/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200810.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 159

                            Headlines

85-16 FOOD CORP: Jarama Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
ABBVIE INC: UFCW Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 7th Circuit
AEROTEK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ochoa Says
AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Suit Balks at Deducted Disability Benefits
ALARM.COM INC: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in California

ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Two Classes in Synoracki Suit
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Fairfield Retirement Programs Sue Over Losses
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Smith Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Chapple Suit Transferred to S.D. Ca.

ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: $20,000 Counsel Fees Awarded in Douglas Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scams
ASPEN AMERICAN: Lillis Files Insurance Suit in Kansas
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Blake Cassels Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Babcock
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: PF Sunset View Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Zahran Class Suit in W.D. North Carolina
BANK OF AMERICA: Fahmia et al. Seek Payment of PPP Agent Fees
BASF: Settles Lawsuit Over Asbestos Fibres in Talc
BAY PATH UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Shine Challenges Proposed Sale to Daylight

BG RETAIL: Mendez Appeals Order, Judgment in ADA Suit to 2nd Cir.
BOSTON MARKET: Thorne Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Cir.
BP: Debit Card Fee Class Action Settlement Checks Forthcoming
BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BUILD REALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Compound Property Class Suit

C&D SECURITY: Files Bid to Quash Subpoena to Sterling in Davis Suit
CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in New York
CASPER SLEEP: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Kaufman Sues Over Telescope Overcharges
CHARLES SCHWAB: Wright Suit Over UCL Violation Moved to N.D. Cal.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Reimburse Costs, Gennarelli Says
CHEETAH MOBILE: Wang Sues Over Drop of Securities' Market Value
CHIPPEWA CORRECTION: Byrant Suit Seeks Class Certification
CIOX HEALTH: Charlton Alleges Exorbitant Fees to Medical Records
COLORADO: Class Action Filed Over McClain Protest Police Actions

COMMUNITY CHOICE: Labadie Sues in Mich. Over Breach of Contract
CONDENSED CURRICULUM: Williams Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
CONSTELLIS INTEGRATED: Hines Suit Transferred to C.D. Ca.
CORE VALUES: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Linz Suit
CREDIT CENTRAL: Court Refuses to Dismiss Bauer's Adversary Case

CRM US INC: Court Certifies Class of Sales Reps in DiSalvo Suit
CSU SYSTEM+: Utsay Wants Refund of Fees Due to COVID-19 Closure
CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
DLS CHICKEN: Galindo Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
EASY DIAL: Mortezapour Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

ECS TUNING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Alleges
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Falsely Labels Wet Ones Wipes, Souter Alleges
EVOQUA WATER: Hyams Sues Over Corporate Officers' Misconduct
FANTASY GIRLS: Becker FLSA Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
FCA US: Bakhtiar Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. California

FEDEX FREIGHT: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIRST HORIZON: Unbehagen Tax Sues to Obtain Fees Owed to Agents
FOUR SEASONS: 9th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Feinstein Suit
FOX KOHLER: Appeals D. N.J. Ruling in Frederick Suit to 3rd Cir.
FRIENDLY CARE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Pourmand Suit Alleges

GENERAL MOTORS: Barrington Sues Over Defect in Corvette's Wheels
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Files for Creditor Protection Amid Class Action
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Mercer Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
GRISWOLD HOME: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Scott FLSA Lawsuit
GROUPO TELEVISA: Court Denies Class Certification in Bribery Suit

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Saxena White Files Class Action
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Calls Settlement Deal "Obnoxious"
HONEYWELL INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Selection in Kanefsky Reopened
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Ross Pending Appeal
ILLINOIS: Holmes Wins Bid for Inmates' Audiological Evaluations

INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filed
ITHRIVE HEALTH: Court Dismisses Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Morris Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit
KRAFT HEINZ: Ferron Alleges Misleading Coffee Product Ads

KRAFT HEINZ: Sulzer Sues Over False Labeling of Coffee Products
LEPRINO FOODS: Class Certification in Perez to be Heard on Aug. 24
LET'S DO LUNCH: Fails to Pay All Due Wages, Mondragon Suit Claims
LOS ANGELES, CA: Cooley, et al. Seek to Certify Damages Class
MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Vasser Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination

MDL 2670: Bid to Stay Packed Seafood Products Antitrust Suit Denied
MDL 2921: Court Partly Limits Allergen's Communication with Class
MEDCARE STAFFING: Court Denies Progressive's Bid to Certify Class
MEDTRONIC INC: Court Remands Nichols Product Liability Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Minich Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA

NANCY BERRYHILL: Michener's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
NAROPA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
NEW DIRECTIONS: Krott Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Keller in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Class Action Filed Over Vaccine Regulations for Schools

NEW YORK: Gyms File Class Action Against Cuomo Over Shutdown
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Disselkamp, et al. Seek to Certify Class
NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Strike Reply in Securities Suit Due Aug. 13
OASIS PETROLEUM: Ceynar Sues in D.N.D. Alleging Contract Breach
OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Sues Minimum & OT Wages, Peralta Says

PAPERLESSPAY: McDonald Seeks to Certify Class in Data Breach Suit
PEAK THEORY: Fischler Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
PERMA-STRUCTO INC: Kiesler Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & WWPCL
PINECREST BAKERY: Vivero Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
PLAYAGS INC: Miller Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler Suit Moved From Nevada to Virginia
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Von Asten Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
PURDUE PHARMA: Attorney Seeks Names of West VA Children with NAS
R.C. BIGELOW: Tea Products Not American-Made, Banks et al. Claim
REVCO SOLUTIONS: Wallk Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation

RUBY PRINCESS: Operator Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
SAN BERNARDINO: No Class Status for Special Needs Students' Suit
SHOWFIELDS INC: Faces Olsen Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SIENA HEIGHTS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
SOL DE JANEIRO: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

SOUTHEASTERN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ST. EDWARDS UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McNutt Suit Gets Partial Cond. Certification
TENNESSEE: Washington Ordered to Sign Complaint & Pay Filing Fee
TOMMIE COPPER: New York Court Closes Herst Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Barr Appeals Ruling in Rodriguez Suit to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over SIV Application Backlog
UNITED STATES: Schuchardt Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
UNITED STATES: Smith Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Suit to D.C. Cir.
UNITED STATES: Suit v. Reclamation Over CND Project Stays in Mo.

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
WEALTH KNOWLEDGE: Green Files Suit in Florida
WELL PATH: Hawkins TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to M.D. Tenn.
WHOLE FOODS: Charlotte Resident Files Racial Profiling Lawsuit
WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Lopez ADA Suit

YMCA OF GREATER: Mercer Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ZAVANNA LLC: Double Diamond Files Class Suit in D. North Dakota
[*] Canadian Senior Care Threatened by COVID-19 Class Actions
[*] Class Actions Drive D&O Insurance to Unaffordable Levels
[*] Litigation Funders Criticize New Class Action Regulations


                            *********

85-16 FOOD CORP: Jarama Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA JARAMA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. 85-16 FOOD CORP. d/b/a CEVICHERIA EL REY, ISRAEL TELLEZ, and
ROCIO RIOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-03463 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a restaurant in Jackson Heights, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44 th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


ABBVIE INC: UFCW Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled UFCW Local 1500 Welfare
Fund, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01873, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arose from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to
restrain competition in the market for Humira (TM) and its
biosimilar competitors in the United States.

Humira (adalimumab) is a biologic injectable therapy indicated to
treat a variety of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid
arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque
psoriasis, Crohn's disease (adult and pediatric), and ulcerative
colitis. Humira is sold primarily in the United States and Europe.
For over 15 years, Humira has been a blockbuster drug. Indeed,
Humira is presently the best-selling prescription drug in the world
with over $130 billion in total sales since its launch.

Humira is the single largest revenue source for AbbVie, with sales
of nearly $20 billion in 2018 alone, which account for
approximately 61% of the company's global revenues.

Humira's price to patients has skyrocketed over the past decade.
Per patient costs doubled from $19,000 per year in 2012 to more
than $38,000 in 2018 (after rebates). Humira's list price, absent
rebates, can now reach $50,000 per year per patient.

Many other pharmaceutical manufacturers have sought to launch
lower-priced adalimumab "biosimilars"--generic versions of Humira
that treat the same underlying conditions--to garner their own
share of the enormous U.S. market for this biologic. However,
despite eight other manufacturers developing adalimumab
biosimilars--three of which have received Food and Drug
Administration approval--AbbVie has successfully prevented all
biosimilars from launching in the U.S. market through widespread
anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to maintain its
monopoly and supracompetitive prices.

AbbVie has erected significant barriers to entry to block
biosimilar competition. Specifically, AbbVie has created and
employed an exclusionary "patent thicket"--an unlawful scheme
whereby it secured over 100 patents designed solely to insulate
Humira from any biosimilar competition in the U.S. for years to
come. Then, AbbVie entered into illegal market division agreements
with the remaining Defendants in a concerted effort to delay
biosimilar entry in the U.S. until at least 2023. Meanwhile,
patients in Europe do not have to wait, as AbbVie agreed to earlier
entry dates, thereby permitting biosimilar competitors to launch
there.

This trade-off meant that the lower price for Humira in Europe was
subsidized by the much higher price in the United States where
AbbVie unlawfully maintained its monopoly.

The primary patent for Humira expired in December 2016. However, in
order to create its patent thicket, AbbVie has applied for nearly
250 patents since its biologic was first developed, 89% of which
were filed after the FDA's approval of its initial new drug
application. Humira is now blanketed by over 100 issued patents.
Many of the Humira patents expire in 2034, over three decades since
the drug's launch.

The sheer number of patents makes it "nearly impossible for any
biosimilar to feasibly litigate all of these patents." The long
duration and extensive scope of AbbVie's patent thicket blocks
biosimilar entry regardless of whether parts of the thicket die
from time to time as AbbVie patents may be adjudged invalid or
non-infringed.

AbbVie has abused the patent system--collecting dozens and dozens
of patents, many of which are overlapping and non-inventive--as a
means to block competition in the U.S. market. It simply is not
feasible for biosimilar manufacturers to engage in time-consuming
and expensive patent litigation against this mass of dubious
patents.

The appellate case is captioned as UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, et
al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2402, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by August 13, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before September 8, 2020,
      for Locals 302 & 612 of the International Union of
      Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Health
      and Security Trust Fund, Louisiana Health Service &
      Indemnity Company, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
      Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund and UFCW Local 1500
      Welfare Fund.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; LOCALS 302 & 612 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS- EMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY HEALTH AND SECURITY TRUST FUND; LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE &
INDEMNITY COMPANY, doing business as BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
LOUISIANA; PIPE TRADES SERVICES MN WELFARE FUND; and MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE are represented by:

          Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: lauren@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: kgarvey@labaton.com

               - and -

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com

Defendants-Appellees ABBVIE INC., AMGEN, INCORPORATED, ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO. LTD., MYLAN INC., MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC, FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, PFIZER
INC., and MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. are represented by:

          James F. Hurst, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3406
          Telephone: (312) 862-5230
          E-mail: james.hurst@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Bruce Roger Braun, I, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: bbraun@sidley.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Quinn, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-4001
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: bquinn@omm.com

               - and -

          Brent M. Byars, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Telephone: (770) 639-1834
          E-mail: mbyars@cravath.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Letkewicz, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 624-6333
          E-mail: cletkewicz@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Kimball R. Anderson, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5858
          E-mail: kanderso@winston.com

               - and -

          John J. Hamill, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 368-4000
          E-mail: john.hamill@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Andrew Gordon May, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          Two N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-3801
          Telephone: (312) 269-8000
          E-mail: amay@nge.com


AEROTEK INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Ochoa Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY OCHOA, as a representative on behalf of himself and other
aggrieved employees v. AEROTEK, INC., a corporation doing business
in California and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV29083 (Cal. Super., Los Angeless Cty., July 31, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages, including
minimum, regular, and overtime wages, in violation of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code.

In October 2019, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as a non-exempt
employee and terminated him on January 22, 2020.

Aerotek provides staffing services to consumers and businesses in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS, PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (866) 496- 7552
          Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
          E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com


AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Suit Balks at Deducted Disability Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cloman Smith, individually and as class action representative on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. AETNA INSURANCE, Case No.
5:20-cv-00332-KKC (E.D. Ky., July 31, 2020), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of current and
past individuals:

   -- who were claimants covered by the Defendant's ERISA long
      term disability benefit insurance policy; and

   -- who had the amount of their ERISA disability benefits
      illegally deducted by the amount of the Federal Social
      Security Retirement Benefits they received, contrary to the
      Defendant's relevant ERISA long term disability benefit
      plan.

The Plaintiff contends that the facts in this case will
unequivocally establish that the Defendant convinced each member of
the class that the relevant Disability Plan allowed the Defendant
to reduce each of their relevant ERISA-based long term disability
benefits by the amount of their Federal Social Security Retirement
Benefits, prior to the Defendant concluding they were disabled
under the terms of the relevant ERISA long term disability
insurance benefits plan.

The Plaintiff was a disability insurance claimant under Defendant
AETNA Insurance's ERISA Long term Disability Insurance Policy.

Aetna Insurance administered disability insurance claims on behalf
of the Plaintiff in Lexington, Kentucky. Aetna is also the
fiduciary under the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Portnoy, Esq.
          810 West South Boundary Rd.
          Perrysburg, OH 43551
          Phone: (419) 874-2775
          Email: hawkport@aol.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth S. Hughes, Esq.
          GREEN CHESNUT & HUGHES PLLC
          201 East Main Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 475-1471
          Facsimile: (859) 455-3332
          Email: ehughes@gcandh.com


ALARM.COM INC: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alarm.com
Incorporated. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc
and Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Alarm.com Incorporated doing
business as: ICN Acquisition and GHS Interactive Security, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05210 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) over Restrictions of Use
of Telephone Equipment.

Alarm.com Incorporated provides interactive security solutions for
home and business owners.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: (323) 306-4234
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com



ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Two Classes in Synoracki Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., et al, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
pursuant to Rules 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a), the Court finds that the proposed Classes
in the case are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; that there are questions of law or fact common to
Order on Motion for Class Certification the respective Classes;
that the Class Representative's claims are typical of the claims of
other members of the Classes; and that the Class Representative and
Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the members of
the Classes.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court finds that common questions of
law and fact predominate over the questions affecting only
individual members of the Classes, and that a class action is
superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy.

The certified classes are defined as:

  a. Sick Time Accrual Class:  All past and present pilots
     employed by Alaska Airlines, Inc., who: (i) did not accrue
     sick time while on periods of military leave from Alaska
     Airlines, Inc., from Oct. 10, 2004, to the date of the Order;

     and (ii) were not at the maximum sick leave accrual level at
     the time of military leave(s) or at any time thereafter.

  b. Vacation Time Accrual Class:  All past and present pilots
     employed by Alaska Airlines, Inc., who did not accrue
     vacation time while on periods of military leave from Alaska
     Airlines, Inc., from Oct. 10, 2004, to the date of the Order.

Leo Synoracki is appointed as the Class Representative for the
Class.

The law firms of Stonebarger Law APC, Pilot Law, P.C., and The Law
Offices of Charles M. Billy, APC, are appointed as the Class
Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/8YnYal from Leagle.com.


ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Fairfield Retirement Programs Sue Over Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD and
RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR FAIRFIELD POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05817 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a proposed class and
subclass of investors in four hedge funds to recover damages based
on Defendant's negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract, which led to the hedge funds -- and its investors --
suffering severe, catastrophic financial losses.

According to the complaint, a core component of the Defendant's
Structured Alpha investment strategy was to provide protection
against catastrophic tail events or market crashes, guarding
against sudden extreme market downturns such as the selloff that
occurred on Monday, October 19, 1987 ("Black Monday"), the biggest
single day market selloff in history. Yet, the market downturn
which occurred during February and March of 2020 revealed that
Defendant, in breach of its duties and obligations as the
investment and managing member of the Structured Alpha Funds, had
deviated from its investment mandate, and that the Structured Alpha
Funds were positioned to incur significant losses.

Acting in further derogation of its duties, the Defendant
restructured the Funds in late February and early March in an
effort to reverse the losses incurred, selling protection to other
investors seeking protection against increased market volatility
and the declining market conditions, exposing the Structured Alpha
funds to even greater losses, despite the fact that the Defendant's
chief economist had been warning of these volatile and declining
market conditions since January 2020.

The Defendant engaged in this conduct for its own economic
self-interest, and to the detriment of the Structured Alpha Funds
and investors, in an effort to salvage its own substantial
performance-based fees, which, given the Funds' performance and the
potential fallout that could result from Defendant's failures, were
in jeopardy for quarter-end March 31, 2020 and the foreseeable
future. Rather than protecting against the severe market downturn,
Defendant abandoned this pillar of its investment strategy, along
with the risk management and controls that were supposed to be in
place at both the portfolio and firm-wide levels to protect
investors against such outcomes.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Structured Alpha Funds
suffered massive losses, resulting in billions of dollars in losses
for investors, including Fairfield and the proposed Classes.

Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC operates as an investment firm.
The Company provides portfolio management and advisory services.
Allianz Global Investors individuals, corporations, public pension
and profit-sharing plans, charitable institutions, foundations,
endowments, and trusts in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com

AMERICAN CAMPUS: Smith Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LANZELL SMITH, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00280934 (Filed June 18, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
July 31, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00759 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
and unpaid minimum wage in violation of the Labor Code.

American Campus is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
that invests in dormitory housing.[BN]

The Defendant American Campus is represented by:

          Peter Z. Stockburger, Esq.
          Leanna Anderson, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 236-1414
          Facsimile: (619) 232-8311
          E-mail: peter.stockburger@dentons.com
                  leanna.anderson@dentons.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020 that the company continues to defend itself
against an antitrust class action lawsuit entitled, The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.

In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of the company's charge cards and
credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

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

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Chapple Suit Transferred to S.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marta Carrera Chapple, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ancestry.com
Operations Inc., a Virginia corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, was transferred from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego with the assigned Case No.
37-20-00021807-CU-BT-CTL to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on July 29, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01456-LAB-DEB.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.

Ancestry.com Operations Inc. provides online family genealogy
information and resources. The Company allows website users to
upload family history information to create genealogy networks.
Ancestry.com serves customers in the United States and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
   Dostart Hannink Coveney LLP
   4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 623-4200
   Fax: (858) 623-4299
   Email: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Shon Morgan, Esq.
   Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
   865 South Figueroa Street
   10th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
   Tel: (213) 443-3000
   Fax: (213) 443-3100
   Email: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com




ANTHEM PRODUCTIONS: $20,000 Counsel Fees Awarded in Douglas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLTON DOUGLAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTHEM
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 5789 (GWG)
(S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses as to
Defendants Anthem Productions; Advanced Audio Technologies, LLC;
Evaggelos Poulos; and Joseph Lodi.

Carlton Douglas, later joined by opt-in Plaintiffs Atonyio Brown
and Doreen Rodriguez, brought the action against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"); and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
("NYCRR").

The lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2018.  The Plaintiffs then made a
motion for approval of a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).  The Court granted the motion and notice was sent
to 31 members of the FLSA collective.  Two individuals joined the
case.  The parties participated in private mediation on Aug. 15,
2019, but the mediation was not successful.  Discovery concluded on
Dec. 31, 2019.

In January 2019, the Defendants served the Plaintiffs with an offer
of judgment of $16,000 exclusive of attorneys' fees, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68; and the Plaintiffs accepted the
Rule 68 offer.  The Rule 68 offer was made by all the Defendants
except for Defendant Jason Ojeda.

On March 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a separate proposed
settlement agreement between them and Defendant Ojeda for a total
of $2,000, with $666.65 allocated to attorneys' fees.  On the same
date, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for $24,300.50 in
attorneys' fees and $4,547.34 in costs.

Magistrate Judge Gorenstein notes that the case was not unusually
complex, that it did not demand great resources, and that there
were no unusual timing demands on the case.  On the other hand, the
counsel and their firm practice extensively in the field of class
action and collective action lawsuits, specializing in wage and
hour cases.  The Court has also relied on its own knowledge of
rates in the district to determine what is the cheapest hourly rate
an effective attorney would have charged.  The Judge concludes that
the following rates are appropriate: Borrelli, $375 per hour;
Coleman, $325 per hour; Maguire, $295 per hour; Nguyen $250 per
hour; and Meitus, $200 per hour.  Finally, Luiggi Tapia and Pablo
E. Martinez are two paralegals at the firm who assisted with
paralegal and clerical duties in the matter.  While they seek an
hourly rate of $90, they will be compensated at the rate of $75 per
hour as is customary for paralegals.

Having examined the records, the Judge will exercise his discretion
simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours
claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee
application.  The Judge concludes that even after the Plaintiffs'
laudable reduction from 208.5 hours to 90.2 hours, the requested
number of hours is still too great.  Rather than set forth
item-by-item findings concerning what may be countless objections
to individual billing items, the Judge chooses to deduct a
percentage of hours from the Plaintiffs' application to align the
number of hours sought with what he views as reasonable.
Specifically, the Judge finds that a 15% downward adjustment is
appropriate, resulting in 76.67 hours awarded.  The adjustment
brings the number of hours sought closer to awards that have been
granted by other courts in similar cases.  

The fees awarded are summarized as follows: (i) Borrelli -
$2,581.88; (ii) Coleman - $2,596.75; (iii) Maguire - $7,046.18;
(iv) Nguyen - $5,440; (v) Meitus - $2,363; and (vi) Paralegals -
$220.88.  The total is $20,250.69.

The Plaintiffs also seek $4,547.34 in costs.  They provide a
statement outlining specific expenses, including $400 in filing
fees; $3,170.24 in private mediation fees; $209.05 in research
expenses; $63.66 in service fees; $633.20 in translation fees and
postage for FLSA notices; $30.52 in travel costs; and $40.67 in
printing, copying, and postage fees.  The Plaintiffs also include
receipts for many of the expenses.  The Defendants make no specific
objection to these charges.  And such charges are recoverable.

Finally, the Defendants blithely assert that most courts have found
that requested fees in excess of the reasonably expected amount of
a recovery would not be reasonable.  Not surprisingly, the only
citation given in support of that statement, says no such thing.
Rather, Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp. reduced a requested fee award
(1) because of the enormous disparity (even setting aside the
change in the law concerning liquidated damages) between the
damages the Plaintiffs originally sought and those they ultimately
were awarded; and (2) because the counsel allowed at least one
Plaintiff to present perjured testimony at trial.  Neither
circumstance is present in the case.  Thus, the Defendants'
citation to Gamero is baseless, the Court finds.

In sum, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs.  The Plaintiffs are awarded
$20,250.69 in attorneys' fees and $4,547.34 in costs for a total of
$24,798.03.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/uRZhJs from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scams
---------------------------------------------------------
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for Zero Day, reports that Apple has been
sued in a California court for not doing enough to combat iTunes
gift card scams.

According to court documents, plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
filed earlier in July claim that Apple is aware and knowingly
permitting iTunes gift card scams to perpetuate as it allows the
company to make a profit from the scammed funds.

