the cost effectiveness of
staying with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) or
switching to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA).  He ultimately
recommended to Snyder that the Governor authorize the City to
switch to the KWA, after Dillon learned that the City could fund
the switch with an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) that would
require use of Flint River water in the interim.  Dillon was part
of the core team that developed the interim Flint River plan, and
he knew that the old Flint Water Treatment Plant (FWTP) would need
to undergo significant upgrades before it could treat the water
properly.  In spite of what he knew, the Treasury pressed the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to secure the
ACO quickly, so that the switch to the Flint River would take place
before the FWTP was ready.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees ask that the Sixth Circuit remand for the
district court to decide whether to dismiss Dillon from the case.
The Defendants-Appellants do not protest that request.  After the
Court accepted the appeal, the district court dismissed Dillon as a
defendant in a separate Flint Water Crisis case, Brown v. Snyder
(In re Flint Water Cases), No. 18-cv-10726.  The district court
recently discovered that Dillon was not Treasurer at the time of
the actual switch to Flint River water in April 2014.  In light of
that, the district court found that Dillon did not have authority
over the switch and, therefore, that he cannot be found liable.
Without passing judgment on that decision, the Sixth Circuit sees
no issue with the Plaintiffs-Appellees' request that it remands for
the district court to decide in the first instance whether to
dismiss Dillon in light of that fact.

The Sixth Circuit remanded to the district court to decide whether
Dillon should be dismissed in light of its decision in Brown.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's May 22, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/s8CiJ4 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: William Y. Kim, CITY OF FLINT LAW DEPARTMENT, Flint,
Michigan, for Appellant City of Flint, and Christopher J. Marker --
cmarker@owdpc.com -- O'NEIL, WALLACE & DOYLE, P.C., Saginaw,
Michigan, for Appellant Glasgow in 19-1425. Margaret A.
Bettenhausen, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing,
Michigan for Appellants in 19-1472. Charles E. Barbieri --
CBarbieri@fosterswift.com -- FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C.,
Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 19-1477. James A. Fajen, FAJEN
AND MILLER, PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant in 19-1533.
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: William Y. Kim, CITY OF FLINT LAW DEPARTMENT, Flint,
Michigan, Frederick A. Berg, Jr. -- berg@butzel.com -- BUTZEL LONG,
P.C., Detroit, Michigan, Sheldon H. Klein -- klein@butzel.com --
Joseph E. Richotte, BUTZEL LONG, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,
Christopher J. Marker, O'NEIL, WALLACE & DOYLE, P.C., Saginaw,
Michigan, Todd R. Perkins, THE PERKINS LAW GROUP PLLC, Detroit,
Michigan, Alexander S. Rusek, WHITE LAW, PLLC, Okemos, Michigan,
Barry A. Wolf, Flint, Michigan, Edwar A. Zeineh, LAW OFFICE OF
EDWAR A. ZEINEH, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 19-1425.
Margaret A. Bettenhausen, Richard S. Kuhl, Nathan A. Gambill,
Zachary C. Larsen, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Lansing, Michigan for Appellants in 19-1472. Charles E. Barbieri,
FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, Michael J.
Pattwell, Jay M. Berger, CLARK HILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan,
Thaddeus E. Morgan, FRASER, TREBILCOCK, DAVIS & DUNLAP, Lansing,
Michigan, Philip A. Grashoff, Jr., SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants in 19-1477. James A. Fajen,
FAJEN AND MILLER, PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, James W. Burdick,
BURDICK LAW, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant in
19-1533. Samuel R. Bagenstos, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellees.


FORESCOUT TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Forescout class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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) Forescout was experiencing a significant and
disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
its business and operations 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 10,
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-1875.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company.  Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources.
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]


GEISINGER HEALTH: Freitas ERISA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LORI FREITAS and KAYLEE
MCWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEISINGER HEALTH PLAN and SOCRATES, INC., Case No.
20-0556, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Lycoming County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania on July 17, 2020.

The Middle District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01236-MWB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were involved in injury-causing
events and received benefits under health insurance policies issued
by the Geisinger Health Plan. They further allege that the
Geisinger Health Plan--through its agent, Socrates, Inc., which
specializes in healthcare subrogation services--sought
"reimbursement" under the Geisinger Health Plan from the
Plaintiffs' respective proceeds of the tort claims.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and others, who are purportedly similarly situated,
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to
recover benefits due under an employees benefit plan and to recover
costs, attorneys' fees and relief as provided under ERISA.

The Plaintiffs were enrolled in the Geisinger Health Plan as
subscribers by virtue of being members of their respective employer
groups, which agreed to remit premiums for coverage payable to the
plan.

The Geisinger Health Plan is a non-for-profit corporation that
operates a provider network of primary/specialty care physicians,
hospitals, and urgent/convenient care locations and serves nearly
600,000 members in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KANNEBECKER & MINCER, LLC
          104 West High Street
          Milford, PA 18337
          E-mail: kannebecker@wskllawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adrian Zareba, Esq.
          Thomas G. Collins, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          409 North Second Street, Suite 500
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1357
          Phone: (717) 237-4800
          E-mail: thomas.collins@bipc.com
                  adrian.zareba@bipc.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Woodruff Root, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          501 Grant Street, Suite 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-4413
          Telephone: (412) 562-8800
          E-mail: gretchen.root@bipc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Lupis Product Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alfred Lupis, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. General Motors LLC, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11582, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on July 23, 2020.

The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-11972-MAG-RSW to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Fax: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                 Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Livia Kiser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 764-6911
          Fax: (312) 995-6330
          Email: lkiser@kslaw.com


GEO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 20 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.

CTMX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1
GEO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1
JCOM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CTMX)

CTMX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 17, 2018 -
May 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CytomX
Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX had
downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the
PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly
downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in
the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE:GEO)

GEO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 27, 2020
- June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The GEO
Group, Inc. made materially 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.

J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:JCOM)

JCOM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 5, 2015
- June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8060&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, J2
Global, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent
members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were
not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or 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--isa 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]


GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Remins of September 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)
between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for GEO investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the GEO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.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) GEO maintained ineffective COVID-19 response procedures;
(2) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the
Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3)
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. 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-1894.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. 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]


HAPPY STREET: Faces Ramos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
EDMUNDO RAMOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. HAPPY STREET LLC, d/b/a LUIGI’S
PIZZA d/b/a PIE PIE PIZZA, HAPPY STREET TOO LLC, d/b/a LUIGI'S
PIZZA d/b/a PIE PIE PIZZA, and SLOBODAN RADIVOJEVIC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05633 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff to recover from Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime,
unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a pizza cook from in
or around August 2014 to November 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs have been and are similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have
been and are subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules-all
of which have culminated in a willful failure and refusal to pay
Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs their proper (i) minimum
wage compensation and (ii) overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of forty (40) each week. The claims of Plaintiff
as stated herein are essentially the same as those of other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs.

Happy Street LLC and Happy Street Too LLC are pizza restaurants
located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd.
(NASDAQ: HEBT) between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Hebron investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Hebron class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1868.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:
(1) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and
Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related
parties; (2) Hebron's disclosure controls regarding related party
transactions were ineffective; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Hebron'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 10,
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-1868.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


HOMECLICK LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeclick LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Homeclick LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05720
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

HomeClick is an online retailer of home improvement products based
in Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Household Essentials,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Household Essentials, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05721 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Household Essentials, LLC, was founded in 2010. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of home furnishings
and housewares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13,
2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., is still pending.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda,
Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants.

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi,
(collectively, the "Class Action Defendants"), thereby removing
Prins and Shenoy as defendants.

The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading
statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press
release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink
Space" and related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had
"executed a distribution and partnership agreement" for the
sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related
public statements. The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly
disclosed the amount of damages they seek.

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.

On October 11, 2019, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated shareholder class action litigation on a
number of grounds, including that the Class Action Defendants did
not make any false or misleading statements or any materially false
or misleading statements to the public; the Class Action Defendants
did not act with any intent to deceive the public, nor did they
recklessly do so; and that the Class Action Defendants' alleged
conduct did not cause any loss allegedly suffered by the class
action plaintiffs.

The motion to dismiss remains pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Company
anticipates that a decision is likely to be issued during calendar
2020, although it can provide no assurances of the same.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


INSIGHT SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Gaston Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN GASTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHT SERVICE GROUP, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61434-RAR
(S.D. Fla., July 16, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful
payroll practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Field Investigator from 2017
through July 1, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff performed off-the-clock work
for Defendant in one or more workweeks. However, Defendant did not
compensate Plaintiff at the applicable federal minimum wage rate
for all hours of work he performed. Allegedly, Defendant
implemented a company-wide policy that restricted its employees to
input their hours spent performing work.

Insight Service Group, Inc. is a national full-service insurance
claim management company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Tel: (954) 889-3359
          Emails: jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

                - and –

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Melissa Scott, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
            JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 871-0050
          Emails: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com



INVESTORS BANCORP: Board Appeals Order in Elburn Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Robert C. Albanese, et al., filed an appeal from a
court's memorandum opinion and order entered in the lawsuit
entitled ROBERT ELBURN, derivatively on behalf of INVESTORS
BANCORP, INC., and individually and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC.,
Plaintiff v. ROBERT C. ALBANESE, DENNIS M. BONE, DOREEN R. BYRNES,
DOMENICK A. CAMA, PETER H. CARLIN, WILLIAM V. COSGROVE, KEVIN
CUMMINGS, JAMES J. GARIBALDI, MICHELE N. SIEKERKA, PAUL N.
STATHOULOPOULOS and JAMES H. WARD III, Defendants, and INVESTORS
BANCORP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2019-0774-JRS, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14,
2020, Judge Joseph R. Slights, III of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware denied (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts I and
II of the Complaint, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Count III of the Complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as ROBERT C. ALBANESE, DENNIS M.
BONE, DOREEN R. BYRNES, DOMENICK A. CAMA, PETER H. CARLIN, WILLIAM
V. COSGROVE, KEVIN CUMMINGS, JAMES J. GARIBALDI, MICHELE N.
SIEKERKA, PAUL N. STATHOULOPOULOS, and JAMES H. WARD III,
Defendants Below, Appellants v. ROBERT ELBURN, derivatively on
behalf of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC. and individually and on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of INVESTORS
BANCORP, INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellee, Case No. 240,2020, in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Elburn is represented by:

          David A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
          SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          1000 North West Street, Suite 1501
          P.O. Box 410
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          E-mail: daj@skjlaw.com
                  ncb@skjlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Robert C. Albanese, Dennis M. Bone, Doreen R.
Byrnes, Domenick A. Cama, Peter H. Carlin, William V. Cosgrove,
Kevin Cummings, James J. Garibaldi, Michele N. Siekerka, Paul N.
Stathoulopoulos, and James H. Ward III are represented by:
          Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq.
          Megan Ward Cascio, Esq.
          Zi-Xiang Shen, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 N. Market Street
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
          Telephone: (302) 658-9200
          E-mail: knachbar@mnat.com
                  mcascio@mnat.com
                  zshen@mnat.com

Nominal Defendant Investors Bancorp, Inc. is represented by:

          Susan M. Hannigan, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          E-mail: hannigan@rlf.com


ISBAZ CORP: Schulke Seeks to Recover Owed & Misappropriated Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Schulke, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ISBAZ CORP., d/b/a CLUB PRIME TIME SPORTS BAR AND
GRILL, FREDERICK GERARD ROBERTS d/b/a PRIMETIME G5, Case No.
4:20-cv-02571 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to seek minimum wages, misappropriated
funds--house fees, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff is a previously employed exotic dancer at the
Defendants' adult entertainment club.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Texas under
the name of "Primetime G5."

According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to compensate
the Plaintiff and other dancers whatsoever for any hours worked.
The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons. The Defendants took money from the Plaintiff in the form
of "house fees." The Plaintiff was also required to divide tips
with the Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily
receive tips. The Defendants purposefully misclassify dancers,
including the Plaintiff, as independent contractors so that they do
not have to compensate them at the federally mandated minimum wage
rate or provide overtime compensation.

The Defendants' practice of failing to pay employees' wages
violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, and the Defendants'
practice of charging house fees and dividing tips also violates
Federal Law because for at least one workweek in the relevant
statutory period, these practices caused the Plaintiff to be paid
below the minimum wage, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com


J. FLETCHER CREAMER: Hewitt FMLA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HEWITT v. J. FLETCHER
CREAMER & SON, INC. And JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.
MON-L-1608-20 (Filed June 15, 2020), was removed from the New
Jersey Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on July 17, 2020.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-09038 to the proceeding.

In the State Court Action, the Plaintiff alleges violation of
Family and Medical Leave Act.

J. Fletcher Creamer is an infrastructure contractor serving
businesses, government agencies & utility companies.[BN]

Defendant J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc., is represented by:

          Richard M. DeAgazio, Esq.
          Tyler A. Sims, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          One Newark Center, 8th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: 973 848 4700


JOLO INC: Violates Dancers' Gratuity Retention Rights, Saad Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Saad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
individuals v. JOLO INC. D/B/A HURRICANE BETTY'S and MYLES O'GRADY,
Case No. 4:20-cv-11377-TSH (D. Mass., July 22, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' violation of the wage payment and wage/gratuity
retention rights of the Plaintiff in direct violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, and the
Massachusetts Tops Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants attempted to utilize the
Federal ad Massachusetts "tip credit" method of compensation to pay
the Plaintiff. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff by payroll that
reflected payment of direct wages to the Plaintiff at the hourly
rate of $4.35 per hour. The Defendants charged the Plaintiff
mandatory house fee kickback of $30-$60 that the Plaintiff was
required to pay to per shift. As a direct result of the kickback
fees the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants each shift, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff an hourly rate less at least
equal to the minimum permissible FLSA and Massachusetts "tip
credit" minimum wage rate.

The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer for the Defendants at
their Hurricane Betty's Gentlemen's Club.

The Defendants operates as Hurricane Betty's, a strip club
operating in Worcester, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
          FORMISANO & CO., P.C.
          100 Midway Place, Suite 1
          Cranston, RI 02920-5707
          Phone: (401) 944-9691
          Email: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com

               - and –

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: 301-587-9373
          Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


KRG KINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, McDonnell Claims
------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE McDONNELL, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. KRG KINGS LLC and KELLY OPERATIONS GROUP,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01060-WSS (W.D. Pa., July 16,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server at Defendants' the
New Kensington Restaurant from approximately 1991 until September
2019.

According to the complaint, Defendants required Plaintiff and other
servers to perform non-tip-producing work in which they spent at
least 30% of their working hours.

The complaint asserts that Defendants utilized a "tip credit" to
pay Plaintiff and other servers for time associated with
non-tip-generating tasks in violation of the FLSA & the PMWA.
Thereby, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other servers the
full minimum wage for all hours they spend performing non-tipped
tasks.

KRG Kings LLC and Kelly Operations Group, LLC own and operate the
Kings Family Restaurant located at 2400 Leechburg Road, New
Kensington, PA 15068. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491
          Fax: (215) 884-2492
          Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
          Website: https://winebrakelaw.com/contact-us/


KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Gomes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020 that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Brandy Gomes.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee Brandy Gomes in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

The Company was served with this complaint on June 28, 2019. The
Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible
losses associated with this proceeding.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a fast-growing, technology-enabled Japanese
restaurant concept that provides guests with a distinctive dining
experience by serving authentic Japanese cuisine through an
engaging revolving sushi service model, which the company refers to
as the "Kura Experience". The company is based in Irvine,
California.

KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss May Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class
action suit entitled, May v. KushCo Holdings, Inc., et al., filed
April 30, 2019, Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, is still pending.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between July 13, 2017 and April 9, 2019,
inclusive.

In September 2019, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs’ amended
complaint was filed in November 2019.

In February 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The motion is pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.


LIFE PROTECT: Vousoghian Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Vousoghian, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated v. LIFE PROTECT 24/7, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:20-cv-00382 (E.D. Va., July 22, 2020), is brought to stop the
Defendants' practice of making phone calls to cellular telephones
using an automated telephone dialing system, pre-recorded or
artificial voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

The Plaintiff has not consented to the receipt of any calls from
the Defendants, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff has not
provided her cell phone number to the Defendants. By calling the
Plaintiff, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff actual harm,
including the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies
the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls,
consumption of electricity in cost per-kilowatt required to
recharge the cell phones, consumption of money or purchased blocks
of calls, and wear and tear on telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff contends that the calls took time to receive and her
statutory right of privacy was invaded. The Defendant is
responsible for making or causing the making of unsolicited,
automated pre-recorded or artificial voice telemarketing calls,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sheila Vousoghian is an individual, who resides in
Fairfax County, Virginia.

Life Protect 24/7, Inc., operates a call center, where automated
equipment is used to place large numbers of telemarketing
calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D
          Yorktown, VA 23692
          Phone: (757) 873-1010
          Fax: (757) 873-8375
          Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200


LVNV FUNDING: Can Amend Answer to Add Affirmative Defense in Norton
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONYA NORTON, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05051-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted LVNV's motion for leave to file an amended
answer to add "setoff" as an affirmative defense.

Norton filed the putative class action against Defendants LVNV and
Law Office of Harris & Zide alleging violations of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and California's Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Norton also seeks injunctive relief
under California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Court partially granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
first and second amended complaints.  Norton filed a third amended
complaint on Sept. 10, 2019.  Norton alleges that the Defendants
engaged in unlawful debt collection practices by failing to file an
acknowledgment that a judgment against Norton had been assigned to
LVNV by LVNV's predecessor.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 673 requires a judgment
assignee to file an acknowledgment of assignment of judgment in
order to become the assignee of record and enforce the judgment.
According to Norton, LVNV unlawfully collected on the judgment by
garnishing her wages without becoming the assignee of record.  One
of the remedies Norton seeks is restitution for money obtained from
the class and subclass as a result of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful collection activities.  The Defendants each answered the
TAC on Sept. 26, 2019.  Neither answer includes setoff as an
affirmative defense.

LVNV asserts that it has long contemplated a setoff defense and
discussed it early in the case with the Plaintiff's counsel, but
inadvertently omitted it from its answer.  In support, LVNV offers
the declaration of defense counsel Tomio Narita, who spoke with
Plaintiff's counsel in January 2019.  During that conversation,
Narita informed the Plaintiff's counsel that LVNV would be entitled
to setoff any amounts returned to the Plaintiff or the putative
class.  Defense counsel Travis Campbell testifies in his
declaration that he discovered that the Defendants' answer did not
include that defense while preparing their mediation statement on
Jan. 30, 2020.  He avers that the omission was inadvertent and
based on a good faith error by LVNV's counsel.

The parties attended mediation on Feb. 12, 2020, but the case was
not settled.  On Feb. 17, 2020, Narita asked the Plaintiff's
counsel to stipulate to the filing of an amended answer that
included setoff as an affirmative defense.  The Plaintiff did not
agree to so stipulate.  Accordingly, LVNV filed the motion on March
4, 2020, seeking leave from the Court to file an amended answer.
LVNV now moves for leave to file an amended answer to add "setoff"
as an affirmative defense.  Norton timely opposed.

LVNV argues that the Court should grant it leave to amend its
answer because (1) it has good cause to amend under Rule 16(b); (2)
it has also met the requirements of Rule 15(a); and (3) it could,
in any case, raise the setoff defense for the first time on summary
judgment.

Magistrate Judge Ryu holds that the underlying purpose of Rule
16(b) is to facilitate the Court's "early control over the
litigation."  That purpose is not undermined by allowing the
proposed amendment of the answer at this stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, LVNV has met its burden to show good cause for the
amendment.

Once a party has shown good cause to amend its pleading after the
deadlines set by the Court's scheduling order, it must also
demonstrate that amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).  Amendment
under Rule 15(a) should be freely given in the absence of any
apparent or declared reason -- such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, etc.
The factors cited by Foman are absent in the case.  