WHAT'S AN "ITUNES GIFT CARD SCAM"

The iTunes gift card scam has been around since the mid-2000s when
Apple introduced gift card for the iTunes store, which it later
expanded to all its stores under its current official name of "App
Store & iTunes Gift Cards."

There are several variations of this scam, but the vast majority
follow the same loose pattern.

Scammers call a victim citing an urgent and time-sensitive scenario
that requires a payment for things like taxes, hospital bills, bail
money, debt collection, and utility bills. They urge victims to buy
an iTunes gift card from a local retailer and pass the card's
serial code and its PIN to the scammer as proof of payment.

Most of the scam's targets are elderly who may not be aware that
iTunes and Apple Store gift cards can only be used on Apple stores
and nowhere else -- such as paying bills or taxes in the real
world.

The "scam" is that by the time victims realize this small detail,
the scammer has already used the gift cards' funds. Scammed funds
are typically laundered in various ways, but three methods are
often encountered:

1. The scammer uses funds to buy an Apple device (Mac, iPhone,
iPad, or other), which it later resells to gain access to
real-world fiat currency.

2. The scammer uses the funds to buy perks or digital currency in
an app or game they have set up, creating real-world provits for a
company they owned or have partnered with.

3. The scammer resells the gift card code and PIN to other
criminals.

LAWSUIT: APPLE HAS BENEFITED FROM LETTING SCAMMERS RUN WILD

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs say that despite knowing of this
problem for years, Apple has not done anything to prevent it,
besides putting up a web page on its website with a simple
warning.

"Apple is incentivized to allow the scam to continue because it
reaps a 30% commission on all scammed proceeds, and knowingly or
recklessly, Apple plays a vital role in the scheme by failing to
prevent payouts to the scammers," court documents read.

Plaintiffs say that despite Apple's tight control of all App Store
transactions and gift cards, the company "falsely tells victims
that 100% of their money is irretrievable."

"Apple retains 30% of the spent funds for itself. At all times,
this amount remains retrievable to the consumer. Apple holds the
remaining spent funds for four to six weeks before paying the
third-party vendors on the App and iTunes stores on which the
stored value was spent, meaning the remainder is also retrievable
to the consumer," the lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs claim that Apple has violated the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) that grants victims relief for
any losses they suffer following an unlawful act.

The current plaintiffs, all elderly of 50+ years, are now seeking
material relief for funds they lost during past scams.

They are also seeking an injunction to block Apple from
transferring any money to Apple Developer accounts associated with
known gift card scams.

Based on FTC complaints and statistics, the court documents
estimate iTunes gift card scams losses to be around $1 billion,
with Apple retaining $300 million in commissions.

According to a 2018 FTC report, a quarter of victims who are
reporting falling victim to a scam said they were asked to pay by
acquiring a gift card and passing on the card's code. Of all gift
card scams, the FTC said that iTunes cards accounted for 23.7% of
all cases in 2018, the most of any type of gift card scam. [GN]


ASPEN AMERICAN: Lillis Files Insurance Suit in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspen American
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Patrick B Lillis,
Plaintiff v. Aspen American Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02368-EFM-GEB (D. Kan., July 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over Breach of Insurance Contract.

Aspen American Insurance Co operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides fire and casualty insurance services to its
clients. Aspen American Insurance serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradley Wilders, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KC
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7100
   Fax: (816) 714-7101
   Email: wilders@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   Christopher Curtis Shank, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KC
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7100
   Fax: (816) 714-7101
   Email: shank@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   Dawn Marie Parsons, Esq.
   Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, PC - KC
   2001 Wyandotte
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: (816) 931-0500
   Fax: (816) 931-5775
   Email: dparsons@sls-law.com

     - and -

   J. Kent Emison, Esq.
   Langdon & Emison-Lexington
   911 Main Street
   PO Box 220
   Lexington, MO 64067
   Tel: (660) 259-6175
   Fax: (660) 259-4571
   Email: kent@lelaw.com

     - and -

   Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6507
   Fax: (816) 561-6501
   Email: jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

     - and -

   Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6510
   Fax: (816) 561-6501
   Email: mlytle@millerschirger.com

     - and -

   Michael Barzee, Esq.
   Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, PC - KC
   2001 Wyandotte
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: (816) 931-0500
   Email: mbarzee@sls-law.com

     - and -

   Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KC
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7110
   Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

     - and -

   Rachael D. Longhofer, Esq.
   Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, PC - KC
   2001 Wyandotte
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: (816) 931-0500
   Email: rlonghofer@sls-law.com

     - and -

   Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
   Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, PC - KC
   2001 Wyandotte
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: (816) 931-0500
   Fax: (816) 931-5775
   Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com

     - and -

   John J. Schirger, Esq.
   Miller Schirger, LLC
   4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
   Kansas City, MO 64111
   Tel: (816) 561-6504
   Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com



ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Blake Cassels Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Babcock
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Reinertson, Esq., and Karine Rusell, Esq., of Blake, Cassels
& Graydon LLP, in an article for Blakes Lawyers, report that on
July 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its
decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock (Babstock). In
its first definitive statement on this issue, the SCC held that
waiver of tort is not an independent cause of action, putting to
rest the long-running debate in Canadian jurisprudence on this
topic. In this pivotal decision, a majority of the SCC held that
the doctrine of "waiver of tort" is not an independent cause of
action in Canadian law and the term itself is apt to generate
confusion and should be abandoned. The SCC allowed the appeals of
the defendant, Atlantic Lottery Corp. (ALC), from the lower courts'
decisions, setting aside the order certifying the action as a class
proceeding and striking the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in Babstock sought to certify a class action against
the defendant lottery corporation based on allegations that ALC's
operation of video lottery terminal games were inherently dangerous
and deceptive. The plaintiffs relied on three causes of action:
waiver of tort, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. A
central issue in this case arose from the plaintiffs' reliance on
the doctrine of waiver of tort, which they asserted permitted the
plaintiff to "waive" the tort of negligence in favour of claiming
the gains acquired by the defendant rather than the harm suffered
by the plaintiff

ALC sought to strike the plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it
disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the plaintiffs' applied
for certification of their claim as a class action. The plaintiffs
sought to rely on waiver of tort as an independent cause of action
for disgorgement that allowed for a gain-based remedy to "be
determined at trial on common issues without the involvement of any
individual class member" and submitted that its claim for waiver of
tort had at least a reasonable chance of succeeding at trial

The Newfoundland Supreme Court dismissed ALC's application to
strike the plaintiffs' claim and further held that the plaintiffs
had satisfied the requirements necessary for certification. In
particular, and because the plaintiffs intended to pursue a
collective remedy (calculated on the basis of the defendant's
profits) without proving individual damage, the certification judge
concluded that there were common issues among the class that would
be better addressed through a class action. The Newfoundland Court
of Appeal subsequently upheld the certification judge's conclusions
and allowed the plaintiffs' claims in waiver of tort, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment to proceed to trial. However, no
Canadian court had affirmatively recognized such a cause of action,
although the plaintiffs relied on a line of prior class action
certification decisions in which Canadian courts -- including the
SCC -- had refrained from finding that it was plain and obvious
that such an action does not exist. ALC appealed the Court of
Appeal's decision to the SCC.

THE SCC DECISION

On appeal, a majority of the SCC held that the plaintiffs could not
rely on the doctrine of waiver of tort as an independent cause of
action for disgorgement and confirmed that the asserted novel cause
of action does not exist in Canadian law and had no reasonable
chance of succeeding at trial

Justice Brown for the majority stated that the law in Canada has
evolved in recent years to allow the SCC to now resolve the
outstanding question of whether waiver of tort is an independent
cause of action. He explained that restitution for unjust
enrichment and disgorgement for wrongdoing are two types of
gain-based remedies. Each is distinct from the other: disgorgement
requires only that the defendant gained a benefit (with no proof of
deprivation to the plaintiff required), while restitution is
awarded in response to the causative event of unjust enrichment
where there is correspondence between the defendant's gain and the
plaintiff's deprivation. Here, the plaintiffs sought disgorgement,
not restitution, submitting that they were entitled to a remedy
quantified solely based on ALC's gain, without reference to damage
that any of them may have suffered. However, disgorgement, as a
gain based remedy, is precisely that: a remedy, awarded in certain
circumstances upon the plaintiff satisfying all the constituent
elements of one or more of various causes of action (specifically,
breach of a duty in tort, contract, or equity)

Justice Brown further commented that disgorgement should be viewed
as an alternative remedy for certain forms of wrongful conduct, not
as an independent cause of action. Although disgorgement is
available for some forms of wrongdoing without proof of damage (for
example, breach of fiduciary duty), it is a far leap to find that
disgorgement without proof of damage is available as a general
proposition in response to a defendant's negligent conduct.
Granting disgorgement for negligence without proof of damage would
result in a remedy arising out of "legal nothingness" and would be
a radical and uncharted development. This is not the type of
incremental change that falls within the remit of courts applying
the common law

The SCC commented that, and as this case demonstrates, the term
"waiver of tort" is apt to generate confusion and should therefore
be abandoned. Further and relatedly, in order to make out a claim
for disgorgement, a plaintiff must first establish actionable
misconduct.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASS ACTIONS

Babstock is the first time the SCC has definitively stated that
wavier of tort is not an independent cause of action. Plaintiffs
should no longer be able to plead waiver of tort in their claims
and seek to have a class action certified from "legal nothingness"
on the basis of the previously uncertain status of this now
abandoned legal doctrine. [GN]


ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: PF Sunset View Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as PF Sunset View, LLC, doing business as:
Planet Fitnes, PF Riverview, LLC, doing business as: Planet
Fitness, PF Skipper, doing business as: Planet Fitness and PF Water
View, LLC, doing business as: Planet Fitness, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Atlantic
Specialty Insurance Company, a New York corporation, Defendant, was
transferred from the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County,
Florida with the assigned Case No. 2020-CA-005643 to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach) on July 29, 2020, and assigned Case No. 9:20-cv-81224-RAR.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Atlantic specialty insurance company provides specialty insurance
services. The company offers a combination of insurance products
for both commercial and personal lines, as well as professional,
marine and environmental insurance. Atlantic conducts business
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Adam Mark Balkan, Esq.
   Balkan & Patterson, LLP
   1877 S Federal Highway, Suite 100
   Boca Raton, FL 33432
   Tel: (561) 750-9191
   Fax: 750-1574
   Email: adam@balkanpatterson.com

     - and -

   John Bledsoe Patterson, Esq.
   Balkan & Patterson
   1877 S Federal Highway, Suite 100
   Boca Raton, FL 33431
   Tel: (561) 750-9191
   Fax: 750-1574
   Email: john@balkanpatterson.com




BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Zahran Class Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America N.A.
The case is styled as Gina Zahran, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bank of America N.A., Case No.
3:20-cv-00427 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 3, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending for Breach of
Contract.

Bank of America, National Association, operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 North Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Phone: (800) 849-5291
          Email: jhughes@wallacegraham.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Fahmia et al. Seek Payment of PPP Agent Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAHMIA, INC.; and PRINZO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF
AMERICA, CORP.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-00642 (M.D.N.C., July 13, 2020)
is an action seeking compensation for the Defendants' refusal to
pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated agents for the
services they rendered to recipients of Small Business
Administration ("SBA") loans, as required under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

According to the complaint, on March 25, 2020, in response to the
economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis and to overwhelming
public pressure, the U.S. Senate passed the CARES Act. Amounting to
approximately $2 trillion, the CARES Act was the single-largest
economic stimulus bill in American history. Part of the CARES Act,
known as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), was designed to
keep small businesses afloat and avoid massive layoffs by
distributing sufficient funds to cover up to eight weeks of payroll
and other expenses through the Small Business Administration.

Congress provided that PPP loans would be disbursed through
SBA-approved lenders, though the loans themselves would be
guaranteed by the federal government. In exchange for their
participation, lenders would receive a percentage of each loan as
an origination fee.

However, now that PPP loans have been disbursed to borrowers, the
Defendants have refused to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated agents their statutorily mandated fees. These
agents, including the Plaintiffs, have no other recourse for
collecting fees for assisting borrowers on PPP loan applications
because the PPP regulations delegate the responsibility for paying
agents to the lenders alone. And yet, the Defendants have
disregarded the regulations and refused to pay agents who assisted
small businesses in receiving PPP funds.

Bank of America Corporation operates as a bank. The Bank offers
saving accounts, deposits, mortgage and construction loans, cash
and wealth management, certificates of deposit, investment fund,
credit and debit cards, insurance, mobile, and online banking
services. Bank of America serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Lyon, Esq.
          ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC
          300 E. Kingston Avenue, Suite 200
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704)707-3705
          Facsimile: (336)724-3335
          E-mail: dlyon@emplawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  esk@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
          Connor P. Lemire, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          231 North Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
                  lmp@mccunewright.com
                  cpl@mccunewright.com


BASF: Settles Lawsuit Over Asbestos Fibres in Talc
--------------------------------------------------
Becky Bargh, writing for Cosmetics Business, reports that German
chemicals goliath BASF has settled a decade-long lawsuit claiming
it knowingly concealed asbestos fibres in its talc.

The personal care supplier and its counsel Cahill Gordon agreed to
pay out US$73 million in funds to as many as 20,000 plaintiffs.

Claimants who brought a case against BASF, formerly Englehard,
between 1984 and 2011 will be able to seek between $500 and
$175,000 in funds, depending on the severity of their injuries.

"After more than nine years of contentious litigation and extensive
discovery, the parties, with the assistance of mediators, have
reached a proposed class action settlement that is fair, reasonable
and adequate for class members," the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement stated.

"The settlement recognises that the plaintiffs and the defendants
each face substantial risks and costs in proceeding further with
this litigation, and that resolving the case now provides benefits
to both sides."

According to the suit, Englehard hired Cahill Gordon to defend it
against claims that Emtal Talc it produced between 1967 and 1983
contained cancer-causing asbestos.

However, plaintiffs said the firms had falsely argued there was no
evidence its products contained the carcinogen, and had used this
claim in order to dismiss or settle thousands of claims.

The latest case was initially dismissed by the trial court but was
revived on appeal to the Third Circuit, which kickstarted years of
discovery, disputes and attempts at mediation.

BASF said it did not oppose the settlement and would receive full
release from liability if the funds were approved. [GN]


BAY PATH UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Bay Path University is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna
Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Path University, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05910 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2020).

Bay Path University is a private university located in Longmeadow,
Massachusetts. Bay Path offers both all-women bachelor's degree
programs, co-educational master's degree programs, an occupational
therapy doctorate program, and an EdD in Higher Education
Leadership & Organizational Studies program for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Shine Challenges Proposed Sale to Daylight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Shine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PAUL E. AVERY, ROBERT MURLEY,
ANTHONY J. BARKETT, JOHN FICHTHORN, PEGGY B. SCOTT, GAVIN
SOUTHWELL, and PAUL GABOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-05976 (S.D.N.Y., July
31, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of
Benefytt against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of
the Company by Daylight Beta Parent Corp. and Daylight Beta Corp.

On July 13, 2020, Benefytt announced that the Company had entered
into definitive agreement with Daylight (the "Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which Daylight will acquire all outstanding shares of
Benefytt's Class A common stock (the "Tender Offer") for $31.00 in
cash per share (the "Offer Price"). The Tender Offer is scheduled
to expire on August 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, on July 24, 2020, the Company filed an
incomplete and materially misleading Recommendation Statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement omits material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction. Accordingly, the
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as Benefytt
stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the
Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.

The Plaintiff has been the owner of the common stock of Benefytt
since prior to the transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from proceeding with the Proposed Transaction.

Benefytt is deemed negligent as a result of the Individual
Defendants' negligence in preparing and reviewing the
Recommendation Statement, according to the complaint. The
Defendants knew that the Plaintiff and other shareholders would
rely upon the Recommendation Statement in determining whether to
tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. As a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful course of
conduct in violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated
thereunder, absent injunctive relief from the Court, the Plaintiff
and other shareholders will suffer irreparable injury by being
denied the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether
to tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Benefytt is a health insurance technology company that primarily
engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce
health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms,
agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration
platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


BG RETAIL: Mendez Appeals Order, Judgment in ADA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Himelda Mendez filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated July 6, 2020, and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Mendez v. BG Retail, LLC, Case No.
19-cv-11166, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

BG Retail, LLC operates 1,055 value-priced family footwear stores
under the Famous Footwear banner in the US and Guam.

The appellate case is captioned as Mendez v. BG Retail, LLC, Case
No. 20-2516, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Himelda Mendez, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BG Retail, LLC, DBA Famous Footwear, is
represented by:

          Erik Mass, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 492-2517
          E-mail: erik.mass@ogletree.com


BOSTON MARKET: Thorne Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Braulio Thorne filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 29, 2020, and Judgment dated June 30,
2020, issued in his lawsuit entitled Thorne v. Boston Market
Corporation, Case No. 19-cv-9932, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Boston Market Corporation owns and operates chain of restaurants.
Boston Market offers buffet, sandwiches and salads, soups,
desserts, rotisserie meals, chicken, cheese manicotti, beef roast,
and beefsteak. The Company also provides home delivery and catering
services.

The appellate case is captioned as Thorne v. Boston Market
Corporation, Case No. 20-2453, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Schreck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          E-mail: dschreck@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Boston Market Corporation is represented by:

          Michael Fleming, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6207
          E-mail: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com


BP: Debit Card Fee Class Action Settlement Checks Forthcoming
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Wohlers, writing for Woodburn Independent, reports that
Attorney General and Oregon Consumer Justice wants Oregonians to
know forthcoming checks are legitimate.

With scams running rampant in society today, it is no surprise
Oregonians threw away checks last year that came from a class
action lawsuit against gas giant BP.

But the nonprofit organization Oregon Consumer Justice, along with
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and the Oregon Department of
Justice, wants the public to know that more checks are coming, and
they are real.

Over the next few weeks, more than one million Oregonians, who used
a debit card to buy gas at Oregon ARCO and ampm gas stations
between Jan. 1, 2011 and Aug. 30, 2013, will receive a check in the
mail in the amount of $94.42, according to a press release from OCJ
and ODOJ.

"We always encourage Oregonians to be on the lookout for scams and
to know the signs that something could be a scam," Rosenblum said.
"But, in this case, the checks are real, and we want Oregonians to
know they are safe to cash this check at the bank. If you used a
debit card at an Oregon ARCO and AM/PM gas station during this
time-period, you qualify for this class action settlement.

"This is your money, and we hope that all Oregonians will help us
spread the word," she added. [GN]


BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brandman University.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Brandman University, Case No.
1:20-cv-06040 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Brandman University is a private university with over 25 campuses
throughout California and Washington and a virtual campus
online.[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


BUILD REALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Compound Property Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COMPOUND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. BUILD REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-133
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted in part
and denied in part (i) the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Smith,
Graham & Co. Investment Advisors, L.P. and Five Mile Capital
Partners, LLC ("Financing Defendants"); (ii) the Partial Motion to
Dismiss of Defendant Build and various affiliates and individuals
related to that entity who are also named as Defendants in the
action ("Build Defendants"); and (iii) the Motion to Dismiss of
Defendant First Title.

The Plaintiffs in the action are three entities, suing on behalf of
a putative class of such entities, each of which invested in a real
estate opportunity through which the entity hoped to profit by
rehabbing and "flipping" a residential property.  As a general
matter, they claim that they suffered economic harm by
participating in that real estate opportunity, and that the various
Defendants all should be liable to them on a variety of theories
based on the role each Defendant allegedly played in the endeavor.

More specifically, the Complaint outlines what it refers to as the
"Build Scheme."  According to the Complaint, the Build Defendants
advertised and marketed the rehabbing opportunity with claims that
investors could "purchase" a property for "$10,000 down," receive a
loan to cover both the remaining acquisition cost and the rehab
costs for the property, and then sell the property for more than
the purchase price and rehab costs, thus pocketing the difference
after they paid back the loan.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Build Defendants represented to
them (and all others similarly situated) that the Build Defendants
had access to non-public sources of residential properties, through
which the Build Defendants would buy homes at lower-than-market
prices and "pass the savings along" to the investing Plaintiffs.
In fact, Plaintiffs say, the Build Defendants were purchasing the
properties from publicly available sources (like Auction.com), and,
far from passing the savings along, were actually marking prices up
from the already-at-market acquisition prices.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Build Defendants represented
to them an expected rehab budget, but that the Build Defendants
deliberately set that budget far too low for the work that would be
required to adequately "flip" any given property.  They also claim
that the Build Defendants provided them with unrealistic estimates
of the likely post-rehab price for the property.  As a result of
these alleged misrepresentations, Plaintiffs claim, the economics
of the real estate opportunity were nowhere near as favorable as
the Build Defendants had represented. Plaintiffs also allege that
the Build Defendants sought to structure the transactions in ways
to further disadvantage them.

On the financial front, the Plaintiffs allege the Build Defendants
misrepresented the nature of the $10,000 payment by characterizing
it as a "down payment," when in fact, on every property, no matter
the purchase price, the entire $10,000 was consumed in closing
costs of one kind or another.  Moreover, they allege that they were
being charged interest on the amounts that the Build Defendants
claimed were being held in escrow for each Plaintiff for expected
rehab costs, when in fact those escrow accounts were not funded at
the times that the Build Defendants claimed, meaning that the
Plaintiffs were accruing interest obligations on non-existent
funds.

Based on the "Build Scheme" generally described, the Plaintiffs
filed a seven-count putative class action complaint:

* Count I charges that all the Defendants, based on their
participation in the "Build Scheme" violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, and the
corresponding Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, both of which contain a
provision that allows for civil causes of action by private parties
to recover damages sustained as a result of the commission of a
RICO predicate offense.  

* Count II alleges that the "Build Companies" breached fiduciary
duties owed to the Plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the trusts that
held the rehab properties.  

* Count III asserts a common law civil conspiracy claim against
all the Defendants, alleging inter alia that they conspired to
breach the fiduciary duties that the Build Companies owed to the
Plaintiffs.  

* Count IV asserts a claim of unjust enrichment against Build,
alleging that Build must disgorge the property price markups that
it charged the rehab investors, and must also repay the Plaintiffs
the value of any property improvements that they made, but as to
which Build received the benefit, when Build reclaimed and sold the
investors' properties.  

* Finally, each of Counts V, VI, and VII seek some form of
declaratory judgment as to the legality or impact of some aspect of
the "Build Scheme."  For example, Count V seeks a declaration that
the Build Scheme (specifically, the use of a trust with an LLC as a
beneficiary), is not sufficient to vitiate the right of redemption
and the right of excess proceeds that mortgagors otherwise would
have.  Counts VI and VII, meanwhile, seek to have the trusts
declared invalid ab initio, either based on fraud or as contrary to
public policy.

The Build Defendants seek dismissal of all claims, except for Count
II - breach of fiduciary duty claim.  That is not to suggest that
they agree that the Plaintiffs have a meritorious claim as to that
Count, but merely that the Build Defendants recognize that the
Plaintiffs have pled a facially plausible claim, and thus not one
subject to dismissal at this juncture.