Although Norton speculates that LVNV may delay in providing
discovery responses regarding its setoff defense, the assertion
appears to be pure conjecture.  In any case, there is ample time to
resolve discovery disputes prior to the discovery cutoff date.
Norton does not point to any bad faith or dilatory motive by LVNV,
nor is any apparent.  Finally, although Norton points out that she
has already fully briefed the class certification motion, the
setoff defense is not at issue in that motion.  The Magistrate
finds that permitting amendment of the answer is appropriate under
Rule 15(a).

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Ryu granted LVNV's motion
to amend its answer.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/qHBK49 from Leagle.com.


LYNN UNIVERSITY: Gibson Student Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND GIBSON, and on behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. LYNN UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No.
2020-CA-005378 (Filed May 14, 2020), was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, Palm Beach County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
July 17, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-81173-RAR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members bring this class
action for a "proper prorated refund or reimbursement for the
unused services for which they paid in the form of university fees"
and a "proper prorated refund or reimbursement for the decreased
value of the education they received as a result of classes
transitioning from in-person and on-campus to an entirely remote
virtual learning format."

Lynn University is a private university in Boca Raton, Florida.
Founded in 1962, the University awards associate, baccalaureate,
master's, and doctoral degrees. The University is named for the
Lynn family and has a total undergraduate enrollment of 2,095.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
          Brenton J. Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850)435-7140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  rtimmons@levinlaw.com
                  bgoodman@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612)594-5900
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
          Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq.
          Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          E-mail: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com
                  stephanie.adler-paindiris@jacksonlewis.com
                  allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com
                  leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com


MARGON RESTAURANT: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GENARO HERNANDEZ and PEDRO ROSALINO MARCELO SANDOVAL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MARGON RESTAURANT CORPORATION (D/B/A MARGON RESTAURANT), RAFAEL
VIVAS, and GUADALUPE RIVAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05625
(S.D.N.Y, July 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law including failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all hours
worked, and unlawfully taking tip credit.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers at the Defendants'
restaurant located at 136 W 46th Street, New York, NY 10036.

Margon Restaurant Corporation, d/b/a Margon Restaurant, is a
restaurant owner and operator, located at 136 W 46th Street, New
York, NY 10036. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

MATRIX TRUST: Faces MBA ERISA Suit Over Unlawfully Retained Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as Sponsor and Administrator of the MBA
ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEES 401(K) PLAN and the MBA ENGINEERING,
INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN, and CRAIG MEIDINGER, as Trustee of the MBA
Engineering, Inc. Employees 401(k) Plan and the MBA Engineering,
Inc. Cash Balance Plan, Individually and as representative of all
others similarly situated v. MATRIX TRUST COMPANY, and MATRIX
SETTLEMENT AND CLEARANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01915-E
(July 21, 2020), asserts claims for strict liability under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and state laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully retained
substantial amounts of monies from over 60,000 account holders
("Customers") through nondisclosure and concealment. Without
discovery, the Plaintiffs say they cannot estimate the total amount
of money that the Defendants unlawfully retained, but in all
likelihood, the amounts total many millions of dollars, if not
hundreds of millions or more.

As of this date, the Defendants have allegedly retained, without
satisfying strict disclosure obligations, three categories of
monies: 12b-1 fees, non-float cash interest, and float cash
interest (the "Funds"). The Plaintiffs note that the Defendants
retained Funds in each of these categories from large portions of
(if not all) Customer assets, which averaged roughly over $126
billion, in total, over the last six years. Because of this, the
Defendants are obligated to repay these Funds to their Customers
under ERISA, ERISA's implementing regulations, and state law, the
Plaintiffs contend.

MBA Engineering is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Minnesota, with its principal place of business in
Shoreview, Minnesota. MBA is the Plans' Sponsor, the Plans'
Administrator, and a fiduciary of the Plans under ERISA. MBA
Engineering, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a qualified plan under ERISA with
legal status to sue in its own right. MBA Engineering, Inc. Cash
Balance Plan is a qualified plan under ERISA with legal status to
sue in its own right. Plaintiff Craig Meidinger is an individual.
Mr. Meidinger is the owner of MBA, and Trustee of the Plans.

Defendant Matrix Trust Company is a bank incorporated under the
laws of Delaware. Matrix Settlement & Clearance Services, LLC, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the same parent company as Matrix.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold Shokouhi, Esq.
          Justin N. Bryan, Esq.
          D. Aaron Dekle, Esq.
          Evan Selik, Esq
          MCCATHERN, PLLC
          3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 741-2662
          Facsimile: (214) 741-1741
          E-mail: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
                  jbryan@mccathernlaw.com
                  ddekle@mccathernlaw.com
                  eselik@mccathernlaw.com


MICROSOFT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Data Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that on July 17 in
the Northern District of California, consumers, including
individuals and companies, filed a class action complaint against
Microsoft which claimed the company shared consumer data without
consent to subcontractors and third parties, including Facebook,
despite policies that stated otherwise.

The plaintiffs accused Microsoft of "misrepresenting its privacy
and security practices, violating federal and state law, and
illegally sharing and using its business-class Microsoft Office 365
and Microsoft Exchange customers' data." Specifically, "[c]ontrary
to Microsoft's representation and without its customers' consent,
Microsoft shares its business customers' contacts and related data
with Facebook; shares the content of its business customers'
emails, documents, contacts, calendars, and other data with
unauthorized third parties for unauthorized purposes; and uses its
business customers' data to develop new products and services to
sell to others." The plaintiffs argued that Microsoft claims to be
transparent about its privacy and security practices, however, the
described conduct contradicts the company's claims.

For example, Microsoft transitioned its business customers to its
cloud-based services, Office 365, claiming to consumers that their
data would be secure and private by only sharing this information
to provide the purchased services. Microsoft stated that it "will
share their data with its subcontractors and certain others only on
a need-to-know basis; and that it will never share the customer's
data with third parties at all." However, the plaintiffs alleged
that these "representations were false" because "Microsoft has
regularly shared--and continues to share--its business customers'
data with Facebook and other third parties" in violation of its
promise and policies to customers.

This information was allegedly shared without obtaining consumer
consent. For instance, the complaint said Microsoft shared
consumers' contacts with Facebook. The plaintiffs claimed that this
data sharing was not necessary for the purchased services, and, as
a result, can harm consumers. Additionally, the complaint said
Microsoft does not anonymize or obscure consumer data before
sharing it. Microsoft allegedly shared this data for business
development purposes. The plaintiffs claimed that Microsoft "has
not fully and openly disclosed its data use and sharing practices
to its business customers," thus, it is not as transparent as it
claims to be. Consequently, the plaintiffs asserted that Microsoft
misled and misrepresented the security and privacy it was providing
to its customers. The plaintiffs paid for their Microsoft business
solutions, however, they alleged that they were misled and deceived
as a result of Microsoft's lack of disclosures and conduct. The
plaintiffs said that they have been harmed by Microsoft's conduct
because of their reduced privacy and security.

Microsoft allegedly violated the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications
Act, and Washington consumer protection and privacy laws for the
aforementioned alleged conduct. The plaintiffs have sought
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution of profits unjustly
obtained, recovery of payments for their Microsoft services, a
cease and desist order, an award for damages and interest, and an
award for costs and fees.

A Microsoft spokesperson said "We're aware of the suit and will
review it carefully. However, while the allegations themselves are
not very specific, as we understand them we don't believe they have
merit. We have an established history of both robust privacy
protections and transparency, and we're confident that our use of
customer data is consistent with the instructions of our customers
and our contractual commitments."

The plaintiffs are represented by Bailey & Glasser, LLP, and The
Golan Firm PLLC.

This story has been updated to add a statement from Microsoft.
[GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Davidovitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Rachel B. Davidovitz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03314 (E.D.N.Y., July 23,
2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ga. Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 13, 2020, that an
amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit pending
before the Northern District of Georgia.

On June 29, 2020, an Amended Class Action Complaint for violations
of federal securities laws was filed against Mohawk and its CEO
Jeff Lorberbaum in the Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in fabricating
revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were closed and
recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced product to
report higher operating margins and maintained significant
inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain inventory
improperly or improperly delivered inventory with knowledge that it
was defective and customers would return it.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: October 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Molina Healthcare, Inc. during
the period from October 31, 2014 through August 2, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that Lead Plaintiff
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan ("Steamfitters" or "Lead
Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, on the
one hand, and Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("Molina"), J. Mario Molina,
John C. Molina, Terry P. Bayer, and Rick Hopfer (collectively,
"Defendants"), on the other, have reached a proposed settlement of
the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of
$7,500,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its
entirety (the "Settlement").

The Court will hold the Settlement Hearing on October 22, 2020 at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7B at the United States District Court,
Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, 350
West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4565 (the "Settlement
Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of May 5,
2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.MolinaHealthcareSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

Molina Healthcare Securities Litigation
c/o Angeion Group
1650 Arch St. Ste 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@MolinaHealthcareSecuritiesSettlement.com
(844)-909-3057

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

Christine M. Fox, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
(888) 219-6877
settlementquestions@labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 17,
2020. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than October 1, 2020. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than October 1, 2020.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

By Order of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California [GN]


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Slaughter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned ALYSON SLAUGHTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d/b/a
AMTRAK, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-2920(APM) (D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Alyson Slaughter filed this putative class action against
Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"),
seeking to compel Amtrak to make its mobile website and mobile
phone application accessible to individuals with visual
impairments.

Amtrak moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint,
asserting that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate their disputes when
she consented to the Terms and Conditions of multiple purchased
rail tickets. Plaintiff does not deny that she acceded to the
arbitration clause contained in Amtrak's ticketing Terms and
Conditions. Her position is that the parties never agreed to
arbitrate the particular claims made in this lawsuit, which only
concern the accessibility of Amtrak's mobile application and mobile
website. These claims, she maintains, are governed by two other
agreements--Amtrak's mobile application End User License Agreement
and website Web Notices & Site Terms of Use. These agreements vest
"exclusive jurisdiction" to settle disputes in "any Federal court
located in the District of Columbia."

The court sides with Plaintiff.

"The parties did not consent to arbitrate disputes that arose out
of Plaintiff's use of the mobile application and mobile website;
instead, they agreed to resolve such disputes in a federal court in
the District of Columbia, which is where Plaintiff filed her
action. The court therefore denies Amtrak's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint," rules District Judge AMIT
P. MEHTA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 18, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxylfex from
Leagle.com.



NC3 SYSTEMS: Begg Sues in N.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NC3 Systems, Inc. The
case is captioned as Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NC3 Systems, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-04632-SK (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

NC3 Systems manufactures and distributes cannabis products. The
Company offers wide variety of refined cannabis products. Caliva
serves customers in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


NEW YORK: $289,000 in Legal Fees Okayed in Parker Suit v. City
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge KATHARINE H. PARKER of United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and
order on attorney's fees application from Plaintiff in the case
captioned LISETTE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-03644 (S.D.N.Y.).

Lisette Torres is a police officer with the New York City Police
Department ("NYPD"). Torres filed this employment discrimination
action on April 24, 2018, claiming that she was discriminated
against and harassed on the basis of her sexual orientation in
violation of federal, state and city law. On November 4, 2019, the
parties reached a full and final resolution and signed a formal
settlement agreement. Because they could not reach agreement on
attorneys' fees, as part of the settlement, the parties agreed to
submit the issue of attorneys' fees to the Court for resolution.

Plaintiff Torres seeks attorneys' fees in the amount of $759,760.50
and costs in the amount of $18,014.02. Defendant contends that the
hourly rates sought are higher than those awarded by Courts in this
District for similar types of civil rights cases against
municipalities and that the hours charged are excessive.

Against this backdrop, the Court awards Plaintiff attorneys' fees
in the amount of $289,859 and costs in the amount of $17,193.32.

"In light of the dearth of information provided to the Court about
the experience of the attorneys who worked on this case (apart from
Ms. Kurland and Ms. Healy-Kagan), the lack of evidence showing that
the rates sought are regularly charged to or paid by clients of the
Kurland Group, the relatively simple nature of the claims in this
case, and the prevailing rates in this District for similar cases
against the City, and other factors cited above, I find the
following hourly rates are appropriate: $600 for Ms. Kurland, as
this rate was recently found to be reasonable for her experience;
$400 for Ms. Healy-Kagan to take into account her seniority and
promotion to Junior Partner at the tail end of this case; $250 for
Junior Associates; and $100 for Law Clerks and paralegals," rules
Mag. Judge Parker.

Moreover, the two most senior attorneys expended approximately 69%
of the hours on the case, whereas the Junior Associates expended
only approximately 16% of the hours on the case and Law Clerks
expended the remaining hours on the case. In a more efficient and
typical staffing arrangement, the two senior attorneys should have
spent no more than 30% of the hours on the case, Mag. Judge Parker
held. "To account for inefficient staffing, I am reallocating the
compensable hours to account for a more efficient staffing model
such that 15% of the hours will be compensated at the $100 per hour
rate; 55% of the hours will be compensated at the $250 per hour
rate; 15% of the hours will be compensated at the $375 rate; and
15% of the hours will be compensated at the $600 rate. This results
in a fee award of $289,859.6," she said.

"I find that the costs awarded should be reduced by $820.70. This
reduces compensable costs to $17,193.32, which covers electronic
research charges, court filing fees, transcript costs, and printing
and copying costs," Mag. Judge Parker further ruled in a May 18,
2020 Opinion and Order, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7zcgurz from Leagle.com.

NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 13 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 13 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. 20-766;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2064;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2065;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2071;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2072;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2074;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2081;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2079;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2090;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2092;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2099;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2100; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2101.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Dillian Soto, Jean Melinette, Jeanelle Hicks,
Edwige Allen, Loretta Matthew, Julita Jermin, Julio
Martinez-Sierra, Lenore Porter, Gabriel Alberti, Emily Alvarez,
Pedro Raphael, Michael Spruill and Gildardo Ramirez 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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 14 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 14 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. 20-2103;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2104;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2105;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2106;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2110;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2111;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2112;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2114;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2117;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2123;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2124;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2125;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2127; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-2135.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Angela Castillo, Juana Rosario, Nancy Idrovo,
Genoveva Blanco, Michelle David, Tonya Whitmore, Faye Bennett, Juan
Castro, Maria Guzman, Enna Serrano, Brenda McGhie, Ahmed Jalloh,
Elizabeth Taylor and Carmen Marrero 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


NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northcentral
University. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Northcentral
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-05714 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Northcentral University is a private online university with its
headquarters in San Diego, California.[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


NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
KALIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC.; the NORTHWELL HEALTH
403(B) PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES NO. 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03256 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan and to the Plan participants and
beneficiaries, including the Plaintiff, by allowing unreasonable
recordkeeping/administrative expenses to be charged to the Plan;
and selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying high-cost and
poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily
available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within
the Plan and throughout the Class Period, starting July 21, 2014 to
the present. In addition, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary monitoring duties by failing to monitor and evaluate the
performance of its appointees or have a system in place for doing
so, failing to monitor its appointees' fiduciary processes, and
failing to remove appointees whose performances were inadequate.

As a result of these breaches, the Plan and its participants have
lost millions of dollars of retirement savings.

Northwell Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider headquartered in
Westbury, Nassau County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (860) 526-1100
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         James C. Shah, Esq.
         Michael P. Ols, Esq.
         Alec J. Berin, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (610) 891-9880
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                 mols@sfmslaw.com
                 aberin@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (323) 510-4060
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Defends 3 Securities Class Suits Over COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 16,
2020, that between March 12, 2020 and April 30, 2020, three class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and customers about COVID-19.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger
cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and
theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various
distribution channels including retail and travel agents,
international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian
Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is
based in Miami, Florida.

NUTRITION EXPRESS: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrition Express
Corporation. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Nutrition Express
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05725 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Nutrition Express Corporation of Colorado, Inc., distributes and
markets skin care products, vitamins and vitamin supplements, a
variety of food products, dietary supplements and household
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ONFIDO INC: Sosa BIPA Suit Moved From Cir. Court to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as FREDY SOSA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONFIDO, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2020CH04554 (Filed June 12, 2020),
was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July
17, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04247 to the proceeding.

Onfido expressly denies that it has violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Onfido designs and develops application software. The Company
offers AI-based identity verification technology, such as facial
biometrics for protection against fraudulent activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com
                  sufkes@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
          James G. Snell, Esq.
          Ryan Spear, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          131 S Dearborn Street, No. 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603-5500
          Telephone: 312 324 8400
          Facsimile: 312 324 9400
          E-mail: KStetsko@perkinscoie.com
                  JSnell@perkinscoie.com
                  RSpear@perkinscoie.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 20
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
(NASDAQ: PPC) between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Pilgrim's Pride investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Pilgrim's Pride class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1869.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.

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

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

Following this news, the price of Pilgrim's Pride common stock
declined $2.58 per share, or approximately 12.4%, from a close of
$20.87 per share on June 2, 2020, to close at $18.29 per share on
June 3, 2020, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

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
4, 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-1869.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. 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]


POLTI USA INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Polti USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Polti USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05730 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

The Polti group works to create innovative household appliances in
harmony with nature.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


PORTMEIRION GROUP: Paguada Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portmeirion Group
Designs, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Portmeirion Group
Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05731 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Portmeirion Group PLC is a British company selling ceramic
tableware, cookware, giftware, glassware, home fragrance products
and associated housewares worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year
-----------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020 that payments on account of the settlement in the
cases, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry,
Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, are expected to occur in
2020.

On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and three of its current and former
officers.  

On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock
of the Company between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.

The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties
reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019.  

On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for
Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including the
proposed settlement amount of $25 million.

On November 22, 2019, the Court entered final judgment approving
the settlement.

PPG's insurance carriers confirmed to the Company insurance
coverage for the full amount of the settlement.

Settlement payments are expected to occur in 2020.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the motion seeking dismissal of the class action
headed by Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico
(PERA) remains pending.

On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

On October 7, 2019, the Court granted Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.

On January 3, 2020, PERA filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any
obligations or liability to the plaintiffs with respect to such
claims.

The Company believes the claims are without merit. During the third
quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff filed
an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company plans to file
a Reply to the Opposition.  

Oral arguments are scheduled for the first quarter of fiscal 2021.

PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S. style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


PRIME COMMS: Faces Ly Employment Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Comms Retail
LLC. The case is captioned as Vivian Ly, On behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Prime Comms Retail LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
34-2020-00281668-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 10,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Prime is the largest AT&T Authorized Retailer in the United States
with nearly 2,000 locations from coast-to-coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 705
          Glendale, CA 91203-1989
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Removes Acker et al. Suit to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SAMUEL ACKER, PHILLIP DAVIDSON, and
TERRY MORROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PROTECH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of Pulaski
County, Arkansas (Case No. 60CV-20-3858) to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas on July 21, 2020. The clerk
court for the Eastern District of Arkansas assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00852-DPM.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
invasion of privacy in connection with its administration of
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Application System in
Arkansas following the exposure of the Plaintiffs' PUA personal
information.

Protech Solutions, Inc. is a software company with a principal
place of business located in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         James L. Phillips, Esq.
         Guy W. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
         Sam Patterson, Esq.
         HYDEN, MIRON & FOSTER, PLLC
         901 N. University Avenue
         Little Rock, AR 72207
         Telephone: (501) 376-8222
         Facsimile: (501) 376-7047
         E-mail: jim.phillips@hmflaw.net
                 guy.murphy@hmflaw.net
                 sam.patterson@hmflaw.net

RCN TELECOM: Faces Grillo Fraud Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCN Telecom Services,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as KATHERINE GRILLO and CHRISTIAN
REID, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC; PATRIOT MEDIA CONSULTING, LLC; RCN
ISP, LLC; RCN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; RCN CAPITAL CORP.; RCN
TELECOM SERVICES (LEHIGH), LLC; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF NEW YORK,
L.P.; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA, LLC; RCN TELECOM
SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC; and RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-08609-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., July
10, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

The suit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

RCN Telecom provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
broadband Internet, digital cable television, fixed line telephony,
and mobile telephony services. RCN Telecom serves commercial and
residential customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


RICK'S CUSTOM: Faces Peer Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PEER v. RICK'S CUSTOM FENCING AND DECKING, INC., a domestic
business corporation, and RICHARD LEE STANLEY, an individual, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01155-AC (D. Ore., July 17, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of a proposed class alleging
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff contends that instead of paying him his earned
commissions, the Defendants unlawfully kept his earned commission
money in a "bank" and then used it inappropriately to pay out his
future minimum wages. Additionally, the Defendants improperly
deducted money from his paychecks for subsequent work needed on
customers' projects, he adds.