As to the RICO claim, the Build Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead the necessary elements as to any of
the Build Defendants, and also separately assert that the claims
against certain Build Defendants fail for additional reasons.  The
Build Defendants move to dismiss the Civil Conspiracy count,
asserting that the allegations in support of it are too conclusory
to meet Plaintiffs' burden under the Iqbal/Twombly line of cases.
And the unjust enrichment claim fails, they say, because the
transactions between each of the Plaintiffs and the Build
Defendants were governed by express contracts, meaning that unjust
enrichment is not a viable theory.  Finally, they contend that the
requested declarations are wrong on the law, and thus the
declaratory judgment counts should be dismissed.  The Build
Defendants also note that their contracts with the Plaintiffs
included a jury waiver, and they ask that the Court hold that the
jury waiver is enforceable, and accordingly strike Plaintiffs' jury
demand from their Complaint.

The Financing Defendants, meanwhile, claim that the Plaintiffs
named the wrong parties.  They assert that the Financing Defendants
named in the suit do not in fact loan money, as the Plaintiffs
claim, but rather act as investment advisors to Funds, which in
turn are the entities (each Fund is allegedly a separate limited
partnership) that actually supply the financing described in the
Complaint.  They also argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to set
forth a viable RICO or Ohio Corrupt Practice Act claim against
them.  Finally, the Financing Defendants assert that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over them, as they do not have the
requisite contacts with the State of Ohio.

First Title, for its part, claims that the Plaintiffs have engaged
in "shotgun pleading" and have merely included First Title in their
Counts based on allegations of conduct by others, without making
any allegations against First Title.  It also states that, as a
title agent, First Title had no duty under Ohio law other than to
follow the closing instructions, and that Plaintiffs have failed to
make out a legally sufficient RICO (or OCCA) claim against First
Title (largely for the same reasons that the Build Defendants
assert).

The Court, on Jan. 9, 2020, heard extensive argument from the
parties with regard to each of the three Motions to Dismiss.  Since
the argument, the parties have also supplied the Court with an
example of the "closing packet," which are the documents typically
used to close a rehab transaction like the ones described in the
Complaint.  The parties agreed that, although those documents were
not attached to the Complaint, the Court could consider those
documents in its disposition of the pending motions to dismiss
without converting them into motions for summary judgment.  Based
on the briefing, the argument, and the additional materials the
parties provided, the three motions to dismiss are now pending
before the Court for resolution.

Judge Cole finds that Complaint alleges sufficient details
regarding the Financing Defendants' "active and personal"
involvement in the "Build Scheme" to prevent those Defendants from
relying on the fiduciary shield doctrine to prevent personal
jurisdiction from attaching based on their contacts with Ohio.
That is, it is not a situation where Plaintiffs rely on others'
conduct as a basis for asserting jurisdiction over these parties,
which are only involved based on their role as a fiduciary.
Rather, the causes of action at issue allegedly arose directly out
of the Financing Defendants' own conduct.  Thus, the Financing
Defendants cannot take advantage of the fiduciary shield doctrine
to disavow their Ohio contacts and thereby prevent jurisdiction
from attaching.

There is a separate question, of course, as to whether the
jurisdictional ruling matters given the Court's ruling on the Civil
RICO claim (and the state law Civil Conspiracy claim).  Judge Cole
concludes that it does, however, for two reasons.  First, Counts V,
VI, and VII seek declaratory judgments, including as against the
Financing Defendants.  To the extent that those Counts survive,
they survive against the Financing Defendants as well, based on the
jurisdictional ruling.  Second, the Judge is dismissing the Civil
RICO claims and the Civil Conspiracy claims against the Financing
Defendants without prejudice, meaning that Plaintiffs may seek to
amend their allegations against the Financing Defendants, if
warranted.  Thus, the jurisdictional ruling is necessary to the
Court's future consideration of both existing claims and any
efforts to amend the dismissed claims.

The Judge then turns to the Civil RICO And Ohio Civil Conspiracy
Act claims against all the Defendants.  Among other things, the
Judge (i) finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an
enterprise as to both the Individual Build Defendants and the Build
Companies, and denies the Build Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count
I against them, although the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege a viable Section 1962(c) claim as to some of those
Defendants; (ii) denies First Title's Motion to Dismiss, as it
relates to Count I as the Plaintiffs have sufficiently plausible
allegation of an "overt act" in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy; (iii) grants the Financing Defendants' Motion as to
Count I and dismisses without prejudice that Count because the
allegations fail to make out a plausible claim either as to Section
1962(c) or Section 1962(d); and (iv) grants the Motion to Dismiss
Count I as to the Financing Defendants, but without prejudice as to
the Plaintiffs' ability to re-plead the claim to provide the
necessary allegations as to the Financing Defendants, if they can.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs purport to allege a civil conspiracy
claim against all the Defendants.  For much the same reasons as set
forth, the Judge finds that the claim survives as to the Build
Defendants and First Title, but not as to the Financing Defendants.
The Plaintiffs have once again failed to plausibly allege a reason
for those the Defendants to participate in such a scheme.  That is,
there are no factual allegations that establish a plausible
inference as to how or why the Financing Defendants would agree to
join a conspiracy under which their role is to make undersecured
loans.

The Complaint alleges that Build "marks up the price of the
property," Build retains the price markup as profit, which means
that the Investor has unknowingly conferred a benefit on Build that
Build knew of, and it is unjust to allow Build to retain the
markup; and then Build also takes steps to exacerbate the
likelihood of Investor default, and, if that occurs, unjustly keeps
the value of any improvements that have been made.  In short, it is
Build that is alleged to have committed (and benefitted from) the
unjust enrichment, not First Title.  The Plaintiffs try to
supplement the allegations in their Complaint through their
opposition to the motion to dismiss, but that is not how pleading
works.  Accordingly, their unjust enrichment claim against First
Title is dismissed without prejudice, the Court holds.  If the
Plaintiffs can allege a benefit that they have conferred on First
Title, and that it would be unjust for First Title to retain such
benefit, they need to allege that in their Complaint.  The same is
true if the Plaintiffs intend to assert the claim against the
Financing Defendants.

The Judge will not dismiss the declaratory judgment counts (Counts
V, VI, and VII), but likewise declines to reach their merits at
this early juncture in the litigation.  "If valid" is an important
proviso concerning the trusts in the case.  That is especially true
given that the other two declarations that the Plaintiffs seek (in
Counts VI and VII) are that the trust structure is "void ab initio"
for one reason or another.  If they were to prevail on those
claims, and the trust structures are thus void, then presumably,
the result of that would be that the beneficial owner (the
Plaintiffs) should instead be recognized to have been the actual
owner.  If that were to occur, though, that would perhaps cast the
Plaintiffs' "right of redemption" argument in a different light, as
now the divergence between debtor (i.e., a Plaintiff) and owner
(i.e., the Build entity serving as trustee) would disappear.  But,
the question of whether a trust is void ab initio, especially on
the grounds alleged, is heavily fact dependent, and the Judge is
not inclined to reach that issue without further factual
development.

Finally, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are not seeking to
assert their contractual rights under the agreements.  Indeed, if
anything, they would presumably assert that the agreements are
invalid as they were allegedly procured by fraud.  The Judge agrees
that such allegations, even if true, do not necessarily vitiate the
jury waiver in the contracts—the language was express,
unambiguous, and prominent -- but it does convince the Court that
further factual development is warranted before reaching a final
decision on the issue.  That is especially true as no prejudice
arises to any party by deferring a decision on the issue until
closer to trial in the matter.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to
decide that issue now.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Cole granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/YpFVOJ from Leagle.com.


C&D SECURITY: Files Bid to Quash Subpoena to Sterling in Davis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Motion and Memorandum in Support to quash, or in the Alternative
Motion to Modify Plaintiff's Subpoena to Non-Party Sterling
Infosystems, Inc., has been filed by C&D Security Management, Inc.,
Universal Protection Services, LLC in the case captioned Hope
Davis, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C&D Security Management, Inc., doing
business as: Allied Universal Security Services and Universal
Protection Services, LLC doing business as: Allied Universal
Security Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-mc-00074-SL (N.D.
Ohio, July 29, 2020).

C&D Security Inc. provides integrated security solutions. Hope
Davis twice applied to C&D Security Management, Inc. d/b/a "Allied
Universal" and Universal Protection Services, LLC, d/b/a "Allied
Universal" for employment as a security guard. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by denying
her employment opportunities based on the results of her consumer
report without first providing her notice, a copy of the report,
and a summary of her FCRA rights. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

   Thomas R. Waskom, Esq.
   Hunton & Williams-Richmond
   Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
   951 East Byrd Street
   Richmond, VA 23219
   Tel: (804) 788-8403
   Fax: (804) 788-2818
   Email: twaskom@hunton.com



CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California Southern University is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California Southern University,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05911 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2020).

California Southern University is a private, for-profit, university
that began its operations in 1978. It offers associate's,
bachelor's, master's and doctoral degree programs 100% online in
psychology, business and management, risk management and regulatory
compliance, criminal justice, nursing, and education.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




CASPER SLEEP: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE- CSPR)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about February 7, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 18, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=casper-sleep-inc&id=2291
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

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

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  Attorney
Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
[GN]


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Kaufman Sues Over Telescope Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KAUFMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT
OPTO-ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO.
LTD. OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC, PACIFIC
TELESCOPE CORP., SKY-WATCHER CANADA, SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SW TECHNOLOGY CORP., SYNTA CANADA
INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD., and SYNTA TECHNOLOGY CORP. OF
TAIWAN, Case No. 3:20-cv-05285 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conspiracy, which has
cost telescope purchasers millions of dollars in overcharges.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the classes paid artificially
inflated prices for consumer telescopes during the period from and
including January 1, 2005, through the present and have, thereby,
suffered antitrust injury to their business and property.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for
violation of the Clayton Act and Sherman Act. The Plaintiff also
asserts claims for actual and exemplary damages and restitution
pursuant to state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.

Celestron manufactures life science equipment. The Company offers
telescope parts, optics, astrophotography, binoculars, spotting
scopes, and digital microscopes. Nantong is telescope
manufacturer/supplier in China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: asheanin@robinskaplan.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Wright Suit Over UCL Violation Moved to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WRIGHT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO.,
INC., Case No. CGC-20-585092 (Filed June 23, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on July 31, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05281-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff contends that an alleged malfunction of Schwab's
online brokerage system incorrectly processes certain types of
trades, causing him and class members to acquire investments they
did not order. The Plaintiff brings claims under California's
Unfair Competition Law seeking an order enjoining the allegedly
misleading business practices.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company founded and based in San Francisco,
California. Headquartered in the SOMA District, San Francisco,
Charles Schwab is the 14th largest banking institution in the
United States with over US$3.3 trillion in client assets.[BN]

Defendant Charles Schwab & Co. is represented by:

          Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          E. Clay Marquez, Esq.
          Eric A. Ormsby, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: 310 553 6700
          Facsimile: 310 246 6779
          E-mail: dpetrocelli@omm.com
                  mpowers@omm.com
                  cmarquez@omm.com
                  eormsby@omm.com

               - and -

          Lowell Haky, Esq.
          Garrett R. Wynne, Esq.
          CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
          Corporate Legal Services, 211 Main St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415 667 1009
          E-mail: lowell.haky@schwab.com
                  garrett.wynne@schwab.com
                  adam.brown@schwab.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Reimburse Costs, Gennarelli Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennarelli, individually and on behalf of the Putative
Class v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV28918 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 31, 2020), seeks relief against the Defendant for its failure
to reimburse necessary business expenditures, to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and to pay wages due upon termination of
employment.

The Plaintiff was required to drive to customer locations as a
condition of his employment. Additionally, the Plaintiff was
required to occasionally travel to the Defendant's office. However,
the Plaintiff alleges, regardless of whether he actually traveled
to the Defendant's office, the Defendant deducted twice the
distance between each aggrieved employee's home and the Defendant's
office from any mileage reimbursement.

By failing to include on the Plaintiff's pay stubs full
reimbursement for all necessary business expenditures, the
Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll records and failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with complete
and accurate wage statements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began his employment with Charter in October 2016 as
a Direct Sales Representative.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that provides
telecommunications services throughout the United States, including
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Anna Salusky Mahoney, Esq.
          Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 590-5550
          Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 amahonev@mahonev-law.net
                 jklein@mahoney-law.net


CHEETAH MOBILE: Wang Sues Over Drop of Securities' Market Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ning Wang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CHEETAH MOBILE, INC., SHENG FU, VINCENT ZHENYU JIANG,
and THOMAS JINTAO REN, Case No. 2:20-cv-06896 (C.D. Cal., July 31,
2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile securities between
March 25, 2019, and February 20, 2020, inclusive, who have suffered
significant losses and damages as a result of the Defendants'
alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.

On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google
AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some
of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies,
resulting in certain invalid traffic." On this news, the Company's
share price fell $0.61 per share, or nearly 17%, to close at $2.99
per share on February 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not
compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (ii) as a
result, there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would
terminate its advertising contracts with the Company; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to attract new users
would be adversely impacted; (iv) as a result, the Company's
revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (v) as a result, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Cheetah Mobile securities during the Class
Period.

Cheetah Mobile is a mobile Internet company that offers mobile
utility products (such as Clean Master and Cheetah Keyboard),
casual games (such as Piano Tiles 2, Bricks n Balls), and live
streaming product Live.me.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


CHIPPEWA CORRECTION: Byrant Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as REO BYRANT and LARRY M.
STOVALL v. CONNIE HORTON (CHIPPEWA CORRECTION FACILITY WARDEN);
HEDI WASHINGTON (MDOC DIRECTOR); and John Does 1-99, Case No.
2:20-cv-00131-PLM-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Petitioners ask the Court
for an order granting class certification.

The Petitioners claim that the class is numerous and joinders of
all members is impracticable, as Chippewa Correctional Facility
holds around 1,300 inmates.

The Petitioners contend that Warden of Chippewa Correctional
Facility exposed the inmate population to Covid-19 virus by
transporting inmates from a different facility who were expected of
having the virus in violation of the Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment
Constitutional rights.

Chippewa Correctional Facility is a prison for men located in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan and part of the Michigan  Department of
Corrections.[CC]

CIOX HEALTH: Charlton Alleges Exorbitant Fees to Medical Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANEL CHARLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, 20-011250 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., July 13, 2020) alleges that the Defendant locks
a patient's medical records behind a paywall until its exorbitant
fees are paid, essentially holding Plaintiff's daughter's records
hostage with an illegal ransom demand.

The Plaintiff's counsel requested records which totaled 153 pages
in length and the Defendant charged $153. However, according to her
calculation, the Plaintiff should have been charged $57.

CIOX Health, LLC provides health care information solutions. The
Company offers electronic records, release of information, revenue
cycle, and audit management services. CIOX Health serves customers
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Brill, Esq.
          Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., Esq.
          Zackary D. Slankard, Esq.
          BRILL & RINALDI, THE  LAW FIRM
          17150 Royal Palm Blvd., Suite 2
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 876-4344
          Facsimile: (954) 384-6226
          E-mail: david@brillrinaldi.com
                  joe@brillrinaldi.com
                  zackary@brillrinaldi.com


COLORADO: Class Action Filed Over McClain Protest Police Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Stringer, Quincy Snowdon, Philip B. Poston and Kara Mason,
writing for Sentinel, report that multiple people were injured in
Aurora on July 25 after shots rang out and an unidentified driver
plowed through a crowd of demonstrators protesting for Elijah
McClain, the 23-year-old unarmed Black man who died days after
several police officers detained him last year.

Police said one person was shot in the leg and another later drove
themselves to a local hospital with a graze wound after a person
fired multiple shots into a crowd that had assembled to protest
McClain's death the afternoon of July 25. The shooting occurred
after a Jeep, which police later impounded, drove through hundreds
of protestors walking down Interstate 225 in Aurora.

At about 7 p.m., the blue Jeep surged into herds of protesters in
the northbound lanes of I-225 about a half-mile south of East Sixth
Avenue, witnesses said.

Protester Natalie Lebesma said a driver in a white truck pulled
quickly in front of the Jeep, ramming it and keeping it from
plowing into people.

During the fracas after the Jeep ran into the crowd, one protester
pulled out a gun, and appeared to be aiming at the Jeep but instead
shot another protester in the leg, multiple witnesses said.

Aurora police confirmed the shooting allegation and were
investigating.

Carl Glenn Payne, a freelance photographer, confirmed that and said
several people had video of the event.

Several witnesses said there were no police anywhere near the
center of the chaos and an ambulance took about 10 minutes to
arrive.

Despite the shooting and injuries, the marchers returned to city
hall, and and most of them disbanded.

A remaining 150 or so protesters pushed for a confrontation with
police, which never materialized even though the group turned to
vandalism.

Hours after the march, police put out a small fire inside the
building that houses the Aurora Municipal Court after someone shot
a fire cracker into the building. More than a dozen windows on the
building in the Aurora municipal complex were smashed during a
chaotic scene that unfolded as night fell.

The crowd used plywood torn from buildings as shields and moved
into East Alameda Parkway. There, for a short time, protesters
forced traffic to turn around and drive over a raised median, for
about 30 minutes.

Police reported no arrests during the evening, and there were no
physical confrontations between officers and protestors. Still,
police issued multiple dispersal orders from a loudspeaker and
threatened to use chemical weapons against anyone who stayed in the
area. No such agents were used.

That marked a change from how officers interacted with protestors
at a violin vigil held to honor McClain on June 27. At that event,
officers deployed pepper spray and foam rounds as musicians
punctuated the area with music. Police actions at that event has
since prompted a class action lawsuit.

The chaos came after a quiet beginning to the day.

Protesters came from a variety of places, including some who flew
in from Minneapolis to honor McClain. Three protesters in their 20s
said they had no other connection to metro Aurora, other than to
come here and protest in solidarity with a community that had
minority residents subjected to lethal police brutality.

Ana Franklin and her partner, Michael, live in Aurora and said they
brought their 2-year-old girl to the protest also in solidarity
with McClain, killed while unarmed and after being arrested by
police.

McClain was stopped by a trio of officers on Aug. 24, 2019 on his
way home from a convenience store after a passerby called 911 and
described him as "sketchy." Officers placed McClain, who was
unarmed and never suspected of a crime, into a now-banned control
hold that caused him to briefly faint. He went into cardiac arrest
shortly thereafter and died at a hospital six days later.

McClain "was such a wonderful soul," Franklin said, empathizing him
in part because of his veganism. She said as a mother, she could
not imagine losing a child, especially under such circumstances.

A speaker identifying himself as Joel from the Party for Socialism
and Liberation said his group, which organized the July 25 event,
had three demands: murder charges filed agains the three officers
who stopped and arrested McClain, restitution for McClain's family
and the defunding and disarming of Aurora police.

Organizers with the socialist group left the event around
nightfall, moments before windows were shattered and a fence in
front of Aurora police headquarters was upended.

Janice Rowe said she came to the protest because as a black woman,
she, too, lives in fear of an encounter with Aurora police. A
military veteran, she said she's been stopped arbitrarily by Aurora
police for what she considered no legitimate reason.

"No one should have to live in fear for their life," from the
police, she said.

All vehicle entrances to Aurora City Hall complex have been
barricaded and police issued de facto rules of engagement on July
25 as police girded for the new McClain protest.

A group on Twitter calling themselves Wall of Moms -- Denver were
asking for area "moms" to attend the event to encircle protesters,
similarly as others have done during precent protests in Portland,
Ore. Volunteers here are asked to wear yellow and form a circle
looking out out from the protest "so we can be aware and alert
about what is happening around them."

Several of the volunteers were visible during the protest.

On July 24, Aurora police issued a lengthy statement outlining
expectations for the protest. At about 3:30 p.m., Aurora police
said the city was on accident alert and "priority dispatching."

The APD announcement, which outlined some qualifications to the
First Amendment and stipulates that no weapons or drones will be
permitted at the event, came one day after a pair of Denver civil
rights attorneys sued the city over allegations that officers
violated protestors' constitutional rights at another demonstration
that grew chaotic on June 27. Interim Police Chief Vanessa Wilson
lamented the escalation in the days after officers and local
sheriff's deputies deployed smoke canisters, pepper spray and foam
rounds.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys Mari Newman and Andy McNulty, stems
from dispersal orders that were given via loudspeakers as dozens of
violinists began a vigil for McClain, the unarmed Black man who
died six days after police detained him and placed him in a
now-banned control hold in the 1900 block of Billings Street.

Officers arrested two people, a 24-year-old woman and a 22-year-old
man, on failure to obey charges at the June 27 event. Two
additional people were arrested on suspicion of obstructing a
roadway and failure to obey at another demonstration outside of an
Aurora police substation on July 3, police said. [GN]


COMMUNITY CHOICE: Labadie Sues in Mich. Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Choice
Credit Union. The case is captioned as Mr. Joseph Labadie, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY
CHOICE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 5:20-cv-12064-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
July 31, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy.

The docket states that the nature of suit is breach of contract.

Community Choice offers checking and savings accounts, loans,
mortgages, and investment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven E. Goren, Esq.
          GOREN & GOREN
          30400 Telegraph Road, Suite 470
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4541
          Telephone: (248) 540-3100
          E-mail: sgoren@gorenlaw.com


CONDENSED CURRICULUM: Williams Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN WILLIAMS, individually,
and on behalf of aggrieved individuals v. CONDENSED CURRICULUM
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV000392
(Filed June 1, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Napa, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 31, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05292 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendant for breach of
written employment agreement; misclassification as independent
contractor; inaccurate wage statements; failure to provide wages
when duel and failure to reimburse business expenses in violation
of the Cal. Labor Code.

Defendant Condensed Curriculum is represented by:

          Nicole Kamm, Esq.
          Brendan Y. Joy, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-Mail nkamm@fisherphillips.com
                 bjoy@fisherphillips.com


CONSTELLIS INTEGRATED: Hines Suit Transferred to C.D. Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Delvin Hines, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Constellis
Integrated Risk Management Services, a Delaware corporation,
Centerra Services International, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Centerra Group, LLC, a forfeited Delaware limited liability company
and Michael Chandless, an individual, Defendants, was transferred
from the Los Angeles Superior Court with the assigned Case No.
20STCV20377 to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 29, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06782.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other
filed over Diversity-Employment Discrimination.

Constellis Integrated Risk Management Services is a provider of
risk management, security, humanitarian, training and operational
support services to government and commercial customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Sabrina A Beldner, Esq.
   McGuireWoods LLP
   1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 315-8200
   Fax: (310) 315-8210
   Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com




CORE VALUES: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Linz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington issued an Order granting in part and denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned
JEREMIAH LINZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, CORY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and AARON KAMINSKY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORE VALUES
ROADSIDE SERVICE, LLC, and MARK HYNDMAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00107-SMJ (E.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants pursuant to
independent service provider contracts, allege they were
misclassified as independent contractors and that the Defendants'
policies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state
employment laws. The Defendants are opposed to preliminary
certification, and present objections to various issues including
to the proposed scope of the FLSA collective and to the proposed
notice.

The Defendants argue that certification should be denied because
the definition of the collective group contains a legal conclusion,
specifically that the proposed group was misclassified as
independent contractors. However, the legal authority the
Defendants cite in support of this argument is irrelevant to the
issue of the collective's definition. In Campbell, 903 F.3d at
1107, the Ninth Circuit described the standard for certifying a
collective, describing similarly situated plaintiffs as those that
share a similar issue of law or fact material to the disposition of
their FLSA claims.

The Court noted that this preliminary determination as to whether
the proposed party plaintiffs are similarly situated is based on
the collective as defined in the complaint. However, the
Defendants' argument essentially seeks to expand this to support
finding that the definition for the collective must not contain
legal conclusions.

The Defendants also argue that the inclusion of the term
misclassified renders the proposed FLSA collective potentially
unclear.

To the extent there is a slight risk of confusion, this is
outweighed by the importance of the FLSA collective members having
experienced the same alleged wrongs including their
misclassification as independent contractors. The ultimate question
of whether the FLSA collective members were misclassified will be
determined at a later point.

District Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., notes that the Plaintiffs
have not provided sufficient explanation of why equitable tolling
is appropriate. For example, the Plaintiffs state generally that
"the recent Covid-19 pandemic has greatly reduced the capacity and
efficiency of courts throughout the nation," but cite no particular
delays owing to the pandemic in this case. The Plaintiffs also fail
to tie the requested amount of tolling to the length of the alleged
delays in effectuating service on Defendants, or even to clearly
articulate that the Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct or
explain what extraordinary circumstances may apply.

As such, the Motion is denied as to the request for equitable
tolling, with leave to amend to provide sufficient justification
for tolling. In any amended motion, the Court says, the Plaintiffs
should also clarify whether the Defendants have agreed to a
particular period of tolling, for example, the period between the
filing of this motion and the date this Order issues.

Accordingly, Judge Mendoza ordered that:

   1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification is GRANTED
      IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

   2. The class defined as: All roadside assistance technicians
      who worked for Defendants and were misclassified by
      Defendants as independent contractors at any time in the
      past three years is CONDITIONALLY CERTIFIED;

   3. Finney Law Firm, LLC and Crotty & Son Law Firm, PLLC are
      APPOINTED as INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL for the FLSA collective;

   4. Plaintiffs shall submit a revised notice to the Court
      within fourteen days of this Order, including the proposed
      Consent to Sue form, with an explanation of the proposed
      procedure for issuing the notice. Defendants may file
      objections within seven days of Plaintiffs' submission; and

   5. Defendants shall provide contact information for the
      identified FLSA collective to counsel for Plaintiffs within
      21 days of this Order in Microsoft Excel or similar digital
      format, identifying each person by full name, last known
      address, telephone number, and email address.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaowyt9n Leagle.com


CREDIT CENTRAL: Court Refuses to Dismiss Bauer's Adversary Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina issued
an Order denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Ruther
Mae Bauer's adversary proceeding in the case captioned In re:
Ruther Mae Bauer, Chapter 7, Debtor. Ruther Mae Bauer, Plaintiff v.
Credit Central, LLC, Credit Central of Anderson, LLC, Credit
Central of Tennessee, LLC, Credit Central of Texas, LLC, and Credit
Central South, LLC D/B/A Credit Central Loans and Taxes,
Defendants, C/A No. 19-02441-DD, Adv. Pro. No. 20-80012-DD (Bankr.
D.S.C.).

On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with
the Defendant Credit Central, LLC (Credit Central) that contained
an arbitration agreement (Arbitration Agreement). The Arbitration
Agreement provides that "any and all disputes, claims, or
controversies of any kind between us arising out of or relating to
the relationship between us will be resolved through mandatory,
binding arbitration."

On May 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her chapter 7 bankruptcy case.
She listed her debt of $692.36 to Credit Central, LLC, on her
Schedule D. She received a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections
524 and 727 on August 13, 2019. The Plaintiff's third amended
complaint states that on January 22, 2020, Credit Central sent out
a mass mailing to customers, including the Plaintiff, regarding a
settlement opportunity (Settlement Letter).

The Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding against the
Defendants on February 6, 2020, and the Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on March 5, 2020. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is
based on the grounds that the Plaintiff entered into an Arbitration
Agreement that covers this dispute, claim, or controversy.

First and Third Causes of Action

The Plaintiff states that the Defendants' sending the Settlement
Letter was done knowingly and willfully and constitutes a violation
of discharge orders pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(2).

The Defendants point to the fact that the Plaintiff's bankruptcy
case is a Chapter 7 case and is closed. The Defendants argue,
therefore, requiring the Plaintiff to arbitrate her causes of
action would not interfere with any effort to reorganize.

In so arguing, Defendants rely on a Second Circuit case, MBNA Am.
Bank, N.A. v. Hill, 436 F.3d 104 (2006).

In Hill, the debtor filed an adversary proceeding asserting
violations of the automatic stay and unjust enrichment. At the time
the Second Circuit heard the creditor's motion to stay or dismiss
the adversary proceeding in favor of arbitration, the debtor had
received her chapter 7 discharge and her bankruptcy case was
concluded. The Second Circuit, considering only the stay violation
cause of action, acknowledged that this cause of action was a core
bankruptcy proceeding.

However, the Second Circuit held that requiring arbitration of the
claim would not cause an inherent conflict with the Bankruptcy
Code, because, as a result of the completed administration of the
debtor's case and her discharge, she no longer required the
protection of the automatic stay, and the resolution of the claim
would not affect her bankruptcy estate.

Plaintiff responds that the Second Circuit's decision in Anderson
v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 884 F.3d 382 (2d. Cir. 2018), decided
recently and subsequent to the Hill decision, is directly on point
and therefore is more instructive here.

In Anderson, after the debtor received his chapter 7 discharge, the
creditor refused to remove a charge-off notation on his credit
report. The debtor therefore reopened his bankruptcy case and filed
a putative class action complaint against the creditor, asserting
violations of the discharge injunction. The creditor moved to stay
the proceeding and compel arbitration. After the bankruptcy court
declined to compel arbitration and the district court affirmed, the
Second Circuit affirmed as well.

With respect to the discharge injunction, the court noted that the
bankruptcy court retains a unique expertise in interpreting its own
injunctions and determining when they have been violated. Thus, the
court distinguished Hill, which dealt with stay violations from the
case before it, which dealt with the discharge injunction, as does
the case before this Court.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the Second Circuit's
decision in Anderson is more instructive than the Hill decision.
The Plaintiff is not required to arbitrate her first and third
causes of action.

Second Cause of Action

The Plaintiff seeks to disgorge the Defendants of any and all
payments made to them in response to the Settlement Letter pursuant
to the contempt and abuse of process provisions inherent in 11
U.S.C. Section 105. This claim is core pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Delegation of the bankruptcy court's Section 105 powers to an
arbitrator would inherently conflict with the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 105 powers are explicitly granted to bankruptcy courts by
Congress as a central enforcement mechanism. Section 105 is
critical to the court's ability to enforce its own orders. It is
not a mechanism for use by non-judicial officers.
Arbitration of the second cause of action is not required.

Accordingly, the Court says the Plaintiff is not required to submit
these claims to arbitration. Because the Defendants' motion asserts
no other basis for dismissal of the Plaintiff's adversary
proceeding, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yctcmpsw Leagle.com


CRM US INC: Court Certifies Class of Sales Reps in DiSalvo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned ZACHARY DISALVO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRM
US, INC. d/b/a INSPIRO, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-425-jdp (W.D.
Wis.).

Plaintiff Zachary DiSalvo is a sales representative for Defendant
CRM US, Inc., which calls itself Inspiro. DiSalvo moves under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify a class of Wisconsin
sales representatives, who have not received overtime pay as
required by state law.

The parties have already stipulated to conditional certification of
a similar collective of employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. And there is no dispute that DiSalvo meets the requirements
for certification of his state-law claims under Rule 23. Instead,
Inspiro contends that certifying a class of state-law claims would
conflict with the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which allows a
court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims
when they would substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Mr. DiSalvo seeks to certify the following class: All persons who
have been or are currently employed by CRM US, Inc. d/b/a Inspiro,
formerly SPi CRM, as sales representatives in Wisconsin who have
not been compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at any
time from May 24, 2017 to the present.

Mr. DiSalvo's proposed class claim is that Inspiro did not give
sale representatives the overtime pay they were entitled to because
Inspiro excluded commissions and bonus payments from the base rate
of pay when calculating the overtime rate.

So the primary dispute is whether those commissions and payments
must be included in the base rate of pay under Wisconsin law. By
defining the class as including only those employees, who didn't
receive a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
when working more than 40 hours a week, DiSalvo is assuming that
Inspiro is required to consider commissions and bonus payments when
calculating the overtime rate.

When possible, courts should amend defective class definitions
rather than deny class certification.  In this case, all of the
defects in the class definition are easily fixed. So, the Court
will amend the class definition.

Accordingly, the Court rules that:

   1. Plaintiff Zachary DiSalvo's motion for class certification
      is GRANTED;

   2. The following class is certified:

      All persons who have been or are currently employed by CRM
      US, Inc. d/b/a Inspiro, formerly SPi CRM, as sales
      representatives in Wisconsin who received a commission or
      bonus payment and worked over 40 hours at any time from
      May 24, 2017 to January 25, 2020;

   3. The following claim is certified for class treatment:
      Inspiro violated Wisconsin law by failing to include
      commissions and bonus payments in the base rate of pay when
      calculating overtime; and

   4. The following are appointed as class counsel: David C.
      Zoeller, Esq., Caitlin Marie Madden, Esq., and Vanessa Ann
      Kuettel, Esq., of Hawks Quindel, S.C.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6vv77sz Leagle.com


CSU SYSTEM+: Utsay Wants Refund of Fees Due to COVID-19 Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ibtehaz Utsay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, GOVERNOR GAVIN
NEWSON, ELENI KOUNALAKIS, ANTHONY RENDON, TONY K. THURMOND, TIMOTHY
P. WHITE, SILAS ABREGO, LARRY L. ADAMSON, JANE W. CARNEY, ADAM DAY,
REBECCA D. EISEN, DOUGLAS FAIGIN, DEBRA S. FARAR, JEAN P.
FIRSTENBERG, WENDA FONG, MARYANA KHAMES, LILLIAN KIMBELL, JACK
MCGRORY, HUGO N. MORALES, ROMEY SABALIUS, LATEEFAH SIMON,
CHRISTOPHER STEINHAUSER, and PETER J. TAYLOR, Case No.
2:20-cv-06902 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2020), seeks disgorgement and/or
appropriate compensatory damages from the Universities in the CSU
System in return of the pro-rated portion of the tuition and
mandatory fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained
in the Spring semester 2020, Summer semester 2020, and any future
semesters when the Universities switched to online distance
learning, strongly encouraged students to leave campus, and closed
or ceased access to facilities and services.

The Plaintiff paid, or will pay, all or part of the tuition for
this semester and mandatory student fees that varied widely by
university and campus, according to the complaint. The Universities
have not refunded any amount of the tuition or any portion of the
Mandatory Fees, even though they have implemented online distance
learning since mid-March 2020.

Because of the Board's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") pandemic, by mid-March, the Universities ceased or
severely limited any of the services or facilities the Mandatory
Fees were intended to cover. As a result, the Universities
unlawfully seized and are in possession of property (funds) of the
Plaintiff and Class members in the form of paid tuition and
Mandatory Fees. The Universities failure to provide the services
for which tuition and the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover
since approximately mid-March is a breach of the contracts between
the Universities and the Plaintiff and the members of the Class,
and is unjust, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at California
State University-Northridge as a full-time undergraduate student.
As to tuition, the Plaintiff says he has paid tuition for a
first-rate education and educational experience, with all the
appurtenant benefits offered by a first-rate university, and was
provided a materially deficient and insufficient alternative, which
constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by the Plaintiff
and the Class with the Universities. As to the Mandatory Fees, the
Plaintiff and the Class have paid fees for services and facilities,
which were simply not provided; this failure also constitutes a
breach of the contracts entered into by the Plaintiff and the Class
with the Universities, says the complaint.

The Universities offer numerous major fields for undergraduate
students, as well as a number of graduate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1900
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 eciolko@carlsonlynch.com


CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT DIAZ, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CUATRO T
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00231-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order granting conditional
certification of:

     "current and former drivers for Cuatro T Construction who
worked for more than 30 days during the two-year period prior to
[the date on which the Order conditionally certifying the class is
entered] and who did not drive at least two interstate trips during
any one year of employment."

The Plaintiff also seeks permission to send notice to the proposed
class.

The Plaintiff filed this Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

Cuatro T is a DOT registered motor carrier located in Hondo,
Texas.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 W. Interstate 10
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: 210 819-5341
          Facsimile: 210 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ramon D. Bissmeyer, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Voss, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 554-5500
          Facsimile: (210) 226-8395
          E-mail: rbissmeyer@dykema.com

DLS CHICKEN: Galindo Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rolando Sosof Galindo, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DLS CHICKEN CORP. d/b/a CHIRPING CHICKEN, and
DEMETRI PAPAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-05978 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020),
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his work shift
exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff says he worked over 40 hours per week but he was not
paid proper minimum wages or overtime compensation. He asserts that
work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid ay the
statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and
federal law. He adds that the Defendants failed to provide him with
a weekly wage stated that accurately reflected his true weekly
wages and hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt food
delivery worker and porter for the restaurant.

The Defendants owns and operates a restaurant, doing business as
"Chirping Chicken," located in the City of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: info@jcpclaw.com


EASY DIAL: Mortezapour Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
Joubin Mortezapour, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EASY DIAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-06904 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2020), arises from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently transmitting unsolicited,
autodialed text messages to cellular telephones of consumers in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading their privacy.

The Defendant sent automated text messages to the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated without their prior express written
consent in order to solicit business, according to the complaint.
The text message contained no method for the Plaintiff to instruct
the Defendant to stop sending the Plaintiff unwanted text messages.
The Plaintiff is not a current or former client of the Defendant,
nor does the Plaintiff have a legal case with the Defendant.

Because the Plaintiff is alerted when a text message is received to
the Plaintiff's cellular device, the unsolicited text message that
the Defendant transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular device
invaded the Plaintiff's privacy and distracted the Plaintiff upon
receipt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.

Easy Dial International is a privately owned company founded in
2000. The Company is focused on building a list of abbreviated dial
codes functioning within all major mobile phone networks, where in
calls made from any major mobile vendor are routed to a particular
business and service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 800.400.6808
          Facsimile: 800.520.5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 pamela@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


ECS TUNING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECS TUNING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05368-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- website, www.ecstuning.com -- is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

ECS Tuning LLC sells and distributes auto parts. The Company offers
stretch bolts, headlights, bumpers, badgeless grille, and other
automotive products. ECS Tuning serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Falsely Labels Wet Ones Wipes, Souter Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Souter, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY, EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE
BRANDS LLC, and EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01486-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2020), wants the
Defendants to truthfully and accurately label their Wet Ones hand
wipes, and seeks to stop their unlawful conduct in the labeling and
marketing of the Products.

The Plaintiff contends that the Products are used and relied on by
consumers to keep themselves and their families safe from germs.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' label
representations concerning the efficacy and skin safety of the
Products are false and misleading, including the Defendants'
representations that the Products "Kill 99.99% of Germs" and that
they are hypoallergenic and gentle on skin. The Plaintiff also
asserts that Defendants omit critical information concerning the
limitations of the Products to "kill germs."

Contrary to the Defendants' material representations, however, the
Products do not "kill" 99.99% of the organisms that cause disease,
according to the complaint. The active ingredient in the Products,
benzalkonium chloride ("BAC"), is ineffective against non-enveloped
viruses, certain gram negative bacteria, and spores. In addition,
the concentration of BAC in the Products and manner of application
render the Products ineffective to "kill" certain "germs."

In the absence of truthful disclosures concerning the Products,
consumers are falsely led to believe that they are effective--as
the Defendants' prominently represent--against "99.99% of Germs,"
the Plaintiff contends. If the Products were accurately labeled,
however, consumers would know when they are ineffective and when
they should seek alternative hand cleansing methods.

Plaintiff Lauren Souter is a resident of San Diego, California, who
purchased the Products during the class period. The Plaintiff
purchased the Products under the reasonable belief that they were
accurately represented, including that the label representations
were truthful.

The Defendants manufacture, label, market, promote, advertise, and
sell Wet Ones hand wipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naomi Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1501 San Elijo Road South, Ste.104
          San Marcos, CA 92078
          Phone: 310.400.1053
          Fax: 212.202.6364
          Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com


EVOQUA WATER: Hyams Sues Over Corporate Officers' Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HYAMS, individually and derivatively on behalf of EVOQUA
WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Plaintiff v. RONALD C. KEATING, BENEDICT
J. STAS, MARTIN LAMB, JUDD A. GREGG, HARBHAJAN BHAMBRI, GARY A.
CAPPELINE, BRIAN HOESTEREY, VINAY KUMAR, PETER M. WILVER, AEA
INVESTORS LP, AEA EWT HOLDINGS LP, AEA EWT HOLDINGS GP LLC, AEA
INVESTORS FUND V LP, AEA INVESTORS PARTICIPANT FUND V LP, AEA
INVESTORS QP PARTICIPANT FUND V LP, AEA INVESTORS FUND V-A LP, AEA
INVESTORS FUND V-B LP, AEA INVESTORS PF V LLC, AEA INVESTORS LP,
AEA INVESTORS PARTNERS V LP, and AEA MANAGEMENT (CAYMAN) LTD.,
Defendants, and EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01122-NBF (W.D. Pa., July 27, 2020) alleges that
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors,
officers and/or controlling stockholders of Evoqua between November
1, 2017 and October 30, 2018.  The Defendants made materially
false, misleading and incomplete public statements in order to
disclose to the investors the real condition of Evoqua.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants failed to disclose
management: (1) had privately terminated, and was continuing to
privately terminate, its most experienced sales and integration
personnel; (2) was unable to effectively assimilate its prior
acquisitions and was experiencing significant and expensive
problems with its integration attempts; (3) failed to maintain
adequate internal controls, including by improperly inflating
revenue and deflating expenses in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP); (4) violated GAAP rules, along with
Evoqua's channel stuffing activities artificially inflated its
reported financial performance and disguised the company's actual
stalled growth; and (5) prioritized short term cost savings by,
among other measures, terminating its most experienced sales and
integration personnel, foreseeably placing Evoqua's long-term
post-initial public offering (IPO) and post-secondary public
offering (SPO) prospects at risk.

On October 30, 2018, the truth about Evoqua's inflated revenues and
the company's ongoing acquisition integration problems emerged. On
that date, the company announced significantly reduced revenues and
further lowered guidance, attributed to acquisition integration
issues, supply chain disruptions, and an extended delay on a large
aquatics project. On this news, Evoqua's stock price plunged $4.78
per share, or 34.64%, on heavy trading volume, from closing at
$13.80 per share on October 29, 2018 to close at $9.02 per share on
October 30, 2018.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, Evoqua has sustained and
continues to sustain significant damages.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. is a provider of water-treatment
solutions with corporate headquarters located at 210 Sixth Avenue,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

AEA Investors LP is a private investment firm with its principal
offices in New York, New York.

AEA EWT Holdings LP is an investment firm in New York, New York.

AEA EWT Holdings GP LLC is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Investors Fund V LP is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Investors Participant Fund V LP is an investment firm in New
York, New York.

AEA Investors QP Participant Fund V LP is an investment firm in New
York, New York.

AEA Investors Fund V-A LP is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Investors Fund V-B LP is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Investors PF V LLC is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Investors Partners V LP is an investment firm in New York, New
York.

AEA Management (Cayman) Ltd. is an investment firm in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James E. Hockenberry, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF LEON AUSSPRUNG, MD, LLC
         1429 Walnut Street, Suite 300
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 717-0744
         Facsimile: (888) 800-5731
         E-mail: JH@aussprunglaw.com

                - and –

         Timothy Brown, Esq.
         240 Townsend Square
         Oyster Bay, NY 11771
         Telephone: (516) 922-5427
         Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
         E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net

FANTASY GIRLS: Becker FLSA Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLONESHA BECKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KAMY KESHMIRI, JAMY
KESHMIRI, FANTASY GIRLS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00602-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint of Becker; and (ii)
denied the Defendants' motion to strike the statements Becker made
in her response to their motion to dismiss.

The case is about the allegation that Defendants violated
requirements within the Fair Labor and Standards Act ("FLSA") by
not paying dancers at one of their nightclubs sufficient wages.
Marlonesha Becker formerly worked at Fantasy Girls, an adult
cabaret nightclub in Reno, Nevada, as an exotic dancer from June
2018 to April 2019.

The Keshmiri Defendants own Fantasy Girls and several other similar
establishments throughout the Reno area.  Becker alleges that the
Defendants never paid her a regular salary; instead, she was
compensated solely through customer tips, which she was required to
share with coworkers who did not customarily receive tips.  She
also alleges that she was charged a "house fee" for every shift she
worked.

During the course of her employment, the Defendants instructed
Becker and the other dancers on "when, where, and how" they were to
perform their work.  It included setting rotational schedules for
the dancers, instructing the dancers when to perform during the
night, and issuing fines and suspensions to dancers who violated
the rules.  The Defendants also set the prices for the types of
dances Becker was required to perform, such as personal dances and
"VIP" dances.  Despite the control the Defendants exercised over
Becker's work activities, Becker argues that they improperly
classified her as an independent contractor, rather than an
employee, to avoid their obligations under the FLSA.

Before Becker began to work at Fantasy Girls, she signed an
"agreement" entitled "Dancer/Entertainer Independent Contractor
Agreement With Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Provisions."
The document included a mandatory arbitration provision.  The term
"dispute" is defined in the section of the agreement.  In another
provision, the Defendants and Becker agreed to waive any and all
rights to have any Dispute heard or resolved in any forum other
than through arbitration as provided therein, and the only on an
individual basis rather than as a participant in any class or
collectively action.  The waiver included any right to trial by
Jury and the right to bring any action in any court.  Notably, the
agreement contained a 10-day right of rescission, and a separate
agreement between the parties allowed either party to opt out of
the class action or arbitration provisions within the main
agreement within 30 days.

Becker filed her complaint in the Court on Sept. 30, 2019, alleging
three causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages, and (3) unlawful taking of tips
and/or kickbacks.  

The Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Becker
responded.  In Becker's response, she stated that counsel for the
Defendants may have previously represented her along with several
other exotic dancers in an action against the city of Reno in 2018.
That prompted the Defendants to file a motion to strike that
portion of Becker's response, asserting that their current counsel
had not represented her in that action.  The Defendants' motion to
strike and motion to dismiss are now pending before the Court.

The Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.  Before addressing the merits of the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, Judge Hicks examines the Defendants' motion to
strike the portion of Becker's response that mentions a potential
conflict of interest between her and defense counsel.  The defense
counsel argues that Becker was never a plaintiff in the action
where they represented numerous dancers in Case No.
3:18-cv-00285-MMD-WGC, which involved facts completely unrelated to
the case.  The defense counsel asserts that Becker did not sign a
consent to representation in that case and that she was not named
in any documents submitted to the court as being represented by
them.  They state that to the best of their knowledge, no one from
their firm has ever spoken to Becker.

The Judge finds that the portion of Becker's response to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss that discusses a potential conflict
of interest with the defense counsel is not responsive to the
Defendants' motion, which is largely based on the arbitration
provisions contained within Becker's employment agreement.  If
Becker believed (or had a good faith reason to believe) that a
conflict existed, she should have filed a motion to disqualify the
defense counsel.  Courts generally do not disqualify an attorney
because of a conflict of interest unless the former client moves
for disqualification.  Even so, Becker is correct in asserting that
Rule 12(f) only applies to "pleadings," which do not include
responses to motions to dismiss.  Although he will not consider the
issues raised in that portion of Becker's response unless and until
she files a motion to disqualify the defense counsel, the Judge
will deny the Defendants' motion to strike.

Turning to the merits of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, they
argue that the employment agreement Becker signed contains an
explicit arbitration provision and a provision opting out of any
class action suit.  Becker first argues that the employment
agreement she signed was procedurally unconscionable because it was
a "take it or leave it" contract of adhesion.

Becker's argument that that her employment contract is a contract
of adhesion fails because Nevada does not apply the adhesion
contract doctrine to employment cases.  Becker has not advanced any
other arguments that would show procedural unconscionability, such
as that the arbitration provision was in fine print or otherwise
concealed within the employment agreement.  Accordingly, the Judge
finds that the employment agreement is not procedurally
unconscionable.

Becker highlights three provisions within the employment agreement
as evidence of substantive unconscionability.  Upon a review of the
contract, the Judge holds that there does not appear that the
confidentiality provision prohibits the disclosure of information
such as the nature of Becker's claims against defendants or the
results she obtains in arbitration.  As for the lack of specific
arbitration rules within the agreement, the Judge finds that the
arbitration agreement written in plain language, and moreover,
Becker has not cited to any cases that have found that the failure
to attach the complete arbitral rules to an employment contract is
substantively unconscionable.  On the balance, while the fee
shifting clause provides some evidence of substantive
unconscionability, that is the only portion of the agreement that
could qualify as such.  The Judge will direct the arbitrator to
award any attorney's fees in accordance with the well-settled
Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority outlined in his Order.

Alongside their motion to dismiss, the Defendants have requested
that the Court compel Becker to arbitration.  The Court has already
found that a valid arbitration agreement exists.  As for the second
part of the inquiry, it is clear that the agreement encompasses
Becker's claims.  In her complaint, Becker raises three causes of
action: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages,
and unlawful taking of tips, violations of 29 U.S.C. Sections
203(d), 207, and 203 respectively.  The mandatory arbitration
provision requires arbitration for all "disputes," which, in
relevant part, includes claims for wages or other compensation due.
That encompasses each of Becker's causes of action.  The Judge
will therefore order that the parties arbitrate Becker's claims.

In sum, Judge Hicks (i) denied the Defendants' motion to strike,
and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Becker's
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.  

The Court orders the parties to arbitration to be conducted
pursuant to the employment agreement but severed the portion of the
arbitration agreement giving the arbitrator discretion on whether
to award attorney's fees to Becker if she is successful.  Instead,
the arbitrator is directed to award attorney's fees in accordance
with settled the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority outlined
within the order.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/2cP9do from Leagle.com.


FCA US: Bakhtiar Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Ebby Bakhtiar, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FCA US LLC; Mopar
Motors; Santa Monica Chrysler Jeep Dodge and Ram; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16616, was removed from the
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles)
on July 22, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06522-ODW-JEM to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The
docket states the nature of suit as 190 Contract: Other.

FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram, FIAT and Alfa
Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation. Mopar is
the parts, service and customer care organization within Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexa Frances Galloway, Esq.
          Keith David Griffin, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: afgalloway@girardikeese.com
                  kgriffin@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

The Defendant FCA US is represented by:

          Ryan E. Cosgrove, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
          19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
          Torrance, CA 90502
          Telephone: (424) 221-7400
          Facsimile: (424) 221-7499
          E-mail: ryan.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com


FEDEX FREIGHT: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD JACKSON, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an
Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV17860 (Filed May 7, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July
31, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06907 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay timely wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation
of the California Labor Code.

FedEx is an American multinational delivery services company
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          Sophia Behnia, Esq.
          Linda N. Bollinger, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
                  sbehnia@littler.com
                  lbollinger@littler.com

               - and -

          Sandra C. Isom, Esq.
          FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
          1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Ste. 200
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 434-8526
          Facsimile: (901) 468-1726
          E-mail: scisom@fedex.com


FIRST HORIZON: Unbehagen Tax Sues to Obtain Fees Owed to Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unbehagen Tax and Accounting, Inc., d/b/a Unbehagen Advisors, a
Florida corporation, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated businesses and individuals v. FIRST HORIZON BANK, as
Successor by merger to IBERIABANK Corporation, Case No.
8:20-cv-01782 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2020), seeks to obtain fees owed
to the Plaintiff as a result of its work as agent, who assisted
small- and medium-sized business borrowers in obtaining
Federally-guaranteed loans through the Paycheck Protection
Program.

PPP is a Federal bail-out program implemented to provide businesses
with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19. Federal
regulations require the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class for their work as Agents under the PPP, according to
the complaint. The Agents were retained not by the Defendant, but
directly by the Borrowers to serve as their representatives in the
process and help them obtain PPP loans.

Despite Federal regulations requiring that agent fees ("Agent
Fees") be paid to the Plaintiff for their work, the Defendant has
failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members. Instead, the
Defendant has kept the PPP Agent Fees for themselves, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an advisory firm that focuses on tax, accounting
and insurance services aimed at small- and mid-sized businesses.

FIRST HORIZON BANK, as Successor by merger to IBERIABANK
Corporation, is a Louisiana state-chartered banking institution
with its headquarters located in Lafayette, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Klein, Esq.
          BALES SOMMERS & KLEIN, P.A.
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1881
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 372-1200
          Fax: (305) 372-9008
          Email: jklein@bsklawyers.com
                 rbalesjr@bsklawyers.com


FOUR SEASONS: 9th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Feinstein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD FEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR SEASONS
HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian corporation; DOES, 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-56225 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order granting Four Seasons' motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and denying Feinstein leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Four Seasons, headquartered in Canada, owns or manages over 100
properties across the world.  Seven properties are in California.
Four Seasons partners with Sabre Hospitality Solutions SynXis
Centre Reservations System ("Sabre"), a third-party electronic
booking platform through which users make reservations with hotels
and travel agencies.  In 2017, Sabre discovered that an
unauthorized party had accessed information about a subset of
reservations processed through its system.  The breach did not
compromise any reservations made through Four Seasons' website,
with its main reservation office, or with any of its hotels
directly.

Afterwards, the counsel in the case filed a putative class action
against Sabre related to the data breach, which was dismissed with
prejudice.  The counsel also filed suits against several hotels
affiliated with Sabre alleging the breach violated various state
laws, which were later dismissed either by court order or by the
Plaintiffs voluntarily.

Plaintiff Feinstein, a citizen and resident of California, then
filed a putative class action suit against Four Seasons on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated residents who have made a
booking at any of Four Seasons' hotels during the data breach
period, alleging violations of state laws related to the Sabre
breach.  Four Seasons moved to dismiss on several grounds,
including lack of personal jurisdiction.  Without waiting for a
ruling from the district court, Feinstein filed an amended
complaint, alleging that but for Four Season's business activities
as a manager of North American hotels' within the State of
California, he and the other class members would not have been able
to book Four Seasons rooms.

Feinstein fails to bear his burden of showing that jurisdiction is
appropriate.  On appeal, Feinstein appears to acknowledge the
insufficiency of the allegations in his first amended complaint,
describing to the district court allegations he would add to the
complaint and arguing that he should be able to save his complaint
by amending yet again.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
dismissing Feinstein's complaint without leave to amend.  Even his
proposed second amended complaint would not allege sufficient facts
to support personal jurisdiction.

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


FOX KOHLER: Appeals D. N.J. Ruling in Frederick Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Law Office of Fox Kohler & Associates PLLC LLC, Arthur
M. Kohler, and Roseanna Fox filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Caren Frederick v. Law Office of Fox Kohler &
Associates PLLC LLC, et al., Case No. 1-19-cv-15887, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
removed from the Superior Court of Burlington County, New Jersey,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden)
on July 26, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-15887 to the proceeding.

The appellate case is captioned as Caren Frederick v. Law Office of
Fox Kohler & Associates PLLC LLC, et al., Case No. 20-2539, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee CAREN FREDERICK, on behalf of herself and all
other class members similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph M. Pinto, Esq.
          POLINO AND PINTO
          720 East Main Street, Suite 1C
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 727-1777

Defendants-Appellants LAW OFFICE OF FOX KOHLER & ASSOCIATES PLLC
LLC, FKA Nationl Legal Center PLLC; ARTHUR M. KOHLER; and ROSEANNA
FOX, are represented by:

          Nicholas S. Feltham, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2688
          E-mail: nicholas.feltham@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Vincent E. Gentile, Esq.
          214 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 915-1008
          E-mail: vincent.gentile@dbr.com

Defendants-Appellees COMERICA BANK and GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS LLC
are represented by:

          Benjamin R. Zakarin, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
          590 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 524-5000


FRIENDLY CARE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Pourmand Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNAHITA POURMAND v. FRIENDLY CARE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; and MOJTABA
SABAHI; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27681 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and on all others similarly situated aggrieved
employees, including other physicians, alleging that the Defendants
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, to pay wages
when employment ends, to pay wages owed every pay period, and to
maintain accurate records in violation of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff's employment with FCMG ended in September 2019.
During her employment tenure with FCMG, she would work both the day
shift and the night shift and was supposed to be compensated for 12
hours of work per agreement of the parties, according to the
complaint. Per the IC Contract, the Plaintiff was to receive
monthly compensation (paid per month) in the form of a salary after
working a certain number of shifts per month. Despite the latter,
she would receive calls via "Perfect Score," a paging service, for
a 13-hour period, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Furthermore, although
she was supposed to admit one patient per hour, there were times
wherein she would admit 17 patients during a shift. The Plaintiff
contends that she worked in excess of 12-hour shifts but was not
compensated as such throughout her employment tenure.

The Plaintiff worked as a physician for FCMG on a "1099"
independent contractor basis starting in November 2018, as a
condition of working for FCMG. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were required to sign an independent contractor
"Physician Agreement" that the Defendant unilaterally prepared.

FCMG is a medical group practice located in Long Beach, California,
that specializes in critical care medicine and pulmonary disease.
Mr. Sabahi was the President, CEO, and managing agent of FCMG. He
controlled the hours, wages, and working conditions of the
Plaintiff and the other and other physicians.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Barrington Sues Over Defect in Corvette's Wheels
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BARRINGTON, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-02194-RS (N.D. Cal.,
July 21, 2020), is a consumer class action concerning the
Defendant's alleged failure to disclose defects in Chevrolet
Corvette's wheels.

The Plaintiff brings this action for himself and on behalf of all
persons in the United States, who purchased or leased any 2015 to
present Chevrolet Corvette Z06 or 2017 to present Chevrolet
Corvette Grand Sport vehicle (Class Vehicles) designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or
serviced by GM.

The Plaintiff contends that had GM disclosed its knowledge of the
Wheel Defect before he purchased his Corvette, he would have seen
and been aware of the disclosures. Furthermore, had he known of the
Wheel Defect, Plaintiff Barrington would not have purchased his
vehicle, or would have paid less for it.

On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet
Corvette Grand Sport from Wittmeier Chevrolet, an authorized GM
dealer in Chico, California.

GM designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs,
sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles,
nationwide and in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Files for Creditor Protection Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McMillan, writing for CBC News, reports that a Christian
charity facing a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit launched
in Nova Scotia has filed for creditor protection, arguing that the
coronavirus and the negative publicity from $170 million in claims
against it have led to a decline in donations.

For 35 years, Gospel for Asia, or GFA, has operated in Canada as a
not-for-profit corporation. It collects donations for specific
things such as wells, goats and chickens, as well as missionary
work and child sponsorships.

The charity, which also operates in the United States, promises
that the money will help people living in poverty in India and
surrounding countries. In 2015, it brought in the equivalent of
more than $43,370 a day from Canadians.  

However, a CBC News investigation found dozens of former donors,
GFA staff and board members had concerns about how the organization
was actually spending the money it accepted. They believe hundreds
of millions of dollars intended for the poor in Asia were
"missing."

In February, plaintiff Greg Zentner of Woodburn, N.S., launched the
class-action lawsuit that alleges the charity "defrauded or made
negligent misstatements" to donors. The statement of claim also
said the "defendants civilly conspired to misrepresent the nature
of donations collected." The class action has not yet been
certified.

Donations can't be sent out of country

The Canadian branch of Gospel for Asia's head office is just
outside Hamilton, in Stoney Creek, Ont. A justice of the Ontario
Superior Court heard Gospel for Asia Canada's application under the
Companies Creditor Arrangement Act on June 26 in Toronto. The
justice appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC Canada) as monitor to
the organization's finances and operations.  

The court ordered that while the charity can collect donations, it
cannot "use or dispense" any donations or send donations into the
field through an agent. This means that it cannot send money
collected from donors to Asia without approval from the court.

GFA has asked for a stay in the class action and permission to be
able to send its donations into the field. The court has yet to
rule on this.

In the meantime, GFA is still appealing to potential donors about
the need to provide help in South Asia due to the coronavirus
pandemic. Under a heading of "bringing hope and relief to starving
masses," its website states: "We are in a unique position to
provide aid where others cannot."

A mailing sent out in June implored people for coronavirus response
money, asking them to agree to, "Please use my gift in South Asia
to help feed the hungry, minister to the hurting, save lives -- and
express the love of Jesus!"

The charity states in court filings that donations have become a
challenge in recent months, with only $2.5 million collected in the
first six months of this year. In the court documents, the charity
cited it received about $7.7 million in donations in Canada in
2019, about half of what it amassed in 2015.

Charity concerned it won't survive

In its application for creditor protection, Gospel for Asia stated
that while it intended to defend itself against the claims in the
class action, its "ability to attract donations and conduct its
charitable works will be greatly diminished and it is possible that
GFA World [the Canadian branch of the charity] would not survive."


It only lists $8,900 in creditors, including Canada Post and an
Ontario utility company. But it states it needs protection due to
the financial claims made in the class action.

GFA stated having a monitor to oversee finances would "help
stabilize future donations" and give it "the breathing space
necessary to allow it to continue its important charitable work,
[and] provide its donors with the transparency of a
court-supervised process."

Dean Peroff, one of the lawyers representing the charity, said it
would be inappropriate to comment on a matter before the court.

Halifax lawyer John McKiggan, who represents the plaintiffs in the
class action, sees the request for creditor protection as a way to
avoid the lawsuit. He has filed a motion to oppose the proceedings
that is scheduled to be heard on Sept. 1.

"In their filings, Gospel for Asia Canada admits that they have no
creditors. That they don't owe anybody any money. The only
creditors are the class members from this lawsuit," he told CBC.

McKiggan said the charity should not be allowed to send donations
out of the country while there are outstanding allegations related
to how it spends money.

"Our allegations are that money was disappearing [and] has not been
properly accounted for," he said.

"So this proceeding, the CCAA proceeding, is asking the court to
approve a process where Gospel for Asia can continue to collect
donations and continue to send those donations out of the country,
with no means to ensure that that money is being spent as
directed."

This isn't the first time the charity has faced accusations or
found itself tied up with litigation. The charity ignited
controversy in evangelical circles in the United States, where it
faced a class action with similar allegations. It eventually
settled last year for $37 million.

During those proceedings, lawyers representing Gospel for Asia
confirmed that $20 million was taken from Canadian donations to
help pay for a sprawling $45-million campus in Texas, which
includes a 100,000-square-foot administration building and 80 homes
for staff. Initially, financial statements stated the money came
from an anonymous donation.

The charity has since said it paid the money back. But that's not
enough to ease McKiggan and his clients' concerns.

"We believe that the evidence admitted to in court by Gospel for
Asia establishes some very serious concerns about the way in which
these entities are managed. And we think that the court needs to
closely examine their financial practices. And that won't happen if
the CCAA [creditor protection] proceedings continue as they've
asked," said McKiggan.

No records of funds received from Canada in India

Rev. Bruce Morrison has been following GFA's activities closely for
years. Two decades ago, he was so impressed by the organization's
work in India that he encouraged his congregation at the Christian
Fellowship Church in New Glasgow, N.S., to pledge support through
its Sunday collection.

The church in rural Nova Scotia raised about $150,000 for the
organization. But after hearing about discontent among staff,
Morrison started examining GFA's operations and found financial
discrepancies.

He discovered that between 2007 and 2014, Gospel for Asia reported
to the Canada Revenue Agency that it had sent nearly $94 million to
its operation in India. Meanwhile, financial records submitted to
the Indian government showed the charity received no funds from
Canada during that time period.

"Our church was very committed to helping them largely because of
the endorsement that I gave concerning this organization. So it was
very disappointing for me to find the irregularities," Morrison
said in a recent interview.

In response to the application for creditor protection, he filed a
thick affidavit outlining his concerns.

Morrison alleges that the lack of transparency about how donations
were used amounts to fraud. He was particularly concerned to learn
the charity wasn't spending all the money it received. He learned
Gospel for Asia had millions sitting in foreign bank accounts.

"In Canada and elsewhere, they appeal to donors with a sense of
urgency," he said. "And yet they're sitting, they've traditionally
sat on these cash reserves of hundreds of millions of un-utilized
donor money. So it's just staggering. In fact, I think it's hard
for people. It was hard for me [and] it still is to comprehend."

The RCMP looked into Morrison's allegations and closed the file
without laying charges.

Johnnie Moore, a spokesperson for the charity, told CBC earlier
this year that the American settlement was not an admission of
guilt and he maintained that the organization would have won if the
case had proceeded to court.

In an affidavit included in the application for creditor
protection, Pat Emerick, ministry director and president of GFA
Canada, said there is "no basis" to the allegations of fraudulent
misrepresentation and misappropriation of funds made in the
Canadian lawsuit.

But Emerick's affidavit said the American litigation and the
"Internet chatter" that followed has contributed to a "marked
decline" in donations in Canada. The coronavirus pandemic "placed
an additional strain on donors' ability or willingness to donate."


"It is our belief that these allegations arise from a fundamental
misunderstanding of GFA Canada's operations, administrative
challenges that arose and how they were addressed, and how GFA
Canada's accounting works," he said in the court document.

Morrison still hopes the lawsuit leads to answers about how the
charity's money was used.

"I don't doubt that there have been good things that GFA has done.
But they have not spent the donor money anywhere close to the
degree that they've said they've had," he said. [GN]


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Mercer Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Mountain
Lodging, Inc. The case is styled as Stacey Mercer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Green Mountain
Lodging, Inc. doing business as: Adirondack Spruce Lodge, a New
York corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06044 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Adirondack Spruce Lodge is a hotel that sits in the heart of the
Adirondack Mountains, near numerous attractions in the area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


GRISWOLD HOME: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Scott FLSA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IONIE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GRISWOLD HOME CARE, et al., Defendants,
No. 3:19-cv-527 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to stay and
compel arbitration.

The case is about a home health care worker suing her employers on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated to recover unpaid
overtime wages and unwarranted wage deductions pursuant to both the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous state-law
provisions.

Plaintiff Ionie Scott is a home health aide.  She seeks to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals.  Scott filed
her complaint against four Defendants: Griswold Home Care; FMCH,
Inc.; Maria P. Malafronte, in her individual capacity; and Cathy
Howard, in her individual capacity.

Scott dismissed her claims against Malafronte on Oct. 24, 2019.
Regarding Griswold Home Care, Scott plainly intended to sue the
franchisor Griswold Home Care, which operates through over one
hundred franchisees throughout the United States (of which FMCH is
one).  Scott attempted to serve Griswold Home Care, but she served
the wrong party, Berks Care, Inc.  Realizing her error, Scott
voluntarily dismissed Berks from the case.  The upshot is that
Griswold Home Care, the franchisor, has never been served and is
not currently a party to the action, even though it is a named
Defendant.

Only two Defendants remain: FMCH and Cathy Howard.  FMCH is an
entity that, at all relevant times, did business in Connecticut
under the fictitious name Griswold Home Care.  Cathy Howard
co-founded FMCH (Scott alleges that her initials are the "CH" in
"FMCH") and maintained control over it during the period relevant
to the Complaint.

There is another party relevant to the action: CKJH, LLC, another
entity that, at all relevant times, did business in Connecticut
under the fictitious name Griswold Home Care.  Jessica Howard --
who is Cathy Howard's daughter -- is a partial owner and a
principal of CKJH.  Jessica Howard also works as an employee at
FMCH.

CKJH and FMCH are similar in several ways.  Cathy Howard and
Jessica Howard are involved with both.  Both operated under the
fictitious name Griswold Home Care.  Both concern the work of home
health aides.  But there are (at least) two crucially important
differences between CKJH and FMCH.  First, FMCH is a party to the
action, and CKJH is not.  Second, CKJH operates as a referral
service: it refers home health aides to clients, and the clients
pay the aides.  In contrast, FMCH is not a referral service: it
pays its home health aides directly.

On April 9, 2019, Scott filed the collective and class action
complaint against the four Defendants identified.  She seeks
certification of a collective action under the FLSA, and of a class
action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for violations of Connecticut state
law.  Scott seeks money damages and all other appropriate relief.
She alleges three counts: (1) failure to pay overtime in violation
of the FLSA and (2) Connecticut state law, and (3) unlawful
deduction of wages under Connecticut state law.

In June 2019, the Defendants made the instant motion to dismiss,
or, in the alternative, to stay and compel arbitration.  They seek
dismissal based upon the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  In the alternative, they ask the
Court to strike the Plaintiff's class and collective action
allegations (pursuant to FRCP 12(f)), compel the Plaintiff to
arbitrate her claims on an individual basis only, and stay the case
pending arbitration, pursuant to her contractual agreement to do
so.

Scott filed a memorandum in opposition to the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and the Defendants replied to Scott's memorandum in
opposition.  The parties subsequently filed a Rule 26(f) report.
By October 2019, Scott gave notice that she had voluntarily
dismissed her complaint as against Defendant Malafronte.  Later, on
Nov. 20, 2019, Scott gave notice that she had also voluntarily
dismissed her complaint as against Berks, which was erroneously
served in the matter, as described.

At a Nov. 13, 2019 hearing, Judge Underhill ordered the Defendants
to submit a supplemental affidavit to clarify, if possible, what
entity had contracted as "GRISWOLD" in the Caregiver Agreement.
The Defendants, in February 2020, filed a supplemental motion to
dismiss, which included a supplemental affidavit clarifying the
parties to the Caregiver Agreement.