Rick's Custom retails building materials. The Company offers decks,
benches, fences, pasture, patio covers, pergolas, gates, and other
lumber materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Meyer, Esq.
          Talia Y. Guerriero, Esq.
          MEYER STEPHENSON
          1 SW Columbia, Suite 1850
          Portland, OR 97258
          Telephone: 503 459-4010
          E-mail: robert@oregonworkplacelaw.com
                  talia@oregonworkplacelaw.com


RMS BEAUTY LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RMS Beauty, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RMS Beauty, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05732-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

RMS Beauty offers natural makeup & skincare made with organic
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SHIFTPIXY INC: Still Defends Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2020 that the company continues to defend itself against a
class action suit initiated by Corey Splond.

On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of
Nevada, Clark County, naming the Company and its client as
defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws.


This lawsuit is in the initial stages, and the Company denies any
liability.

ShiftPixy said, "Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, the
potential damages recoverable will depend substantially upon
whether the Court determines in the future that this lawsuit may
appropriately be maintained as a class action. Further, in the
event that the Court ultimately enters a judgment in favor of
plaintiff, the Company believes that it would be contractually
entitled to be indemnified by its client against at least a portion
of any damage award."

ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Lewis Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVESTER LEWIS, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees
v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; SIMPLIFIED STAFFING
LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC; MAERSK INC.; DAMCO USA INC.; DAMCO
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV26893 (Cal. Super., Los Angele Cty., July 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of
wage and hour violations under the Private Attorneys General Act
Labor Code.

These alleged violations include failure to pay all wages
(including minimum, regular, and overtime compensation); and
failure to provide meal periods or permit rest breaks or provide
compensation in lieu thereof.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiff as a non-exempt hourly Material
Handler and continue to employ him to this day. Recently, the
Plaintiff changed his name from Sylvester Lewis to Sylvia Lewis,
and continues to be employed by the Defendants as Sylvia Lewis.
Throughout the PAGA period, the Plaintiff's duties primarily
included loading and unloading freight.

The Defendants own and operate staffing companies in California
that staffed the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to work at
Defendants Maersk Inc.'s, Damco USA Inc.'s, and Damco Distribution
Services Inc.'s worksites throughout California during the PAGA
period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Daniel Hyun, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net


SK ENERGY: Ritual Coffee Alleges Price-Fixing of Gas Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
RITUAL COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK
TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID NIEMANN; and BRAD
LUCAS Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06486 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2020)
alleges that Defendants effectuated the conspiracy by, inter alia,
manipulating trades and selectively reporting trades to certain
benchmarking services, causing the market prices of Regular and
Premium gasoline in California to increase to levels that would not
have existed in a competitive market, in violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, California Business
and Professions Code section 16720 et seq.

According to the complaint, Defendants' unlawful behavior began in
2014 and at least as early as February 2015 after an explosion at a
large gasoline refinery complex in Torrance, California that
supplied roughly 10% of all gasoline in the state and 20% of all
gasoline in Southern California. A key part of the refinery complex
was severely damaged, resulting in an unanticipated undersupply of
refined gasoline in California and eliminating the refinery's
ability to refine alkylates blended with the gasoline. Defendant's
unlawful conduct continued through late 2016. Consequently, prices
for gasoline contracts rose on the California spot markets and
prices at gasoline pumps soon followed. Thus, beginning in February
2015, California motorists saw unprecedented increases in gasoline
prices

The events presented Defendants with an opportunity to artificially
inflate the price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in
California and increase the price of alkylates, whose prices are
tied directly to the wholesale price of gasoline, while avoiding
scrutiny by other market participants and regulators.

Plaintiff Ritual Coffee Roasters, Inc. has been engaged in the
wholesale business of sourcing, roasting and distributing gourmet
coffee, and in the retail business of selling coffee. During the
class period, the Plaintiff has purchased thousands of dollars of
gasoline at retail during the Class Period for its own use and not
for resale and was damaged as a result of Defendants' conduct.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a California-based energy company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of SK Energy International.

SK Trading International Co., Ltd. is a South Korean energy
corporation with its head office in Seoul, South Korea.

Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company registered to
conduct business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@grossbelsky.com
                  adam@grossbelsky.com

SOLARM INC: Ortega Sues Over Wrongful Employment Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
LEVI ORTEGA, an individual v. SOLARM, INC., a California
Corporation; LA SOLAR GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV26152 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated asserting claims
against the Defendants for wrongful termination, in violation of
the public policy of the state of California.

In March or April 2020, the Plaintiff asked for a light duty
accommodation again for his back injury, but his request for
accommodation was again ignored and denied. In April 2020, the
Defendants demoted him from foreman to installer. The Plaintiff
contends that he received a pay cut from $30 an hour as a foreman
to $23.00 an hour as an installer. The Defendants also cut his
hours. On May 19, 2020, the Defendants terminated his employment.
Manager Eugene said that he was being terminated due to his
Hispanic crew being dismantled.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fired employees of
Hispanic, African American and Caucasian race, who know how to
install solar panels. These fired employees were replaced with new
employees, who are of Armenian descent, who do not have basic
knowledge as to how to install solar panels and cannot speak
English, while the Defendants' clientele is not even mainly
Armenians.

The Defendants discriminated and retaliated against the Plaintiff
because of his age, disability, race, and for reporting illegal
discriminatory activities in the workplace, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendants then failed to investigate or intervene in the
retaliation or discrimination, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in October 2016, as
a foreman and installer, until his employment ended on May 19,
2020.

The Defendants are solar energy design and installation firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Alexander D. Wallin, Esq.
          Britanie A. Martinez, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 209
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  alexander.wallin@l oywr.com
                  britanie.martinez@loywr.com


SPIRALEDGE INC: Riveles Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW RIVELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRALEDGE, INC. d/b/a WWW.SWIMOUTLET.COM
and LINC GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04774 (N.D.
Cal., July 16, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant obtained and trapped
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9584, which
Plaintiff used when he placed an order on Swimoutlet's website on
November 24, 2019 to receive notification and updates regarding his
order, to send him unwanted and unconsented text advertisements.

Allegedly, Defendant utilized automated telemarketing text messages
to market and advertise Defendant's business and services,
including at least 25 messages to Plaintiff, from on or about
November 29, 2019 to February 20, 2020.

Plaintiff claims that he was damaged by Defendant's messages and
has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the
frustration of repeated, unwanted messages.

Swimoutlet is an online retailer that promotes and markets its
services by sending unsolicited text message advertisements to
wireless telephone users.

Linc Global, Inc. is the marketing company who sent the unlawful
text message advertisements on behalf of Swimoutlet.

Spiraledge, Inc. owns and operates www.swimoutlet.com and Linc
Global, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Tel: (954) 889-3359
          Fax: (954) 889-5913
          Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

                - and –

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 871-0050
          Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com



ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Denies Tuition Refunds, Gallagher Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIAN GALLAGHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03274 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and
violations of New York General Business Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated college students, alleges that the Defendant refused to
refund tuition fees paid for the Spring 2020 semester despite the
cancellation of in-person classes and closure of the university as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members
claim that they are entitled for tuition refund since the
university could no longer provide the services and benefits for
which they had already paid for such as access to campus
facilities, hands-on learning and experimentation, and face-to-face
interaction with professors. The university has failed to provide
the full services for which the tuition was collected thus it
should return a portion of the monies paid in tuition to the
Plaintiff and Class members.

St. John's University is an institution of higher learning located
in Jamaica, New York. [BN]

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Edward Toptani, Esq.
         TOPTANI LAW PLLC
         375 Pearl Street, Suite 14106
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 699-8930
         E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com

STATE AUTO: Refuses Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Planet Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc., 1 Thirty
Nine, Inc., and 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00577-BCW (W.D. Mo., July 22,
2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance
coverage for the losses sustained and expenses incurred by the
Plaintiffs because of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic.

The Plaintiffs have been prevented from operating their dining
rooms and were restricted to carry out or delivery services due to
the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the infectious
disease COVID-19, according to the complaint. To protect their
business in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations
for reasons outside of their control, or in order to prevent
further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased insurance
coverage from the Defendant, including property coverage, as set
forth in State Auto's Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form
BP002 (12/99).

Unlike some policies that provide Business Income (also referred to
as "business interruption") coverage, the Defendant's coverage
forms do not include, and are not subject to, any exclusion for
losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases, the Plaintiffs
assert. They contend that they were forced to suspend dining room
operations at their restaurants due to COVID-19 and the ensuing
orders issued by civil authorities in the States of Missouri,
Kansas, and Oklahoma, and by the city of Kansas City, Missouri and
the county of Jackson County, Missouri, mandating the suspension of
business for on-site services, as well as in order to take
necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations.

The Defendant has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay
its insureds under its Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil
Authority, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities that have
required the limitation of normal business operations, and any
efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations. In particular, the
Defendant has denied claims submitted by the Plaintiffs under their
policies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have operated Planet Sub restaurants in the states
of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

The Defendant is an insurance company writing insurance policies
and doing business in the State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 492-2826
          Fax: (816) 492-2826
          Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
                 jeremy@boulware-law.com

               - and -

          Todd Johnson, Esq.
          VOTAVA NANTZ & JOHNSON, LLC
          9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 240
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Phone: (816) 895-8800
          Fax: (816) 895-8801
          Email: tjohnson@vnjlaw.com


STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Young ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Education,
Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Strategic Education, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05741 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

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

Strategic Education Inc. is an education services holding company
and is dedicated to enabling economic mobility with education.[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


SUTTER HEALTH: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Sargony et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
OBALEET SARGONY, RONALD HUDSON, ADAM BLACKBURN, ROBERT L. HACKETT,
TABITHA HOGLUND and STEPHANIE C. CHADWICK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUTTER
HEALTH, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SUTTER HEALTH, THE RETIREMENT
BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1- 30. Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal., July 21, 2020) is a
class action brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132, against the Plan's fiduciaries,
which include Sutter Health, the Board of Directors of Sutter
Health, and its members during the Class Period and the Retirement
Benefits Investment Committee and its members during the Class
Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the Plan has at all times during the
Class Period maintained over $2.1 billion in assets (including
having $3.6 billion in assets in 2018), qualifying it as a jumbo
plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the
largest plans in the United States. These assets are entrusted to
the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments. Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent.

Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories.

Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to the actions of a
reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars.

Sutter Health is a not-for-profit integrated health delivery system
headquartered in Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Telephone: (818) 788-0877
          Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
          E-mail: germain@lalawyer.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

TEAM HEALTH: Faces Fraser RICO Suit Over Inflated Medical Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIA FRASER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-04600-JSW
(N.D. Cal., July 12, 2020), seeks monetary damages, injunctive
and/or other equitable relief, restitution and/or disgorgement of
profits, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses resulting from
the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class are uninsured and
out-of-network consumers, who were billed for emergency, radiology,
anesthesiology and critical care provided by the TeamHealth
Fraudulent Billing Enterprise. The Plaintiff alleges that
TeamHealth used this enterprise to engage in mail and wire fraud by
transmitting false and inflated medical bills across the country,
causing uninsured and out-of-network consumers to overpay and
become indebted for care.

In 2016, TeamHealth boasted that it controlled 17% of the emergency
medicine market in the United States. Currently, it operates 3,300
acute and post-acute facilities in 47 states.

The Plaintiff contends that TeamHealth controls the terms of its
physicians' employment, all physician staffing decisions, and, most
importantly, all the rates its physicians and practice groups
charge patients. The successful goal of this enterprise is to
maximize corporate profits while avoiding state bans on the
corporate practice of medicine. But the corporate practice of
medicine is not TeamHealth's only illegal endeavor. The rates that
TeamHealth and its various subsidiaries charge patients are
themselves unlawful, the Plaintiff adds.

Sia Fraser lives in Vista, California. In September 2019, she was
treated for emergency gallstone surgery by a doctor in a
TeamHealth-owned physician group at Tri-City Medical Center in
Oceanside, California, and then billed for these services by
TeamHealth on October 15, 2019, and November 18, 2019. Because her
insurance plan did not begin until the day after her visit, Ms.
Fraser was considered uninsured.

TeamHealth is a private equity-funded corporation that contracts
with hospitals to take over their emergency, critical care,
radiology, and anesthesiology departments, supplying them with
doctors and other medical professionals as well as running their
administrative functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  craigs@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Shearer, Esq.
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
          718 7th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 524-8846
          E-mail: bshearer@justicecatalyst.org
                  cbriskin@justicecatalyst.org


TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Reisfelt Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA REISFELT, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01141971-CU-BT-CXC (Filed June 8,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01283 to the proceeding.

The complaint is brought pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code and California Civil Code alleging that Topco
unlawfully misbranded its products by using packaging that
contained approximately 25% non-functional slack-fill.

Topco is the largest American retail food GPO and the third largest
private company in Illinois.[BN]

Defendant TOPCO Associates is represented by:

          Robert E. Boone III, Esq.
          Simren K. Gill, Esq.
          Kyla Wyatt, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHSTON PAISNER LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Telephone: (310) 576-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
          E-mail: reboone@bryancave.com
                  simren.gill@bclplaw.com
                  kyla.wyatt@bclplaw.com


TRADER JOE'S: Faces Cota Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01405-BAS-BGS (S.D.
Cal., July 22, 2020), is brought to secure redress against the
Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.traderjoes.com/, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendants' Web site
is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Web site will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.

The Defendant's Web site provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services including gluten free, kosher, and vegan
options, poultry, meat, meatless, and fish, snacks, produce, coffee
and tea, dairy products, hair and skin products, nuts, the Fearless
Flyer, store locator, and information about products and services
which are available online and in retail stores for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Siperavage Balks at Vehicle Restrictions
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SIPERAVAGE on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., July 21, 2020) seeks damages
arising from Defendant's unfair business practices related to
restrictions on vehicles eligible to be used by the drivers Uber
employs.  Specifically, the complaint relates to Uber's refusal to
honor its representations that particular vehicles could be used to
drive for the more-selective Uber BlackSUV platform, causing
Plaintiff and similarly affected drivers to lose hundreds or
thousands of dollars in income.

In September 2019, Defendant changed its requirements for vehicle
eligibility for Uber BlackSUV, removing the Acura MDX, Audi Q7,
Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition (non-Platinum
series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada, and
Toyota Sequoia from eligibility. Uber did not simply stop accepting
new registrations of such vehicles for Uber BlackSUV -- it cut off
all drivers using these vehicles from the ability to offer rides at
the Uber BlackSUV level, restricting them to lower (and
lower-paying) levels of service.

Uber Technologies Inc. is a California-based ride hailing services
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP
(NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 18, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for USO investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the USO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

The complaint 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. However,
unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early
2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy
unfeasible. 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. It was
not until late April and May 2020, that defendants acknowledged the
extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been
experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they
failed to disclose to investors. 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 18,
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-1865.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--representsinvestors
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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. 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]


UNITED STATES: Faces Angel Suit Alleging Violation of Tucker Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is captioned as JOSHUA J. ANGEL, On behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated v. USA, Case No.
1:20-cv-00737-MMS (Fed. Claims, July 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

The lawsuit demands $1 million alleging violation of the Tucker
Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

Plaintiff Joshua J. Angel, of New York City, appears pro se.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Faces Subramanya Suit Over Failure to Issue EADs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjitha Subramanya, individually and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; KEN CUCCINELLI, in his official capacity as the Acting
Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and ERNEST
DESTEFANO, in his official capacity as the Chief of the Office of
Intake and Document Production, USCIS; Case No.
2:20-cv-03707-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 22, 2020), is brought to
seek temporary, preliminary and permanent mandatory injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and a writ of mandamus to compel the
Defendants to perform their clear legal duty to issue Employment
Authorization Documents to the Plaintiff after approving their
Applications for Employment Authorization.

Because USCIS has significantly slowed and/or stopped printing
EADs, which are essential for the Plaintiff and approximately
75,000 putative class members to obtain or keep their jobs, the
Plaintiff seeks emergency relief that requires the Defendants to
print and issue the EADs immediately, and in no event later than
seven days from the date of the Court's order. The Plaintiff
contends that it is necessary for USCIS to issue EADs because its
mere approval of Applications for Employment Authorization is
legally insufficient to confer permission to work on Plaintiff and
class members. Instead, aliens must provide employers with a valid
and unexpired EAD issued by Defendants before they can be lawfully
hired or allowed to continue their employment.

Historically, the Defendants have printed and issued EADs promptly
after approving an alien's Application for Employment
Authorization, typically within 48 hours after approval. Recently,
however, the Defendants have significantly slowed and/or stopped
issuing EADs, thereby causing irreparable injury to her, the
Plaintiff avers. For example, USCIS approved the Plaintiff's
application to extend her H-4 status and employment authorization
on April 7, 2020, but the Defendants unlawfully failed to issue her
an EAD after approving her application. As a result, the Plaintiff
was forced to stop working for her employer after her initial EAD
expired on June 7, 2020. To date, she still has not received her
EAD and she remains unable to work. Worse, her employer has
notified her that she will lose her job if she does not provide
proof of employment authorization by August 9, 2020.

By delaying or refusing to provide EADs to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants have abused their power in an egregious and outrageous
manner, without any reasonable justification in the service of a
legitimate governmental objective, and with either an intention to
harm the Plaintiff or deliberate indifference, according to the
complaint. The Defendants have, thereby, violated the guarantee of
substantive due process inherent in the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendants'
actions and failures to act have intentionally, deliberately and/or
willfully inflicted irreparable harm on the Plaintiff, who are
unable to work despite having been granted employment
authorization, solely because of the lack of an EAD.

The Plaintiff is a native and citizen of India and was admitted to
the United States as an H-1B nonimmigrant to work at Nationwide
Insurance.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is charged with
the statutory duty to adjudicate benefits pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Cohen, Esq.
          Caroline H. Gentry, Esq.
          David P. Shouvlin, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          41 South High Street, Suites 2800-3200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614.227.2066
          Email: rcohen@porterwright.com


US OIL FUND: Defends Wang Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 14, 2020,
that the company is a defendant in a putative stockholder class
action suit initiated by Momo Wang.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") was named as a defendant in a
putative stockholder class action on July 10, 2020 by Momo Wang,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
defendants USO, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"), John P.
Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F. Ngim,
Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, Malcolm R.
Fobes III, ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Market Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs &
Company, JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional
Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities
International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities
LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

he putative stockholder class action is pending in the U.S.
District of Northern District of California as Case No.
3:20-cv-4596.

The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors
certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks
that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the
COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.


The plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge
about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO
and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May
2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon
its investment strategy.

The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

The defendants believe that the claims are completely without merit
and intend to vigorously contest such claims and move for their
dismissal.

The United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
"NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner, United
States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Appeals Decision to Delaware Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shinequa Griffy filed an appeal from a court order issued
in her lawsuit entitled Shinequa Griffy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company,
Case No. N19C-12-223, in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16,
2020, the lawsuit seeks declaratory relief for breach of contract
for unlawful methodology in calculating statutory interests where
such statutory interest is owed. USAA allegedly only brings the
accrual of such interest to an end by paying both the principal
amount owed in personal insurance protection benefits and the
required statutory interest leaving the required statutory interest
remaining unpaid, thus interest continues to accrue.

USAA is an underwriter of automobile insurance including first
party medical benefits for persons injured while driving or
occupying motor vehicles. Griffy is a policyholder under a Delaware
automobile insurance policy issued by USAA.