In the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants do not address Scott's
claims on the merits and argue only that her claims are subject to
a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with the Defendants.
After it was clarified that CKJH was the contracting party in the
Caregiver Agreement, the Defendants still argue that they can
compel arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement both as a matter
of equitable estoppel and by the plain text of the Arbitration
Agreement.

In response, Scott argues that the Defendants cannot enforce the
Arbitration Agreement against her because the Agreement is not
between Scott and the Defendants.  Further, she explains that the
Defendants cannot enforce the Arbitration Agreement against her as
a matter of equitable estoppel or by the Agreement's plain text.
Scott makes several other arguments in the alternative regarding
both the Arbitration Agreement's invalidity and, even if it were
valid, why this case does not fall within its scope.  The Judge
need not consider any of Scott's alternative arguments because he
agrees that there was no agreement to arbitrate between the
Defendants and Scott and that the Defendants cannot enforce the
Arbitration Agreement against Scott.

Among other things, the Judge finds that the evolution of the
Defendants' submissions alone indicates that there was no meeting
of the minds between Scott and the Defendants in the Caregiver
Agreement.  At first, the Defendants were certain that FMCH was
"GRISWOLD."  They even argued that Scott's work for FMCH in 2017
and 2018 made that conclusion more certain.  Now, the Defendants
are certain that CKJH was "GRISWOLD."  Moreover, they now represent
that Scott never had any relationship with FMCH whatsoever.  Given
all that, Scott's position -- that she was not reasonably certain
about with whom she was contracting on May 23, 2016 -- clearly has
support in the record.  In sum, the Defendants have failed to
demonstrate that they entered into an enforceable agreement to
arbitrate with Scott.

Even though the Defendants now concede that CKJH was "GRISWOLD" in
the Caregiver Agreement, they still argue that they can enforce the
Arbitration Agreement against Scott (1) as a matter of equitable
estoppel and (2) by the Arbitration Agreement's plain language.
Both arguments fail, the Court finds.  Relatedly, even though the
Defendants do not raise it directly, the Judge holds that the
Defendants may not compel Scott to arbitrate as a third-party
beneficiary of the Caregiver Agreement.

The Court finds that there is no equitable reason that it should
estop Scott from attempting to avoid arbitration with the
Defendants.  Scott does not rely on the Caregiver Agreement as the
basis for her claims in the case.  According to Scott, she worked
for the Defendants, who underpaid her in violation of federal and
state employment law.  Indeed, she submits evidence that the
Defendants' third-party processor paid her directly.  According to
the Defendants, Scott had absolutely no relationship with them.
Discovery will (hopefully) explain the relationship between Scott
and the Defendants.  But the Defendants cannot claim that, on one
hand, they had no relationship with Scott whatsoever, and, on the
other hand, that their relationship with Scott was foreseeable
enough in the Caregiver Agreement that Scott should be forced to
arbitrate with them under that Agreement.  Put simply, the
Defendants take contradictory positions that undercut their
argument that Scott should be bound by the Caregiver Agreement even
if she did not enter into that agreement with them.

Finally, the Defendants make no argument about why Scott's
allegations do not state a claim on the merits.  Instead, they
simply contest the fact that they ever had any kind of employment
(or other) relationship with Scott.  However, at the motion to
dismiss stage, the Judge must take Scott's allegations as true.
Thus, the Defendants mount no argument on their motion to dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and the Court sees no
independent reason why Scott's claims are not plausible.  Scott has
stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Underhill denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to stay and compel
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/UE6gvN from Leagle.com.


GROUPO TELEVISA: Court Denies Class Certification in Bribery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned In re GROUPO TELEVISA
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18 Civ. 1979 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The opposition to this motion for class certification raises two
separate issues. The first is whether the incidents of public
mention of Grupo Televisa's alleged acts of bribery had such an
impact on its market price (beyond random variations) as to leave
intact the presumption that the market's evaluation relied on the
publicly available information about the company. The Defendants
say there was no impact, the market did not respond to news about
Televisa, since one cannot presume market reliance on such news,
each class member must prove he or she relied upon Televisa's
statements, which omitted significant negative facts.

The second is whether Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology
Pension Plan (CAAT), which gained much more through its investment
in a fund, which prudently shorted Televisa's ADR's than it lost in
its own long position, can represent a class of those holders, who
only lost money.

According to the Opinion and Order, neither side argues that the
Reuters article had any price impact on Televisa's ADR's. That is
not surprising. Despite its exciting headline, the article conveys
little sense that Televisa is engaged in bribery. The closest it
comes is that Mountrigi, a Swiss company that obtained the rights
to broadcast was formed by Televisa, that neither company is named
as an investigation target, that Televisa has no knowledge it
refers to them and is certain all their people acted correctly.
Forty-three others have been indicted, some of whom are named.
There have been no guilty pleas and Torneos, an Argentine sports
marketer, has paid over $112 million in penalties and has a
deferred prosecution agreement. No prosecutor has mentioned
Televisa, and neither it nor Mountrigi has been charged with
wrongdoing.

At this point, the investor has decided there is no need to do
anything about his Televisa holdings, but to wait and see. Televisa
seems remote from the action.

On the morning of October 26, 2017, ten months later, the New York
Times released what has been called an expose, before the market
opened. Televisa's price did not react, in fact, it rose slightly.

That is not surprising, either. Much of the tenor of the article
dealt with how Mountrigi, a three-person operation wholly-owned by
Televisa in the canton of Zug, not named in the charges, quietly
obtained lucrative World Cup broadcast rights and sold them to
Torneos, a company run by Alejandro Burzaco, an Argentine
businessman who last year pleaded guilty to bribing soccer
officials.

Once again, no case is made that Televisa is engaged in bribery.
Certainly the investor gets the impression that Televisa's small
subsidiary made a very lucrative transaction, and that he was
dealing with unsavory parties. On balance, and perhaps with
misgivings, the investor is glad for Mountrigi's profitable
transaction, and still hopes for the best. The slight rise in the
price is about what one would expect.

The Televisa price did drop the following day, but that was clearly
in response to an unanticipated discouraging third-quarter earnings
report, published the previous evening.

From 9:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. on November 14, 15, 16 and 17, 2017
Alejandro Burzaco, the Argentine businessman, who had pleaded
guilty to bribing soccer officials so that his company Torneos
would get rights to broadcast big events, testified in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in a
criminal prosecution of FIFA officials accused of taking bribes. He
had paid over $112 million in penalties, and had a deferred
prosecution agreement with the government.

The market reacted. Over the four-day period, its closing prices
were down to a statistically significant degree, about 7% (-6.73%,
-7.32%), which according to lead plaintiff's economist, would be
highly unusual from random volatility alone.

On January 26, 2018, Televisa released a Form 6-K Disclosure that
its accountants had found such material weaknesses in its internal
control that the financial reporting portions of its December 31,
2016 Annual Report should no longer be relied upon.

There was a small, but noticeable price fall that day, and the
economists disagree whether it was statistically significant,
depending on their method of analysis. Next trading day, Monday
January 29, 2018, Televisa's price rose slightly.

Three of the four events were unlikely to cause an unusual market
reaction, and one cannot draw conclusions from their failure to do
so. The single event which conveyed concrete, urgent
attention-getting information to the Televisa investors produced a
statistically significant price drop which would be highly unusual
from random volatility alone.

On the whole, the market behavior was consistent with an efficient
market, the Court says. There is no showing sufficient to overcome
the Basic presumption that the market price reflected the
misimpressions caused by the omissions, which concealed the actual
state of Televisa's affairs.

CAAT as Class Representative

One of the prerequisites of a class action is that the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class.

During the class period Plaintiff CAAT held a long position of
146,400 Televisa ADR's worth $3.47 million on which it claims
losses of $968,000. The other class members, at the same market
prices, must have suffered similar losses. But CAAT had something
the other members did not. Through its investment in Arrowstreet
(Canada) Global World Alpha Extension Fund I, which had shorted
Televisa's ADR's, CAAT's share had a short position of 460,710
ADR's (437,633 for the 3-months) with a gain of over $10.94
million, roughly three times what CAAT had lost in its own long
position.

Thus, CAAT's interest in the short sales by Arrowstreet enriched
CAAT's overall economic position vastly more than it was injured by
losses in its own long holdings of Televisa ADR's.

Hence, the motion for class certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9sdj28h Leagle.com.


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Saxena White Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Guidewire Software, Inc. ("Guidewire" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GWRE) on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Guidewire common stock between
March 6, 2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Guidewire common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than September 23, 2020. You may
contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and
Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Guidewire provides enterprise-level software systems for the
property and casualty ("P&C") insurance industry.  During the Class
Period, Defendants represented to investors that Guidewire was
well-positioned to capitalize on a shift in the P&C insurance
industry away from on-premise software systems to software systems
provided over the cloud.  Defendants touted the "robust" demand
that existed for Guidewire's cloud-based products and assured
investors that customer demand was "enduring and broad-based across
most or all segments of the market." Defendants further touted the
demand for Guidewire's cloud offering by reporting, at the end of
each quarter, that cloud sales represented a substantial and
growing percentage of the Company's overall sales. The Company also
issued highly favorable revenue and Annual Recurring Revenue
("ARR") guidance, and assured investors that customer demand
remained strong across the Company's entire product offering,
including its legacy on-premise business.

As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the demand for Guidewire's
cloud products was weak and the Company's transition to the cloud
was not going well because Guidewire's cloud-based products needed
to be significantly improved to meet customer needs and catch-up
with rival systems.  Further, Guidewire's failed transition to the
cloud was damaging the Company's traditional on-premise business,
as customers delayed purchasing decisions or declined to renew
existing licenses.  As a result, Guidewire's revenue guidance,
including guidance principally based on significantly increasing
demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and
unattainable.

On March 4, 2020, only three months after reiterating its strong
revenue guidance for fiscal 2020, the truth about Guidewire's
failed cloud transition emerged.  In announcing its financial
results for the second quarter of 2020, the Company was forced to
slash its revenue guidance for fiscal year 2020 by $57 million,
from a range of $759 million to $771 million down to $702 million
to $714 million. Rather than forecasting a year-over-year revenue
increase of up to 7% for fiscal 2020, the Company was now
forecasting a substantial revenue decline of approximately 7.5%.
The Company similarly lowered its critical ARR guidance to be
between 11% and 12% in fiscal 2020, compared to its previous range
of 14% to 16%.

In reaction to the news, Guidewire's stock price plummeted by 17%
in a single day, falling from $112.48 on March 3, 2020 to $93.56 on
March 4, 2020, a decline of $18.92 per share that wiped out more
than $1.5 billion in market capitalization.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

         David Kaplan, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         Tel: (858) 987-0860
         E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com [GN]


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Judge Calls Settlement Deal "Obnoxious"
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
Attorney General Letitia James signed off on a settlement deal with
Harvey Weinstein that included terms she promised his victims she'd
never approve, sources told the Daily News.

The settlement, negotiated by an attorney for a proposed class of
Weinstein accusers and approved by James, was laughed out of court
by Manhattan Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

The judge called the deal "obnoxious" and said the attorney for the
class, Elizabeth Fegan, "was wasting (her) time."

"Harvey Weinstein joins those who ask me to approve it, but makes
no contribution to the settlement. Indeed, he benefits from it,
financially as well as by obtaining a release of claims,"
Hellerstein wrote in a written ruling released on July 24.

"I observed that favoring these groups at the expense of the people
suffering sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein was 'obnoxious.' I
continue to hold to that view."

The proposed deal included terms that James personally assured
victims' attorneys would not be included, lawyer Thomas Giuffra
said.

"She promised us she would never sign off on an agreement that gave
victims' money to Harvey Weinstein or Bob Weinstein. Promised us
that -- she would never agree to that," said Giuffra, who
represents producer Alexandra Canosa.

"She botched this thing. The Attorney General's office has been the
worst thing that happened to this case."

Another attorney for a Weinstein victim, who spoke to The News on
background, backed up Giuffra's account. The attorney said James
assured him in July 2019 that she would not approve a deal that
prevented accusers who opted out of the settlement from seeking
money from insurance companies, Bob Weinstein or The Weinstein
Company's board of directors.

That release would have severely limited the amount of cash
Weinstein's accusers could recover. It also, the attorney said,
limited victims' ability to decide how they pursued their cases --
a major mistake when dealing with trauma survivors.

"I felt betrayed by the Attorney General's acceptance of the
settlement, which was so unfair for the victims and did not hold
Weinstein responsible for his crimes on any level," said Kaja
Sokola, who claims the sadistic Hollywood power player assaulted
her in 2002 when she was 16.

The release for insurers and directors was part of the proposed
settlement announced in June. Harvey and Bob Weinstein actually
received money as part of the proposal. James called the deal "a
win for every woman who has experienced sexual harassment,
discrimination, intimidation, or retaliation by her employer."

"Attorney General James has been, and will always be a fighter for
survivors of sexual assault and harassment. Without a comprehensive
settlement in this case, dozens of Weinstein survivors will be left
with nothing, and will lose their opportunity to find justice,
given the statute of limitations has run out on a lot of their
cases. These brave women have been through so much, and the
Attorney General believes that they deserve to receive what they've
long been owed," a James spokeswoman said.

An official with the AG's office emphasized that the negotiations
were a lengthy, complex process involving corporations, creditors,
insurers and the Weinsteins, among others. Crafting a settlement
deal that satisfied women with pending lawsuits against Weinstein
and his alleged enablers, and included women whose alleged abuse
occurred outside of the statute of limitations, proved a
significant -- though foreseeable -- challenge.

Giuffre noted that James's predecessor, Eric Schneiderman, blocked
a deal in February 2018 to sell The Weinstein Company and establish
a victims' compensation fund reportedly as high as $90 million. The
deal approved by James proposed a $19 million compensation fund, to
be paid entirely by insurers. Another $5.4 million was to be
divvied up among 14 women who sued in the U.S., Canada and the
United Kingdom.

Roughly 100 women have accused Weinstein of using his status in
Hollywood to lure them into vulnerable situations under the guise
of career opportunities. He allegedly destroyed the careers of
women who did not submit to his sexual abuse.

Critics said the rejected proposal highlighted how the State
Attorney General's Office often seeks to make a splash in the
press.

"They get the headlines. They can say, 'well because our office got
involved we made it easier for the settlement to happen," said Ted
Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute in Washington, D.C.,
which serves as a class action watchdog.

"The Attorney General's office wasn't appropriately skeptical . . .
They agreed to the settlement. They signed off on it. They didn't
have to do that. They could have identified the same things Judge
Hellerstein identified and said this isn't the way a class action
settlement is supposed to work."

Sources questioned the appetite of James's office for a legal fight
with the man whose predatory behavior sparked the #MeToo movement.
A lawsuit the state filed against The Weinstein Company has not had
any substantive developments in public filings since it was
announced in February 2018, aside from the settlement proposal.

The deal, critics said, simply should have been better.

"When the Attorney General was going to back the proposed
settlement, I was really upset that she could see this slanted deal
as beneficial to survivors when it was structured to get the
perpetrators out of any liability. It also seemed unlawful to me
that the deal could block victims from individually litigating
their case," said Dominique Huett, who claims Weinstein sexually
assaulted her in Los Angeles in 2010.

Arguments with James over the settlement got so heated behind the
scenes that they impacted other investigations by her office
unrelated to Weinstein, sources said. The day after The News ran a
story on criticism that James was "working for Harvey Weinstein,"
her office canceled at the last minute an interview with news hosts
Megyn Kelly and Linda Vester as part of an ongoing probe of the
culture at NBC, sources said. Kelly and Vester are represented by
attorney Doug Wigdor, who had been an outspoken critic of the
Weinstein deal.

"It was very clear that they got less interested in having this
meeting they wanted to have so badly," said attorney Bryan
Freedman, who also reps Kelly.

"After the Weinstein thing happened there was a whole different
level of interest -- it was clear they were sending a
lower-priority message."

The meeting was eventually rescheduled to January.

"If we rescheduled meetings because of things that are written
about us we'd never get anything done," an official at the AG's
office said.

Wigdor, Giuffra and attorney Kevin Mintzer detailed a litany of
problems with the settlement in court filings. A total of 13
accusers objected to the deal. Among the most outrageous terms,
according to the lawyers:

   * $1.5 million to Bob and Harvey Weinstein to defend legal
     claims brought by women not participating in the class action
     settlement.

   * Harvey and Bob Weinstein contributed nothing to the
     settlement. Insurers footed the bill.

   * Harvey and Bob Weinstein, and members of The Weinstein
     Company's board of directors including billionaire Knicks
     owner James Dolan, would receive $12 million to cover
     past legal fees.

   * $7.2 million for creditors with claims against the
     company, including prominent actors like Bradley
     Cooper, John Cusack and Meryl Streep.

A global settlement now faces uncertain prospects. Weinstein
accusers are pursuing individual claims in court. Women who say
they endured abuse outside the statute of limitations have little
hope, for the moment, of being compensated.

Timeline of Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault and rape trial
Weinstein is serving a 23-year sentence for sexually assaulting his
former production assistant Miriam Haley and raping actress Jessica
Mann. He faces another sexual assault trial in Los Angeles.

"Mr. Weinstein's current and future financial state is far from
healthy, not only has his personal liberty been taken from him, but
his financial liberty as well. Many parties wanted this settlement
to succeed, importantly, it was not just the Weinstein defendants,
but the plaintiffs themselves, who likely recognized that this was
the route to a realistic recovery," Weinstein attorney Imran Ansari
said. [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Selection in Kanefsky Reopened
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey reopened the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act's ("PSLRA") Lead Plaintiff selection process in the
case, DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
DARIUS ADAMCZYK, and THOMAS A. SZLOSEK, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-15536 (D. N.J.).

The Court ordered Lead Plaintiff Charles Francisco and the
Defendants to meet and confer in May 2020 to determine whether they
can resolve foreseeable class representation issues before they
cause a delay.  Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on a
plan of action.  

Francisco proposes adding an additional named Plaintiff who
purchased a substantial number of Honeywell shares during the Class
Period and prior to the first corrective disclosure.  Then, at the
Rule 23 stage, the Lead Plaintiff and the additional named
Plaintiff will move the Court for appointment as the class
representatives.  The Defendants argue the Court should address the
acknowledged inadequacy of Francisco as the Lead Plaintiff by
reopening the lead plaintiff process provided for in the PSLRA.  

The Court also received a letter from Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System ("WCERS"), seeking to file a motion to intervene
as co-lead Plaintiff.  Francisco's counsel then submitted a letter
proposing to add Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as additional
Plaintiff.

Considering the existing Parties' disagreements, WCERS and Iron
Workers's competing desires to join Francisco as co-lead plaintiff,
and to protect the interests of unrepresented class members, Judge
Martini finds that the most prudent approach is to reopen the
PSLRA's lead plaintiff selection process to supplement Francisco.
With Defendants' consent, the Judge will utilize an expedited
schedule.

Accordingly, the Judge ordered that within 14 days of the date of
the Order, Francisco will cause to be published, in a widely
circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service,
a notice advising members of the purported Plaintiff class (i) of
the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period; and (ii) that, not later than 45 days after
the date on which the notice is published, any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as co-lead Plaintiff of
the purported class.

The Judge however denied WCERS request for leave to file a motion
to intervene, though WCERS may move for appointment as part of the
described selection process.  

The Order will not disrupt the ongoing discovery, the Court held.

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


ILLINOIS: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Ross Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEMETRIUS ROSS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREG GOSSETT, et al,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-309-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Class
Notice Pending Appeal.

Defendant Greg Gossett is the warden of the Illinois River
Correctional Center.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was granted on March
26, 2020 and the following class was certified:

   All prisoners housed at Menard Correctional Center between
   April 4, 2014 and April 16, 2014; Illinois River Correctional
   Center between April 21, 2014 and April 29, 2014; Big Muddy
   Correctional Center between May 12, 2014 and May 19, 2014; or
   Lawrence Correctional Center between July 7, 2014 and July 11,
   2014.

On April 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal Order Granting Class Certification and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit set a briefing schedule on the
Petition.  Now pending before the District Court is Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery and Class Notice Pending Appeal.  The
Plaintiffs' filed a response opposing the Motion.

The Defendants seek to stay discovery and a June 15, 2020 deadline
for submitting a Joint Proposed Class Action Notice and Class
Action Notice Plan, asserting that proceeding with discovery during
the pendency of their appeal would be burdensome and that class
notices would be unnecessary if they successfully appeal
certification.

Judge Yandle finds that the Defendants have not made the necessary
showing for a stay.  They acknowledge that a substantial amount of
fact discovery has already taken place.  And, while Defendants
state their appeal is meritorious, they fail to demonstrate a "high
probability" of error with respect to the certification ruling or
that the cost of proceeding outweighs the cost of waiting.
Accordingly, their Motion to Stay Discovery and Class Notice
Pending Appeal is denied, the Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/xPkkTd from Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: Holmes Wins Bid for Inmates' Audiological Evaluations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to enforce parties' settlement agreement with respect to
audiological evaluations in the case captioned RALPH HOLMES, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ROB JEFFREYS, Acting Director of Illinois Department
of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 11 CV 2961 (N.D. Ill.).

In the underlying class action, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) unlawfully denied them
and other deaf and hard of hearing inmates in IDOC custody the
assistance they need to communicate effectively and participate in
IDOC programs and services.

In July 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle their
dispute, which they believed would benefit deaf and hard of hearing
inmates, who are confined in IDOC correctional facilities. During
settlement discussions, the parties vigorously negotiated aspects
relating to Audiological Evaluations.

The Settlement defines Audiological Evaluation as a procedure
performed by a licensed audiologist to measure the type, degree,
configuration, and level of a person's hearing loss through
audiological tests that result in an audiogram. An Audiological
Evaluation measures the level of hearing rather than whether a
person may be deaf or hard of hearing.

The Settlement requires IDOC to request a report from each
audiologist performing an Audiological Evaluation setting forth:
(1) the level and nature of hearing loss in each ear of the person
subject to the evaluation and (2) whether the person subject to the
evaluation would benefit from a hearing aid in the person's left
ear, right ear, both ears, or neither ear.

The Plaintiffs allege that IDOC has breached the Settlement by
failing to ensure that licensed audiologists conduct Audiological
Evaluations and by allowing excessive delays of up to eight months
between Hearing Screenings and Audiological Evaluations. Given
IDOC's non-compliance, the Plaintiffs seek an order: (1) finding
that IDOC violated the Settlement by allowing LHIDs to be used to
perform Audiological Evaluations.

The Plaintiffs claim that contrary to the terms of the Settlement,
IDOC has employed licensed hearing instrument dispensers ("LHIDs")
instead of licensed audiologists for Audiological Evaluations. An
LHID is trained in "the practice of fitting, dispensing, or
servicing hearing aid instruments." An audiologist, by contrast, is
trained in the practice of "screening, identification, measurement,
monitoring, testing, appraisal, prediction, interpretation,
habilitation, rehabilitation, [and] instruction relating to
audiologic or vestibular disorders, including hearing and disorders
of hearing." IDOC's use of LHIDs was "extensive" and occurred in
700 or more evaluations of Class Members from 26 IDOC facilities
during the first year of the Settlement's implementation, according
to the Plaintiffs' estimates.

IDOC admits that it retained LHIDs to perform Audiological
Evaluations of Class Members for about a year after the court
approved the Settlement. But it says that, as of July 2019, it
discontinued the practice of employing LHIDs.

In January 2020, IDOC reported that it was "in compliance with [the
Settlement's] mandate" that licensed audiologists be used for
Audiological Evaluations. The Plaintiffs assert that, while IDOC
may no longer permit the use of LHIDs to conduct Audiological
Evaluations, it is not completing such evaluations in a reasonable
time period. The Plaintiffs move the court to enforce the
Settlement and for sanctions.

The Court finds that IDOC's year-long violation of the Settlement,
during which time it allowed LHIDs instead of audiologists to
conduct Audiological Evaluations, constitutes "substantial
non-compliance" under the Settlement. Having determined that IDOC
failed to substantially comply with the Settlement's requirement
that licensed audiologists perform Audiological Evaluations, the
Court finds that sanctions are warranted.

The Court orders IDOC to pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs to investigate and litigate IDOC's violation.

Also, according to the terms of the Settlement, the Court's
jurisdiction over this matter does not terminate until at least two
years after the effective date of the Settlement. The Court may
extend its retention of jurisdiction if IDOC has not substantially
complied with any portion of the Settlement. Here, IDOC's
non-compliance lasted for approximately one year. The court
therefore extends its jurisdiction by one year to allow for
continued supervision and enforcement of the Settlement as
required.

Conclusion

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Settlement.
IDOC is ordered to comply with the Settlement and pay reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. Also, the Court extends its jurisdiction
to supervise and enforce the Settlement by one year.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wwbchg
Leagle.com


INSPERITY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 21, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), if they purchased the Company's shares
between February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Insperity and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you 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 or via email ([email protected]), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-nsp/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 21, 2020.

                       About the Lawsuit

Insperity and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company had failed to
sufficiently disclose the risk posed by large medical claims from
its employee benefit plans or to negotiate suitable rates with its
customers for the plans; (ii) large medical claims were continuing
to impact the Company by significantly increasing operational
costs; (iii) increased costs of its employee benefit plans would
hinder customer growth and retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues
were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact the
Company's financial results.

The case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v.
Insperity, Inc., No. 20-cv-5635.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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. [GN]


INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky LLP on July 27 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.

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)

NSP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 11, 2019
- February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=8180&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Insperity, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to
negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit
plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical
claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the
Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee
benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer
retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.

Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL)

CCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 26,
2019 - May 1, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=8180&wire=1

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

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (NYSE: BKD)

BKD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 10, 2016 -
April 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8180&wire=1

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

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

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

CONTACT:

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


ITHRIVE HEALTH: Court Dismisses Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt,
issued a Memorandum denying the Debtor's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and granting the Debtor's Motion to Dismiss the
Bankruptcy Case in the lawsuit captioned In re: iThrive Health,
LLC, Chapter 11, Debtor. iThrive Health, LLC, Plaintiff v. Jovita
Carranza, in her capacity as Administrator for the U.S. Small
Business Administration, Defendant, Case No. 19-25413-TJC,
Adversary No. 20-0015 (Bankr. D. Md.).

Chapter 11 Debtor and Plaintiff iThrive Health, LLC brings this
motion for preliminary injunction against defendant Jovita
Carranza, in her official capacity as Administrator for the United
States Small Business Administration (SBA).

The Debtor contends that Defendant violated Section 525(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code by excluding it from participating in the Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) established by the Coronavirus Aid Relief
Economic Security Act (CARES Act), solely because it is a debtor in
bankruptcy.

The Debtor also contends that Defendant exceeded its statutory
authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by excluding
bankruptcy debtors from participating in the PPP, in violation of
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

While the preliminary injunction motion was pending, the Debtor
filed a motion to dismiss its bankruptcy case and requested that,
if the court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, it
should dismiss the bankruptcy case to allow the Debtor to seek PPP
funds.

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest.

The Court concludes that the Debtor has not established a
likelihood of success on the merits of its Section 525(a) claim
under the Ayes v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 473 F.3d 104 (4th
Cir. 2006) standard. Therefore, the Court will not address the
remaining preliminary injunction factors.

The Debtor filed a motion to dismiss its bankruptcy case and
requested that, if the Court denies the motion for a preliminary
injunction, it should dismiss the bankruptcy case to allow the
Debtor to immediately seek $418,000 of PPP funds. The time for
objecting to the motion to dismiss has passed and the lone
objection has been resolved. The Court concludes that cause exists
to dismiss the case because the PPP funds will provide a
substantial benefit to the estate that is not available to the
Debtor while it remains in bankruptcy.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycojdtdz Leagle.com

iThrive Health, LLC Bethesda, MD, Debtor.

Justin P. Fasano, Esq.--jfasano@mhlawyers.com, McNamee, Hosea et
al., Greenbelt, MD, Debtor's Counsel.

Janet M. Nesse, Esq.--jnesse@mhlawyers.com, McNamee, Hosea et al.,
Greenbelt, MD, Debtor's Counsel.

Jovita Carranza, Administrator Small Business Admin., in Chicago,
Illinois, Defendant.

Alan Carl Lazerow, Esq., United States Attorney's Office for the
District of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland, Defendant's Counsel.

Daniel J. Martin, Esq., Department of Justice Civil Division
Commercial Litigation Branch, Corporate/Financial Litigation
Section, in Washington, DC, Defendant's Counsel.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Morris Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Slavica Morris filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Slavica Morris v. Jefferson Capital Systems
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00017, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The appellate case is captioned as Slavica Morris v. Jefferson
Capital Systems LLC, et al., Case No. 20-2431, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by August 17, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before September 14, 2020,
      for Slavica Morris.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SLAVICA MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC
          20 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC and MANDARICH
LAW GROUP, LLP are represented by:

          Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          141 W. Jackson Boulevard
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 578-0985
          E-mail: mmarcus@sessions.legal        

               - and -

          Nicole Marie Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3442
          E-mail: nstrickler@messerstrickler.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Ferron Alleges Misleading Coffee Product Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY E. FERRON, Plaintiff, vs. KRAFT HEINZ FOOD COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-011985 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July
24, 2020) alleges that the Defendant's Maxwell House coffee and
Yuban coffee products are deceptively labeled and marketed.

Specifically, based on a prominent labeling and on the brewing
instructions contained on the Products, a consumer purchasing the
Products would reasonably believe that the Products could be used
to brew a certain number of 6 fluid ounce cups of coffee when
following either of the alternative label instructions. Despite
this prominent packaging and labeling, the Products are not capable
of brewing even the minimum the number of 6 fluid ounce cups of
coffee that they represent using the 1 Tbsp per 1 6 fluid ounce cup
directions.

Plaintiff and Class Members have been aggrieved by Defendant's
unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, in that they purchased
and consumed Defendant's deceptively labeled and marketed
Products.

Kraft Heinz Food Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies worldwide and maintains its principal executive offices
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lydia S. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
          Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC  
          99 6th Street SW
          Winter Haven, FL 33880
          Telephone: (863)656-6672
          Facsimile: (863)301-4500
          E-mail: lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com
                  nick@southernatlanticlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard W. Rubenstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr. Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

KRAFT HEINZ: Sulzer Sues Over False Labeling of Coffee Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Sulzer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01154-WSS (W.D. Pa., July 31, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged false and deceptive advertising and labeling of
their Maxwell House ground coffee products.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express and
implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

The case revolves around a straightforward and systemic course of
false, misleading, and unlawful conduct: the Defendant has grossly
exaggerated the number of cups of coffee that certain varieties of
Maxwell House ground coffee products can make in order to induce
consumer purchases and to charge consumers more for these products,
the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendant has sold the Products to consumers based on the
representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to
a specific number of servings (e.g., "240 6 FL OZ CUPS"). However,
by following Defendant's own definitions and instructions, the
Products do not contain nearly enough ground coffee to make the
number of servings represented, the Plaintiff says. Indeed, the
Plaintiff contends, it is a classic and unlawful bait-and-switch
scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more money for
less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are
purchasing.

The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products because
they reasonably believed--based on the Defendant's
representations--that these Products contained enough coffee to
make the specified number of servings, says the complaint. Had the
Plaintiff and other consumers known the truth (i.e., that the
Products do not contain enough coffee to make the specified number
of servings), they would have paid less for them, or would not have
purchased them at all. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
consumers have been deceived and have suffered economic injury.

The Plaintiff purchased for his own personal benefit a canister of
Maxwell House Master Blend Light.

The Kraft Heinz Company is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1900
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                 sbraden@carlsonlynch.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Class Certification in Perez to be Heard on Aug. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the parties' request
to modify the Preliminary Scheduling Order in the case, JOHN PEREZ,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00686-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), pursuant to the parties' Joint
Stipulation to Continue Class Certification Reply Deadline and
Hearing.

Plaintiff Perez's deadline to file his Class Certification Reply
was extended to July 24, 2020.  The Class Certification Hearing is
continued to Aug. 24, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 before
District Judge Anthony W. Ishii.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 30, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/WXuafB from Leagle.com.


LET'S DO LUNCH: Fails to Pay All Due Wages, Mondragon Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Mondragon, individually and on behalf of the Putative Class
v. LET'S DO LUNCH; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV29076 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2020), seeks
relief against the Defendants for their failure to pay all wages
due, including regular and overtime wages.

The lawsuit is also brought over the Defendants' failure to provide
meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof; failure to
provide rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof;
failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages due upon termination
of employment; and failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses
in discharge of duties.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly and frequently
worked beyond the eighth hour of the shift and/or forty hours per
week, but the Defendant compensated only for 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff was entitled to timely, uninterrupted, 30 minute meal
periods with the 5 hours worked. However, the Defendant instructed
the Plaintiff to continue working until their job duties were
completed which resulted in late meal periods. In addition, the
Defendant failed to provide second meal periods when the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 10 hours.

The Defendant also failed to make reasonably available legally
complaint rest periods, according to the complaint. Specifically,
the Plaintiff could not take any duty-free breaks lasting 10
minutes in violation of the Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders, due
to the Defendant's uniform practice of denying and/or interrupting
these breaks.

The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant in November 2018,
as a driver.

The Defendant provides food services throughout Los Angeles County,
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Edward Kim, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 590-5550
          Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 ekim@mahonev-law.net


LOS ANGELES, CA: Cooley, et al. Seek to Certify Damages Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA COOLEY, et al., v. The
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:18-cv-09053-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 24, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a damages class in this action;

   2. approving the appointment of the Plaintiffs as class
      counsel;

   3. approving the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   4. granting preliminary approval to the proposed settlement.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          Weston C. Rowland, Esq.
          725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 9040
          Telephone: 310 393 3055
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com
                  rowlandweston@gmail.com

MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Vasser Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Vasser and Amy Lusane, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MAPCO EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00665
(M.D. Tenn., July 31, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiffs and other
current and former female Store Managers of the Defendant are
entitled to unpaid wages pursuant to the Equal Pay Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has a common policy and
practice of paying them less than similarly situated male
colleagues on the basis of their gender--female--even though they
performed similar duties requiring the same skill, effort, and
responsibility of male Store Managers.

Mapco's District Managers, in conjunction with Mapco's executive
leadership, execute a top down wage policy, which consistently,
systematically, and willfully pay female Store Managers less than
their male colleagues, who work in the same position and perform
the same work, the Plaintiffs assert. Mapco's deliberate gender
discrimination against women manifests itself in the pay rate of
salaried Store Managers throughout Mapco's convenience stores. The
wage disparity between female and male salaried Store Managers
within Mapco's convenience stores is based solely on gender, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were female employees of the Defendants, who were
salaried Store Managers at Mapco's store.

Mapco operates a chain of gas and convenience stores located in
several states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212)545-1199
          Fax: (212)532-380
          Email: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                 cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                 droth@hgrlawyers.com
                 rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


MDL 2670: Bid to Stay Packed Seafood Products Antitrust Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to
stay pending Rule 23(f) appeal in the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All
Actions, Case No.: 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs initiated the action in 2015, alleging an antitrust
conspiracy by the Defendants to fix and maintain packaged tuna
prices above competitive levels in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.  Related to the same allegations, the Defendants
were prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice.  The
three main Defendants admitted their guilt with respect to the
antitrust conspiracy.

On Dec. 9, 2015, various parallel civil actions relating to the
conspiracy were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation for
pretrial proceedings before the California District Court.  The
Court divided the Plaintiffs into four tracks: (1) Direct Action
Plaintiffs, who are direct purchasers proceeding individually
against Defendants; (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, who are
proceeding on behalf of a putative class; (3) Commercial Food
Preparer Plaintiffs, who are indirect purchasers proceeding on
behalf of a putative class; and (4) End Payer Plaintiffs, who are
consumers proceeding on behalf of a putative class.

The Defendants are the three largest domestic producers of packaged
tuna products - Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, doing business as Chicken
of the Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL; Bumble Bee
Foods, LLC, Lion Capital LLP, Lion Capital (Americas), Inc. and Big
Catch Cayman LP; as well as StarKist Co. and Dongwon Enterprises
Co. Ltd.

On July 30, 2019, the Court granted the Class Plaintiffs' motions
for class certification.  On Aug. 13, 2019, the Defendants
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for
permission to appeal the Class Certification Order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).  The petition was granted on
Dec. 20, 2019.  Numerous summary judgment motions and motions to
exclude expert witness testimony were filed and opposed after the
Defendants' Petition to Appeal was filed.  On Jan. 3, 2020, the
Defendants informed the Court for the first time of their intent to
move for a stay pending appeal.  Shortly after the motion was
filed, and based on the pending appeal, the Court denied as
premature DPPs' and EPPs' motions related to their respective class
notices.  Accordingly, all case activity related directly to class
certification has already been stayed pending appeal.

The Defendants' motion is more encompassing, however.  They contend
that a broad stay of all summary judgment and Daubert motions is
the only prudent solution.  When their motion was filed, fact
discovery had closed.  Fourteen summary judgment motions and six
related Daubert motions had been fully briefed.

Arguing that all these motions are interrelated among themselves as
well with issues raised on appeal, the Defendants seek to stay all
of them, whether they were filed or opposed by the parties to the
appeal or not.  Accordingly, two groups of the Plaintiffs oppose
the stay -- Class Plaintiffs, the prevailing parties in the Class
Certification Order which is on appeal, and DAPs, who are not
parties to any of the class actions or the appeal.

The Ninth Circuit applies a sliding scale approach to balance the
various stay factors once they are established.  The factors are
balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a
weaker showing of another.  Accordingly, the moving party must show
that irreparable harm is probable and either: (a) a strong
likelihood of success on the merits and that the public interest
does not weigh heavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on
the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
petitioner's favor.  As has long been the case, these standards
represent the outer extremes of a continuum, with the relative
hardships to the parties providing the critical element in
determining at what point on the continuum a stay pending review is
justified.

Judge Sammartino holds that the first two factors -- likelihood of
success on the merits and irreparable harm to the appellant -- are
the most critical.  Once an applicant satisfies the first two
factors, the traditional stay inquiry calls for assessing the harm
to the opposing party and weighing the public interest.

The Judge finds that the Defendants have not made the requisite
showing that they will suffer irreparable harm.  In the absence of
such showing, a stay may not issue, regardless of the petitioner's
proof regarding the other stay factors.  Alternatively, even had
they met the required minimum showing of irreparable harm, they
also made only the minimum showing of likelihood of success on the
merits.  Accordingly, to prevail on their motion, they also have to
show that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor.
Given the Defendants' weak showing on the irreparable harm factor
and strong probability that the stay would cause substantial harm
to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have not met their burden.
Finally, the public interest counsels against a stay.

For these reasons, Judge Sammartino denied the Defendants' motion
to stay pending Rule 23(f) appeal.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/gKddN6 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2921: Court Partly Limits Allergen's Communication with Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Allergan BIOCELL Textured Breast Implant
Products Liability Litigation, Action No. 19-MD-2921 (BRM) (JAD)
(D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Limit Communications With
Class Members and their Physicians, Void Releases Signed by Class
Members, and Issue Corrective Notice.

The litigation, which concerns the alleged health risks associated
with the Allergan's now-recalled BIOCELL products (a line of
textured breast implants and tissue expanders), began as a series
of actions filed in judicial districts throughout the country.  By
Order dated Dec. 18, 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred several of those matters to the District of
New Jersey, thereby creating Multi-District Litigation No. 2921.
The Panel has continued to transfer cases since that time, and the
Plaintiffs have directly filed others, such that the multi-district
litigation currently consists of more than 120 member cases.

On Jan. 4, 2020, a group that identified themselves as the "Sloan
Plaintiffs" filed their Emergency Motion, seeking Court
intervention in connection with Allergan's alleged efforts to
obtain warranty-related releases from putative class members who
had their textured breast implants removed.   The Plaintiffs argued
that Allergan procured releases under two distinct warranty
programs, but failed to provide patients or their surgeons with
sufficient information regarding this litigation or the rights
those patients would be giving up if they took advantage of the
programs (e.g., that participation required a release of claims,
including patients' rights to participate in the litigation, the
potential added benefits of pursuing litigation versus obtaining
warranty coverage, etc.).

The Plaintiffs sought multiple forms of relief, including an order:
(1) prohibiting Allergan from communicating with putative class
members and/or their surgeons with respect to any request for a
release that arises out of the subject matter of the litigation
and/or any agreement that waives a class member's right to recovery
in the litigation; (2) precluding Allergan from using any such
releases going forward; (3) requiring Allergan to provide the
Plaintiffs with the names and addresses of any putative class
members who had initiated a warranty claim, provided a release,
and/or has been contacted concerning the action; and (4) permitting
the Plaintiffs' counsel to distribute a Court-approved Corrective
Notice to all putative class members.  By letter dated Jan. 23,
2020, Allergan challenged several of the factual contentions the
Plaintiffs had made in their Emergency Motion.

After carefully considering the Plaintiffs' application and
Allergan's initial, fact-based response, the Court determined that
a more fulsome record was necessary for the parties to properly
brief and for the Court to resolve the Emergency Motion.
Therefore, by Letter Order dated Jan. 27, 2020, the Court
administratively terminated the Emergency Motion and directed the
parties to engage in limited, expedited discovery intended to
clarify the facts at issue.

By informal letter application dated Jan. 29, 2020, Allergan sought
reconsideration of the Court's Jan. 27, 2020 Letter Order, arguing
that the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion was legally doomed to fail
and citing various practical concerns regarding the Court-Ordered
discovery.  Allergan also sought a stay of the discovery
requirements until after it had formally opposed the defunct
Emergency Motion.  By Order dated Jan. 31, 2020, the Court stayed
that discovery, and directed the Plaintiffs to respond to
Allergan's informal request for reconsideration.  The Plaintiffs
opposed Allergan's request by letter dated Feb. 4, 2020.

On Feb. 10, 2020, Judge Brian R. Martinotti, along with the
undersigned, conducted a case management conference in the matter,
at which time the Court addressed the posture of the Emergency
Motion, among other things.  On the same date, Judge Martinotti
issued Case Management Order No. 3, in which he required, in
pertinent part, that Allergan file a formal response to the
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion within eight days.  Allergan did so,
filing its formal opposition on Feb. 18, 2020.

Though somewhat delayed by the intervening COVID-19 pandemic and
practical constraints related thereto, the Court ultimately
scheduled an oral argument on the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for
April 29, 2020.  On the eve of that conference, the Plaintiffs
submitted a supplemental letter and exhibit containing new factual
information.  During oral argument, which the Court conducted by
Zoom video conference, both parties represented that they believed
the Court could resolve the Emergency Motion without the need for
any additional fact discovery or supplementation.  The parties
thereafter submitted additional letter briefing.

As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Dickson briefly addresses
and clarifies the unusual procedural posture of the Plaintiffs'
Emergency Motion. As noted, the Court resolved that motion after
reviewing the Plaintiffs' application and Allergan's initial
response, but before Allergan had occasion to submit a formal
opposition.  Allergan then requested that the Court reconsider that
decision, before ultimately filing its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' then-defunct Emergency Motion.

Considering that the Court initially ruled on the Emergency Motion
before Allergan's time to submit an opposition had run, it would be
unfair to utilize the stringent standards applicable on motions for
reconsideration.

The parties appear to agree that to the extent the Court takes
action with regard to Allergan's communications with putative class
members, it would do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(d).  Their dispute focuses on three main points: (1) whether the
Plaintiffs have standing to seek relief with regard to patient
releases; (2) whether the Court may lawfully restrict Allergan's
speech in accordance with the First Amendment; and (3) (assuming
that the Court may restrict Allergan's speech) whether the relief
the Plaintiffs have proposed would be appropriate under the
circumstances of the case.

The Magistrate Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff has standing to
seek relief with regard to Allergan's warranty-related interactions
with class members (or putative class members); and (ii) in its
current form, Allergan's solicitation of releases from putative
class members in exchange for coverage under the ConfidencePlus
Warranty carries with it a sufficiently serious likelihood of abuse
to justify a limited prior restraint on Allergan's First Amendment
Rights.

Having found that the circumstances of the case justify a prior
restraint on Allergan's First Amendment right to communicate with
putative class members, the Magistrate Judge must attempt to
fashion an appropriate remedy.  His objective is to even the
informational playing field, so to speak, so that all patients have
the information and time necessary to make an educated, meaningful
choice about their legal rights.  

At a minimum, when providing the proposed release to patients,
Allergan must explicitly advise them that: (1) the BIOCELL breast
implant products have been recalled; (2) litigation exists
concerning issues related to that recall, and that the patient may
be a putative class member in that litigation; (3) by signing the
release, the patient would be forfeiting any right to participate
in that litigation or to share in any of the relief obtained
therein; (4) the patient has at least a week to review the release
and determine whether to sign it; and (5) the patient has the right
to have an attorney review the release and advise the patient of
her legal rights.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge declines, at this juncture, to
invalidate the releases Allergan has obtained to date.  Any
determination regarding the legal impact of those releases should
be made on a case-by-case basis at a later date.  The Judge finds,
however, that the patients who signed those releases must be
provided information about their opportunity to challenge them.  In
order to permit them to make a meaningful choice in this regard,
Allergan must provide them with the same information that it must
provide to potential releasors.  In addition, Allergan must advise
them that they may make an application to invalidate the release at
a later date.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Dickson:

   (i) vacated the Court's Jan. 27, 2020 Order;

  (ii) reinstated the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion; and

(iii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
       Emergency Motion.

The parties will meet and confer regarding appropriate revisions to
the ConfidencePlus Warranty release, as well as an appropriate
notice to send to putative class members who have already signed a
release.  That release and supplemental notice must be consistent
with the Court's directives provided.  On Aug. 14, 2020, the
parties will present those proposed documents to the Court for
review.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 14, 2020 Letter Order
is available at https://is.gd/UP2i8x from Leagle.com.