The appellate case is captioned as SHINEQUA GRIFFY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-below/Appellant v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-below/Appellee, Case No. 238,2020, in the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware.[BN]

Plaintiff-below/Appellant Shinequa Griffy (on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated) is represented by:

          John S. Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Telephone: (302)235-7745

Defendant-below/Appellee USAA Casualty Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Lisa Zwally Brown, Esq.
          Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 661-7000
          E-mail: brownli@gtlaw.com
                  moultries@gtlaw.com


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Palma Files Employment Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volunteers of America
Northern California and Northern Nevada, Inc., et al. The case is
styled as Amber Palma, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Volunteers of America Northern California and
Northern Nevada, Inc., a California Company, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00282148-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 23,
2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment-Civil Unlimited."

Volunteers of America Northern California and Northern Nevada's
ongoing mission to reach and uplift all people has expanded to
include families with children, seniors, the homeless, former
foster youth, and people with substance abuse issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by Isandra Fernandez, Esq.[BN]


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2020 that discovery is ongoing in the
securities class action suit pending before the Northern District
of Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.

The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016,
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 4, 2016
and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiff filed
its motion for class certification on April 21, 2017.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018. On December
19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and defendants
moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

Discovery is proceeding.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Merger Suit Obtains Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2020, that a trial court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
arising out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement
between the Company and Rite Aid.

The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions.

The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 15, 2019.

The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery
commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALMART INC: Three Former Employees Drop COBRA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that three former
Walmart Inc. employees dropped their lawsuit challenging the
retailer's health coverage notices.

The move comes two days after a federal magistrate judge in Florida
recommended against certifying the case as a 147,000-person class
action.

The July 17 dismissal notice, filed by former Walmart store manager
Jamie Bryant, follows a July 15 recommendation by Magistrate Judge
Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]



WERNER ENTERPRISES: Petrone Appeals Order & Judgment in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Philip Petrone, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum & Order dated June 22, 2020, and
Judgment dated June 22, 2020, entered in the lawsuit titled Philip
Petrone, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:11-cv-00401-LSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, Omaha.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 16,
2020, the United States District Court for District of Nebraska
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Mandate and for Order Approving Release of
Supersedeas Bond in the case captioned PHILIP PETRONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DRIVERS MANAGEMENT,
LLC; Defendants, Case Nos. 8:11CV401, 8:12CV307 (D. Neb.)

This case is a class action arising out of an eight-week training
program operated by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Nebraska law, by failing to compensate trainees adequately for
short-term breaks or for time spent resting in their trucks'
sleeper-berths. A jury ultimately found in favor of the Plaintiffs
in the amount of $779,127 on the short-term break claim and found
in favor of the Defendants on the sleeper-berth claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Philip Petrone, et al. v. Werner
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2500, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before September 1, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on September 11, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellants is due on September 11, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Philip Petrone; Stewart Fisher; Jasbir Singh;
Brian Pankz, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated; Jason Dewayne Gunn; Ahmad Abdinasir; Adam F. Akhalu;
Latoshia Denise Anderson; Derek C. Anglero; Alan Blane Arthur;
Christopher Ayala; Timothy McCabe Bailey; Csaba G. Barabas; Henry
Barentine; Joseph E. Barker; Diego Barraza; Richard Clair Bash;
Terry Lee Batko; Elizabeth Baumgartel; Jeremy Alfred Bennett; Gary
M. Bernstine; Stacy Lynn Bluebird; Rafarel K. Boadu; Damien Marcus
Boyer; Christina Bradley; Elias Bratcher; Justin Bristol; Karl
Matthew Emerson; Scott A. Larrow; Steve N. Neely; Tonya McDonald;
Micheal Anthony Brooks; Nicholas Brown; Olivia Bryant; Lawrence F.
Bunkowski; David Burgess; Steven Dale Burgess; Justin Burkholder;
Richard Calvert; Johnny Carter; Brett Carty; Joel
Castaneda-Dominguez; Lawrence Edward Cecil; Issac Houston Chase;
Victor Chavarria; Paul Cleaver; Thomas Ricky Coker; Kenya Dyone
Collins; Michael Ray Combs; Kenneth Ray Cook; Larry Nathaniel
Clinton, Jr.; Kenneth B. Cloud; Richard Copley; Howard Corley, Jr.;
Jeffrey G. Crissman; Jimmy Carl Criswell; Thomas Cross; Francisco
Cruz; James Michael Cullity; Kabik Daam; Wilson M. Dagaye; David
Davila; Michael Scott Davis; Jermey Leonard Dawson; Perry A. Deeke;
David Andrew Delisi; Louis James Dietry; John Michael Doss; Steven
Dubinsky; Luis Duran Saldivar; Carl Eberhardt; Harcourt P.
Edgecombe; Douglas Allen Elbon; Terry Lee Elkins; Paul Terry
Elliott, Jr.; Mark C. Eure; Seth Fezatte; Roscoe W. Forman; Anthony
Frank; Nathaniel Anthony Frazier, Jr.; Ernest G. Fulp, Jr.; Peter
Liyayi Gaitano; Jose Garcia-Gonzalez; JoAnna Hancock Geddings;
Clair Henry Gilmore, Jr.; Fred Glass, III; John Christopher Glover;
Jean Marie Gogolin; Steven Scott Goodman; Tamaro R. Graham; Eric
Franklin Green; August William Grow; Gary Eugene Gude; Debra Paula
Gugle; Fardrel J. Guice; Shaun Phillip Guthrie; Randy Halcomb;
Kathleen M. Hallmark; D'Andre LeMare Handy; John Robert Hardin;
Robert William Herrmann; Gail Marie Hess; Annette Fay Holder;
Charles Roy Honacher; Michael Hossler; Robert Edward Howes; Brett
Allen Huckstep; Byron Huffin; Loman Hutchings; Delandos Jackson;
Morris Jacobs, Jr.; Daniel Jefferson; Ciera Lillian Jenkins;
Darrell Wayne Johnson; David Allen Jones; Michael T. Jones; Willie
Lee Jones, Sr.; Michael A. Karpouskas; Behzad Kazemiseresht; Gary
Ward Kennerly; Kristopher Kibby; Ronald L. Kilpatrick; Nathan
Phillip Koehler; Michael Kovacsi; Timothy Michael Kyser; Martha L.
Lantz; Alonza David Lee; Guertho Lemorin; Darran LaVan Lewis;
Joshua Brooke Lipham; Russell E. Lourwood; Paul Lowe; Stacey Marie
Lowe; Krystel Lucas; Kevin L. Maehrer; Jonathan Michael Magnuson;
James Mancuso; Jeremy L. Maness; Thomas C. Marchione; William Clyde
Marks; David Jacob Marrs; Norrek McCarty; Matthew Jay McDaniel;
David Andrew McDevitt; Samuel Ray McMillian; Doug Anthony McSwain;
Jack Dean Michael; Steven Richard Milstead; Robert John Monroe;
Carl Montgomery; Gary C. Montgomery; Debra A. Moore; Michael W.
Moore; Clell Morgan, II; John Anthony Morris; Michael Wayne Murray;
Lorene Musabelli; Nathan Joel Nadell; Saleh M. Nasser; Chad Michael
Newsome; Aaron Jermain Nixon; Luis S. Ogando Colon; Peter B. Oh;
Marcus Oscar Orr; Christopher Otto; Donald Wade Owens; Charles D.
Paglicco, Jr.; James G. Paige, Jr.; Matthew Pereira; Michael Andrew
Pertle; William James Petty, Jr.; Jarrod Scott Pitts; James Matthew
Potts; Bryan James Pratt; David Frank Pressley; John Jason Pryor;
Joseph Pusateri; Noel Ramirez; Steven M. Ramsey; John Manson Ray;
Heath Daniel Reams; Jasper U. Reaves; John Reddick; Benjamin Reno;
Oscar Reyes; Brandon Richard; Gregory Scott Vian Risdon; Clarence
Robinson; Rayo Emmiito Robinson; Barney Robson; Brandon Roldan;
William Thomas Roop; Curtis Ryals; Nickilas Sams; Franklin L.
Schmidt, III; Barbara Ann Scoby; Joseph Franklin Scott; Robert A.
Scott, III; Vernon B. Seaborn, Jr.; Michael A. Sederquist; Phillip
Wayne Senecal; Guillermo Serrano-Lopez; Pablo A. Serrano-Lopez;
Charles Shackelford; Katherine P. Shoemaker; Howard Arthur Singer;
Harpal Singh; Dennis Dean Smith; Kyle Anthony Smith; Randy Shane
Smith; Timothy Leonardo Smith; Quitz Snider; Richard Adam Solomon;
Roman Stelter; Winston Stewart; Shawn Michael Stone; Derick Lynn
Sullins; James Julian Alan Surrency; Tim Swadley; George A. Tapia;
Shannon Leigh Terry; Noulieng Thisanakone; Dan Vilaythong; Erick
Thompkins; Brennon Thompson; Stephen Loyd Tillerson; David Wright
Tillman; Kevin Toll; Richard F. Torrisi; Jeffrey S. Torsrud;
Gregory D. Trent; Jose Valentine; Luanne Santoro Voght; Wayne
Woodrow Waite; David C. Waldron; Marisa Sabrinda Walker; Robert
Wallace; Lance Wallace; Patrick Mark Walters; Steven Anthony
Wasson; Joseph Kane Weatherford; Derrick Earl Webb; Stacey Webb;
Trey Anthony Webber; Keeley Wheeler, Jr.; Johnny Keith White; Kacy
Fonteze Williams; Tiffany Nicole Williams; Steven M. Willis; Reia
Winn; Marlon Dewayne Witcham; Devon Terelle Wofford; William Wood;
Mark Antonio Woods; Warren R. Wright; Carisma Concetta Weiss; and
Robert Lee Plunkett are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway, N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
          MESSA & ASSOCIATES
          123 S. 22nd Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-3500
          E-mail: jmessa@messalaw.com
                  tsweeney@messalaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as
Werner Trucking, and Drivers Management, LLC, are represented by:

          Patrick Joseph Barrett, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Jones, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLO
          500 Energy Plaza
          409 S. 17th Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          E-mail: pbarrett@fraserstryker.com
                  eculhane@fraserstryker.com
                  jjones@fraserstryker.com


WHOLE FOODS: Employees Sue Over Black Lives Matter Masks
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bonner, writing for MASSLIVE, reports that more than a
dozen employees at Whole Foods Market, including nine at a location
in Cambridge, filed a class action lawsuit on July 20 against the
company claiming their civil rights were violated after being
disciplined for wearing Black Lives Matter masks at the store.

The lawsuit included employees from Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
California and Washington. It claims Whole Foods disciplined
employees for wearing masks that included the phrase "Black Lives
Matter." While the store has a dress code, the suit says others
employees wore masks featuring pride flags, the logos of sports
teams and even SpongeBob Square Pants without any retaliation.

The suit said in some locations, employees were given disciplinary
"points" when they are sent home for wearing a Black Lives Matter
mask, which put them at risk for termination.

Savannah Kinzer, who lives in Boston and worked at the Whole Foods
in Cambridge, was fired in July because of the discipline she
received for wearing a Black Lives Matter mask and for her
involvement in organizing her co-workers to wear the masks, the
suit said.

Whole Foods issued a statement on July 20 saying that no employees
were fired for wearing Black Lives Matter masks.

"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, it is critical to
clarify that no Team Members have been terminated for wearing Black
Lives Matter face masks or apparel," a Whole Foods spokesperson
said. "Savannah Kinzer was separated from the company for
repeatedly violating our Time & Attendance policy by not working
her assigned shifts, reporting late for work multiple times in the
past nine days and choosing to leave during her scheduled shifts.
It is simply untrue that she was separated from the company for
wearing a Black Lives Matter face mask.

"As an employer we must uphold our policies in an equitable and
consistent manner. Savannah had full understanding of our policies
and was given a number of opportunities to comply."

At the end of July, 21 Whole Foods employees were sent home from
the store on River Road in Cambridge.

"In order to operate in a customer-focused environment, all Team
Members must comply with our longstanding company dress code, which
prohibits clothing with visible slogans, messages, logos or
advertising that are not company-related," the company said in a
statement at the time. "Team Members with face masks that do not
comply with dress code are always offered new face masks. Team
Members are unable to work until the comply with dress code."

The suit claimed in the past, when employees violated the dress
code policy, it was either "ignored" or management informed
employees about it without sending them home or imposing
disciplinary measures.

"Plaintiffs and other Whole Foods employees expected Whole Foods
would support their decision to wear these masks because Whole
Foods has expressed support for inclusivity and equality and
because it previously allowed its employees to express support for
their LGBTQ+ coworkers through their apparel without discipline,"
the suit said.

The suit pointed to statements released by Whole Foods as well as
parent company Amazon, including a "Black Lives Matter" banner that
appeared atop the online giant's website, as evidence why employees
believed the masks would be approved by the market.

Employees in Cambridge who refused to take off their masks in
Cambridge, were sent home without pay, the lawsuit stated. In
Seattle, employees were placed on a "corrective action pathway,"
that requires retaining. An employee in Berkeley, California was
sent home for wearing a Black Lives Matter in. She soon left the
job after feeling "unwelcome in the workplace" after receiving the
disciplinary measure, the suit said.

The suit said managers at the stores said the regulations banning
Black Lives Matter masks came from corporate orders.

"Whole Foods' policy of not allowing its employees to wear Black
Lives Matter masks is discriminatory, both against Black employees
who are participating in and leading the employee protest, and
against other employees who are associating with and advocating for
Black Whole Foods employees and protesting racism and
discrimination in the workplace, by wearing the masks and showing
support for their Black co-workers," the lawsuit said.

The suit claims that similar actions were taken by stores in
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Connecticut, however, employees at those
stores were not part of the lawsuit. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Class Suits v J&J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that the Plaintiffs in two ERISA class action
lawsuits related to failure to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination have filed an amended complaint.

The Company states, "In January 2019, two ERISA class action
lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits
Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock
as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was
imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

"In September 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

"In April 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion but granted
leave to amend.

"On June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0FR3PV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that at this time, the amount of
reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the
Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating
cash flows.

The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured
in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s.  In
addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages.  Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals
or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.  The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to
the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or
judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.  At this
time, the amount of reasonably possible asbestos claims, if any, is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows, although these matters could
result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or
expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AhjtLZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1.04BB Noncurrent Liabilities at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. recorded Other Noncurrent Liabilities of US$1,038 million
related to asbestos matters as of June 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/a1UfTM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.4BB Bendix Liabilities at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1,430 million at June 30,
2020, in asbestos-related liabilities associated with predecessor
company Bendix Friction Materials business, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.

"The Company's Consolidated Financial Statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of
the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related
asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend
such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the
Company as they are incurred.  We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years.  We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims.  Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WnBQqO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $826MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$826 million at June 30,
2020, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation
owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  When the NARCO business was sold,
Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement
with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims.  Such claims arise primarily from alleged
occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and
mortar for high-temperature applications.  NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims
were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983.  Claims
filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s
through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January
2002.  Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO.

"Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell
recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which
was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to
settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain
post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as
"Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability
related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through
2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and
(iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73
million.

"As of June 30, 2020, the Company's total NARCO asbestos liability
of US$826 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability of US$147
million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$679 million (the US$743
million accrual for the 2006 NARCO Trust Liability Estimate was
reduced by US$64 million of payments by Honeywell to the NARCO
Trust for Annual Contribution Claims since HWI cash dividend
funding was fully exhausted in the fourth quarter of 2019 and there
have been no further dividends from HWI).  Through June 30, 2020,
Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by approximately
US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely related to
settlement payments.  The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability
principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures.  The other
NARCO bankruptcy related obligations were paid in 2013 and no
further liability is recorded.

"Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the 2006
NARCO Trust Liability Estimate.  Despite becoming effective in
2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully
operational.  Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute
resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to
the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims
processing experience in the Trust since it became operational.  As
a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust
Liability aside from deducting Honeywell payments to the NARCO
Trust for Annual Contribution Claims.  The 2006 NARCO Trust
Liability Estimate continues to be appropriate because of the
unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will
result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to
be filed with the NARCO Trust.  When sufficiently reliable claims
data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust
Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be
recognized.

"Our insurance receivable of US$274 million as of June 30, 2020,
corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and
unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which
reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and
defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WnBQqO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Bid to Nix Claims Accounting Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has denied
Honeywell International Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Kanefsky
litigation related to accounting for Bendix asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a
Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.  An
Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on February
7, 2020, we filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On May 18, 2020, the court
denied our Motion to Dismiss.  We believe the claims have no
merit."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WnBQqO



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Has Disclosure Statement Hearing on Aug. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that in May 2020, Imerys Talc America, Inc., certain
of its affiliates, and the asbestos claimants' committee filed
their Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement related
thereto agreeing to put its North American operations up for
auction.  The Bankruptcy Court will hold a hearing to consider
approval of the Disclosure Statement on August 26, 2020

The Company states, "In February 2019, the Company's talc supplier,
Imerys Talc America, Inc. and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc
Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys)
filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition commencing a reorganization
under the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Imerys Bankruptcy).
The Imerys Bankruptcy relates to Imerys' potential liability for
personal injury from exposure to talcum powder sold by Imerys (Talc
Claims).  In its bankruptcy filing, Imerys noted certain claims it
alleges it has against the Company for indemnification and rights
to joint insurance proceeds.  Based on such claims as well as
indemnity and insurance claims the Company has against Imerys, the
Company petitioned the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware to establish federal jurisdiction of the state
court talc lawsuits under the Bankruptcy Code.  The Company's
petition was denied and the state court talc lawsuits that have
been removed to federal court on such basis have been remanded.
The Company previously proposed to resolve Imerys' (and the
Company's) obligations arising out of the Talc Claims by agreeing
to assume the defense of litigation of all Talc Claims involving
the Company's products, waiving the Company's indemnification
claims against Imerys, and lifting the automatic stay to enable the
Talc Claims to proceed outside the bankruptcy forum with the
Company agreeing to settle or pay any judgment against Imerys.

"In May 2020, Imerys and the asbestos claimants' committee filed
their Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement related
thereto agreeing to put its North American operations up for
auction.  The Bankruptcy Court will hold a hearing to consider
approval of the Disclosure Statement on August 26, 2020 and the
Company is disputing any indemnification objections and the scope
of coverage in the reorganization plan.  Additionally, in June
2020, Cyprus Mines Corporation and its parent filed an adversary
proceeding against the Company as well as Imerys seeking a
declaration of indemnity under certain contractual agreements.  The
Company denies such indemnification is owed and is in the process
of responding to the complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0FR3PV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Seeks to Dismiss New Mexico's Consumer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson has sought the Court's ruling to dismiss certain
claims in the amended complaint of the State of New Mexico's
consumer protection case related to the alleged misrepresentations
about the safety of the Company's products and the presence of
carcinogens, including asbestos.

In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, the
Company said, "In January 2020, the State of New Mexico filed a
consumer protection case alleging that the Company deceptively
marketed and sold its talcum powder products by making
misrepresentations about the safety of the products and the
presence of carcinogens, including asbestos.  The State of New
Mexico filed an Amended Complaint in March 2020.  The Company has
filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims in the Amended
Complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0FR3PV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. has $1.2MM Litigation Expense in Q2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has US$1.2 million expense, net of
probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation for the three months ended June 30,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.  The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate.  Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance.  However, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several
factors and are subject to policy limits.  We may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments.

"The following table summarizes the expenses, net of probable
insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related
litigation recorded in Losses (gains) and other expenses, net in
the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7FKzyJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 610 Pending Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries still defend themselves against
approximately 610 claims related to asbestos matters as of June 30,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Our current and former subsidiaries and
numerous other unaffiliated companies are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.  These cases typically involve
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with
asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties.  Each
case typically names between several dozen to more than a hundred
corporate defendants.  Our historical strategy has been to mount a
vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed,
and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial.  Although a
large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot
predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving
lawsuits in the future.

"As of June 30, 2020, there were approximately 610 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries.  This amount is not adjusted
for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified
incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would
ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we
assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or
divestitures.  In addition, the amount does not include certain
claims pending against third parties for which we have been
provided an indemnification."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3hgU0q


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.13BB Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,133
million at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"The Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,133 million
at June 30, 2020, and approximately 20 percent of the recorded
claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 80
percent related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dFlgBV



                            *********

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 ***