MEDCARE STAFFING: Court Denies Progressive's Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued an
Opinion & Order denying the Plaintiff's Placeholder Motion for
Class Certification and denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned Progressive Health and Rehab Corp. v. Medcare
Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2:19-CV-4710 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Progressive Health and Rehab Corporation (Progressive),
is an Ohio based chiropractic clinic. The Defendant, Medcare
Staffing Incorporated (Medcare), is a Georgia based professional
staffing agency. Progressive alleges it received several
unsolicited faxes from Medcare that did not contain opt-out
language mandated by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
and the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA).

Pursuant to the TCPA and the JFPA, Progressive brought suit on
behalf of itself and a nationwide class, which it defines as:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendant, (3) from whom Defendant did not obtain
     prior express invitation or permission to send fax
     advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendant did not have an
     established business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax
     advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant
     with 47 C.F.R. Section64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

The Plaintiff has filed a placeholder motion for class
certification as means of preventing the Defendant from picking off
its individual claims in order to 'moot' the case before the Court
can decide the issue of class certification. Courts frequently deny
such placeholder motions as premature and do not hold these motions
in abeyance when they have been filed prematurely intentionally.

Plaintiff's Placeholder Motion for Class Certification is denied
without prejudice to any forthcoming motion for class
certification.

Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the claims
brought on behalf of nonresident putative class members should be
dismissed, since the Defendant is not subject to general
jurisdiction in Ohio. The Plaintiff has filed a response opposing
the Defendant's Motion, arguing that it is permitted to proceed
with a nationwide class.

Chief District Judge Algenon L. Marbley notes that because putative
class members are not parties for determining personal jurisdiction
and because the Defendant concedes that specific personal
jurisdiction exists over it as to the claim brought by Plaintiff,
this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Medcare and can
entertain the nationwide class claims. Hence, the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckwkdo7 Leagle.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Court Remands Nichols Product Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued
an Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case
captioned SARA ANN NICHOLS, Individually and as Surviving Spouse
and Next of Kin of SEAN MICHAEL NICHOLS, Deceased, Plaintiff v.
MEDTRONIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC.; METRONIC DIABETES; and
SERVICE GROUP OF OKLAHOMA L.L.C. d/b/a PARKS BROTHERS FUNERAL
SERVICES-PRAGUE, Case Nos. CIV-20-326-F, CJ-2019-131 (W.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff, Sara Ann Nichols, individually and as surviving spouse
and next of kin of Sean Michael Nichols, deceased, originally
commenced this action in the District Court of Lincoln County,
State of Oklahoma.

In the amended petition, the Plaintiff alleged that her husband,
Sean Michael Nichols, who suffered from type 1 diabetes, died on
October 2, 2017, due to an under-delivery of insulin caused by
malfunctions of an insulin pump system, known as the MiniMed 530G
System. The Medtronic Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed
and sold the MiniMed 530G System. Under various theories of
liability, the Plaintiff sought damages from the Medtronic
Defendants resulting from Mr. Nichols' death.

In addition to the Medtronic Defendants, the Plaintiff sought
damages from Defendant, Service Group of Oklahoma, L.L.C. d/b/a
Parks Brothers Funeral Services-Prague ("SGO"). The Plaintiff
alleged that after Mr. Nichols' death, SGO, a funeral services
provider, took possession of Mr. Nichols' body and his personal
effects, including the MiniMed 530G System, from the medical
examiner. According to the Plaintiff, SGO thereafter lost the
insulin pump system.

The Plaintiff, in her motion, asserts that the fraudulent
misjoinder doctrine should not be applied by the Court, given that
it has not been adopted by the Tenth Circuit. She also argues that
her joinder of SGO to the action does not constitute egregious
conduct so as to warrant application of the doctrine.

The Medtronic Defendants respond that the court should apply the
fraudulent misjoinder doctrine similar to the Honorable David
Russell in Bunnell v. Oklahoma MH Properties, LP., Case No.
CIV-12-372-R, 2012 WL 12863916 (W.D. Okla. May 11, 2012). They
assert that plaintiff has not alleged any right of relief against
defendants, jointly, severally or in the alternative, with respect
to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of
transactions or occurrences. In addition, they contend that no
common question of fact or law exists as to any of plaintiff's
claims against defendants.

The doctrine of fraudulent misjoinder originated in Tapscott v. MS
Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on
other grounds by Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th
Cir. 2000). In that case, the plaintiff, an Alabama resident, filed
a putative class action in Alabama state court against four
defendants, one of which was an Alabama resident. The plaintiff
amended the complaint to add 16 plaintiffs and 22 defendants.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs again amended their complaint, naming
four additional plaintiffs and three defendants, including Lowe's
Home Centers (Lowe's), a North Carolina company.

District Judge Stephen P. Friot opines that the fraudulent joinder
doctrine has been widely accepted by courts, including the Tenth
Circuit. Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013).
Not the case with fraudulent misjoinder. Indeed, a New Mexico
district court recently declined to adopt the doctrine. Calderon v.
Wade, Case No. 20-cv-00066-KWR/JFR, 2020 WL 2065277, at *2 (D.N.M.
Apr. 29, 2020).

The Court is not persuaded to change its previous position. In the
absence of direction from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit or a
majority of the circuits, the Court declines to apply the
fraudulent misjoinder doctrine, Judge Friot says.

Alternatively, even if the Court were to apply the fraudulent
misjoinder doctrine, the Court does not believe that its
application is appropriate in this case. In the Court's view, the
joinder of the claims against SGO with the claims against the
Medtronic defendants does not rise to the egregious level required
by Tapscott.

Regardless of how the technical rules of joinder may be applied,
the Court is not convinced that SGO has no real connection with the
controversy involving the Medtronic Defendants or that the claims
against the Defendants are wholly distinct. There is no dispute
that the MiniMed 530G System is the basis for all the claims
against the Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted.

Motion to Recover Attorney Fees

In her motion, the Plaintiff requests to recover reasonable
attorney fees arising from the improper removal.

Judge Friot notes that based upon Bunnell and other case authority
cited by the Medtronic Defendants in their removal notice and
response brief, the Court concludes that the Medtronic defendants
had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of the action. The
Court, therefore, finds that an award of reasonable attorney fees
under Section 1447(c) is not appropriate and the Plaintiff's
request should be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/ybumqwrc Leagle.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Minich Suit Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Krystal Minich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00214-SPB (W.D. Penn., July 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai Zukowsky, Esq.
   Zukowsky Law LLC
   23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com



NANCY BERRYHILL: Michener's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCES MICHENER v. NANCY A.
BERRYHILL, et al, Case No. 5:19-cv-04377-SVK (N.D. Cal., Filed July
12, 2018), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting the Defendants' cross-motion for summary
      judgment; and

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

The Court said, "The web of Social Security regulations is complex,
but the Parties' dispute distills down to one question: whether the
Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) may be applied to Plaintiff's
Social Security benefits. After examining the plain language of
Sections 415, 410, and 433, it is clear that service in Canada is
not designated as employment or equivalent to employment and thus
Plaintiff's husband's service in Canada was not "employment" under
Section 410. As a result, the WEP was properly applied to
Plaintiff's benefits."

The dispute before this Court arises out of the Social Security
Administration's reduction of the Plaintiff Frances Michener's
Social Security benefits because she also receives benefits from
Canadian pension plan. The Plaintiff objects to the reductions for
a variety of reasons and contends that the Defendants have acted in
a similar manner towards others (the proposed class).[CC]


NAROPA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Naropa University is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna
Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Naropa University, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05882 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2020).

Naropa University is a private university in Boulder, Colorado.
Founded in 1974 by Tibetan Buddhist teacher Chogyam Trungpa, it is
named for the 11th-century Indian Buddhist sage Naropa, an abbot of
Nalanda. The university describes itself as Buddhist-inspired,
ecumenical, and nonsectarian rather than Buddhist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NEW DIRECTIONS: Krott Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA KROTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. NEW DIRECTIONS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-915-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the proposed
      collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. directing the Defendant to produce an electronic data file
      (in a format such as .xlsx) containing the names, job
      titles, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses,
      last known personal email addresses, mobile telephone
      numbers, and work locations for all Collective Action
      Members within seven days of entry of the Order;

   3. authorizing the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed
      notice to all collective members by mail, email and text
      message;

   4. providing Collective Action Members 63 days to return the
      Consent Form;

   5. authorizing the issuance of a reminder notice; and

   6. granting such other, further, or additional relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

New Directions provides health care services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Keller in Gulino Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that 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 Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

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

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2420, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Martha Keller is 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 City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Class Action Filed Over Vaccine Regulations for Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
whec.com reports that a federal class-action lawsuit has been filed
against the New York State's vaccine regulations for schools.

The law went into effect Jan. 1, removing certain exemptions.

The suit claims parents were forced to choose between keeping their
kids at home or getting a vaccination that could possibly kill
their children.

The filing states that regulations allowed school officials to
overrule medical professionals. The new regulations require doctors
to issue the exemptions to complete the forms outlining the reasons
behind the appeal.

Earlier, News10NBC reported that the state requires all children,
even those who are distance learning, to keep up with their shots.


State health officials said they cannot comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


NEW YORK: Gyms File Class Action Against Cuomo Over Shutdown
------------------------------------------------------------
The Post-Journal reports that hundreds of gyms across New York
state have filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo
alleging the governor's continued shutdown is causing irreparable
harm to their livelihood and is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs allege that Cuomo's executive shutdown order
violated their due process, and that the decision to not allow gyms
to open while spas, retail and other businesses operate is
discriminatory. It also claims that the distinction between
essential and nonessential businesses at the start of the COVID-19
pandemic was arbitrary.

It will take time for a lawsuit to make its way through the court
system -- and the gyms need help now. That's particularly true of
the state's YMCAs, which provide day care and summer meals to youth
in addition to access to fitness equipment. Like many
non-profit organizations, YMCAs don't have huge bankrolls to
sustain them through a forced closure like Cuomo's, and pandemic
assistance only goes so far. And, for as much as Cuomo has left
gyms twisting in the wind, the federal government and its incessant
posturing on a next wave of pandemic assistance makes relying on
the federal government for too long a risky proposition. Unlike
libraries, they can't latch on to a public school district to levy
a tax to stay open. YMCAs rely on members -- and members aren't
going to stay members in Jamestown or Lakewood if they can join a
gym 20 minutes down the road in Pennsylvania and resume their
workouts.

Cuomo argues that gyms aren't essential businesses, but we wonder
if parents whose children receive free meals through the YMCA's
summer food program would agree with the governor on that. Is day
care not essential? Of course they are. But the YMCA can't provide
those services without the financial support of members who pay to
use its fitness facilities.

The Greater Jamestown YMCAs are ready to service their members
safely. They surely could live within some sort of reopening that
limits the numbers of people inside the building at any one time.
What's the hold up on reopening both YMCAs and their for-profit
fitness center brethren? If not now, then when?

The day is coming -- perhaps sooner than later -- that the
governor's recalcitrance in reopening gyms will mean the Jamestown
YMCA never reopens its doors again.

We hope it doesn't come to that -- but the matter is ultimately up
to a governor who has already left YMCAs twisting in the wind for
more than a month since the county reached the last phase of
reopening.

As Mark Eckendorf, Greater Jamestown YMCA executive director, told
The Post-Journal recently, "Y's can't hold on much longer."

It's time to act, Mr. Governor. Reopen the YMCAs. The benefits
outweigh the limited risk. [GN]


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Disselkamp, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA DISSELKAMP, et al., v.
NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-GNS-CHL
(W.D. Ky), the Plaintiffs Donna Disselkamp, Erica Hunter, Sey
Momodou Bah, Kathy Reed, and Curtis Cornett ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(1);

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing John S. Friend, Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Frank
      H. Tomlinson, and James H. White as Class Counsel.

Norton Healthcare is one of Kentucky's health care systems with
more than 40 clinics and hospitals in and around Louisville,
Kentucky.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Friend, Esq.
          Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Esq.
          BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
          6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6
          Louisville, KY 40222
          E-mail: firm@bishoplegal.net

               - and -

          Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
          TOMLINSON LAW
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: hilton@tomlawllc.com

               - and -

          James H. White, IV, Esq.
          JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com

NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Strike Reply in Securities Suit Due Aug. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has entered an
order setting schedule for the filing of response to the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Certain Allegations in Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint in In Re NVIDIA CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No.
4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

On March 16, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend.

The Parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Setting
Schedule for Filing of the Amended Complaint and Answer or Other
Response to the Amended Complaint on March 24, 2020.  The Court
granted the Parties' Stipulation on March 25, 2020, ordering the
Amended Complaint to be due by May 13, 2020; Answer and Motions due
by June 29, 2020; Responses due by August 13, 2020; Replies due by
September 14, 2020; and Motion Hearing set for October 15, 2020.

Lead Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on May 13, 2020.

The Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, the Motion to Strike Certain Allegations in Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint, and the Request for Judicial Notice on June 29,
2020.

On June 30, 2020, the Parties met and conferred regarding a
schedule for the Lead Plaintiffs' filing of a response to the
Defendants' Motion to Strike and any corresponding reply or
responsive motion.  They agree that the response to the Defendants'
Motion to Strike and any corresponding reply or responsive motion
thereto should follow the same previously stipulated schedule as
the response to the Motion to Dismiss and any corresponding reply
or responsive motion thereto.

Therefore, the Parties stipulated, through their undersigned
counsel, and Judge Gilliam granted, that:

  1. The Lead Plaintiffs will file and serve a response to the
     Defendants' Motion to Strike by Aug. 13, 2020.

  2. The Defendants will reply or otherwise respond to the Lead
     Plaintiffs' response to the Motion to Strike by Sept. 14,
     2020.

  3. Any hearing on the Motion to Strike will be conducted at 2:00

     p.m. on Oct. 15, 2020, or at the Court's convenience any time

     thereafter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/iarrJK from Leagle.com.

KESSLER TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, JENNIFER L. JOOST --
jjoost@ktmc.com -- San Francisco, CA, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER, &
GROSSMANN LLP, JONATHAN D. USLANER -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Los
Angeles, CA, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class.


OASIS PETROLEUM: Ceynar Sues in D.N.D. Alleging Contract Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oasis Petroleum North
America LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Ceynar, David Ceynar,
Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, The Birdhead Company, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. Oasis
Petroleum North America LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00139-CRH (D.N.D.,
Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Oasis Petroleum North America LLC operates as an exploration and
production company. The Company offers acquisition and development
of oil and natural gas resources.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          218 NP Avenue
          PO Box 1389
          Fargo, ND 58107-1389
          Phone: (701) 237-6983
          Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON
          7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Phone: (913) 563-6255
          Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          PO Box 2097
          200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
          Phone: (701) 258-7899
          Fax: (701) 258-9705
          Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com


OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Sues Minimum & OT Wages, Peralta Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Peralta, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC, doing business as
"Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar," Case No.
4:20-cv-00586-SDJ (E.D. Tex., July 31, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, in addition to liquidated
damages, fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was a victim of the Defendant's common unlawful
policy of suffering and permitting employees to perform work "off
the clock" and without compensation before, during, and after their
shifts, in violation of the FLSA's minimum-wage and overtime
requirements, according to the complaint. As a result, there were
many weeks in which the Plaintiff did not receive the federally
mandated minimum wage, as well as many weeks in which the Plaintiff
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
workweek, in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Server from April
2017 through October 2019.

The Defendant operates Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, a
nationwide steakhouse restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP
          302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: (214) 722-5990
          Fax: (214) 722-5991
          Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


PAPERLESSPAY: McDonald Seeks to Certify Class in Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE MCDONALD, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, v.
PAPERLESSPAY CORPORATION AND MARK  BROUGHTON, Case No.
3:20-cv-00516-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all persons whose personally identifiably information (PII)
   was compromised as a result of the Data Breach that occurred
   in approximately February 2020."

The Plaintiff and the putative class assert claims stemming from a
single event: a data breach on PaperlessPay Corporation's servers
and systems that exposed their PII such as their names, addresses,
pay and withholding information, bank account number information,
and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff contends the  Defendants
failed to implement adequate security measures to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members’ PII.  The Plaintiff asserts claims
for negligence, breach of express and implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Fareway Stores, Inc. Fareway
is one of the 1,500 employers that used the Defendants' payroll and
human resources services and therefore entrusted the Defendants to
safeguard the sensitive PII of its employees.

The Defendants provide third-party payroll and human resources
services to companies throughout the United States. According to
Defendant PaperlessPay’s website, PaperlessPay provides payroll
services to approximately 1,500 Employers and has over two million
employee users.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
          Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540

               - and -

          Jonathan Kroner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN KRONER
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3710
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 310-6046
          E-mail: jk@FloridaFalseClaim.com

PEAK THEORY: Fischler Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
------------------------------------------------
Peak Theory, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Peak Theory, Inc., as assignee of d/b/a Cub
Coats, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03423 (S.D. N.Y., July 29,
2020).

Peak Theory Inc. operates as a retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


PERMA-STRUCTO INC: Kiesler Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & WWPCL
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KIESLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PERMA-STRUCTO, INC. and COLE BEAUDIN, Case No.
2:20-cv-01178 (E.D. Wis., July 31, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived him and
all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates
of pay for overtime calculation purposes.

Perma-Structo is a construction company in Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINECREST BAKERY: Vivero Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milvia I. Vivero, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
PINECREST BAKERY LLC, EFRAIN VALDES JR. and JOEL RODRIGUEZ,
individually, Case No. 4:20-cv-10090-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she worked a minimum of 55 hours every
week but was paid for all these hours at her regular rate. She
asserts that she worked many hours over 40, but she was not paid
for overtime hours, as required by law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
hourly, full-time bakery employee.

PINECREST BAKERY is a 24-hour Cuban bakery, cafeteria, and
restaurant located in Key Largo, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAYAGS INC: Miller Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Miller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PLAYAGS, INC., DAVID LOPEZ, and KIMO AKIONA, Case No.
2:20-cv-01428 (D. Nev., July 31, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS securities between August
2, 2018, and August 7, 2019, inclusive, and who have suffered
significant losses and damages as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions.

On August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for
second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment to
goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the
Company's iGaming reporting unit, because of extended regulatory
timelines, which delayed revenues. On this news, the Company's
share price fell $8.99 per share, or nearly 52%, to close at $8.31
per share on August 8, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
business in Oklahoma; (ii) as a result, the Company's recurring
revenue would be negatively impacted; (iii) PlayAGS was
experiencing challenges in its Interactive business segment,
including delays in securing regulatory approvals and relevant
licenses; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably
likely to record a goodwill impairment; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS securities
during the Class Period.

PlayAGS is a designer and supplier of electronic gaming
machines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
          MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Phone: 702.330.4505
          Facsimile: 702.825.0141
          Email: andrew@mlolegal.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler Suit Moved From Nevada to Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DELANIE BUTLER and JOHN
ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
class and collective action members v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PRA GROUP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; ROE
CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00861 (Filed
May 12, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Norfolk) on July 31, 2020.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00403-AWA-DEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.

This Fair Labor Standards Act case is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay wages, unpaid overtime, unlawful
practices and damages.

PRA provides debt recovery and collection services. The Company
specializes in contingency collections for national credit
card.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Hutchings, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS LAW GROUP
          552 E Charleston Blvd.
          Las Vegas, NV 89104
          Telephone: (702) 660-7700
          Facsimile: (702) 522-5202
          E-mail: mhutchings@hutchingslawgroup.com

The Portfolio Recovery is represented by:

          Amy Morrissey Turk, Esq.
          Joel Steven Allen, Esq.
          Robert William McFarland, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          101 W Main St., Suite 9000
          Norfolk, VA 23510-1655
          Telephone: (757) 640-3700
          Facsimile: (757) 640-3701
          E-mail: aturk@mcguirewoods.com
                  jallen@mcguirewoods.com
                  rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Erica J. Chee, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1500
          Las Vegas, NV 89044
          Telephone: (702) 369-6824


PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Von Asten Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY VON ASTEN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE BUREAU INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01106-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PURDUE PHARMA: Attorney Seeks Names of West VA Children with NAS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Hessler, writing for The Herald-Dispatch, reports that a
group of local attorneys has filed in a complaint in Charleston
asking a judge to force the state to release the names of children
born exposed to drugs, so their families can be sent notice of
pending litigation and seek compensation for their suffering.

The complaint, filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, involves the
bankruptcy case of Purdue Pharma, which began last year as a result
of hundreds of lawsuits -- including those from Cabell County and
the City of Huntington -- being filed in federal court seeking
millions of dollars in damages. The lawsuits allege Purdue had a
large role in the opioid epidemic that has affected communities
across the United States.

According to Booth Goodwin, of Goodwin & Goodwin LLP, in
Charleston, the deadline for individuals and entities to file a
claim against Purdue Pharma is 5 p.m. Eastern July 30, but the
attorneys worry many individuals and their families don't know they
qualify because the bankruptcy court is not allowed access to their
information - most notability, that of the children diagnosed with
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

"Children born with NAS are the most innocent victims of the drug
crisis," Goodwin said. "These children and their families deserve
to know about legal proceedings that could provide them resources
to help them throughout their lives."

West Virginia has one of the highest rates of infants born with
NAS, a disease caused when a child's mother uses an opioid while
pregnant. Often times when the infant is born and deprived of
opioids, they develop painful withdrawal symptoms as well as other
issues that can last a lifetime.

The complaint states while the West Virginia Birth Score Program,
which has a registry to identify children born with NAS, has been
in place since October 2016, the Department of Health and Human
Resources says the data cannot be used to provide notice of the
ongoing litigation affecting the children, citing confidentiality
provisions in state laws.

Attorneys believe the registry identifies about 4,000 West Virginia
children diagnosed with NAS. A petition has been filed in the
bankruptcy court to permit the filing of a class action claim on
behalf of those children, but attorneys have been able to reach
only a small fraction of that.

The attorneys said the laws cited by DHHR don't apply with health
as a concern and they believe the Birth Score Program is meant to
protect the health and well-being of a child, with which a claim
with the bankruptcy court would do.

In addition to Goodwin's firm, the complaint was filed by attorneys
with Calwell Luce diTrapano, Law Offices of P. Rodney Jackson and
Forbes Law Offices. [GN]


R.C. BIGELOW: Tea Products Not American-Made, Banks et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BANKS; and CAROL CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06208 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for alleged false and deceptive advertising of its tea
products.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased the Bigelow
tea products because they reasonably believed, based on the
packaging and advertising, that these products are American-made.
However, the products are comprised solely of foreign-sourced and
processed tea.

The Products are made with black, green, and oolong tea leaves.
Each of these types of tea are derived from the Camellia Sinensis
plant. None of the Camellia Sinensis plant that is used to make the
Products is grown or processed in the United States. Rather, all of
the Camellia Sinensis plant that is used to make the Products is
grown by tea plantations, and processed by tea processing plants,
located in places such as Sri Lanka and India.

Had the Plaintiffs and other consumers known the truth (i.e., that
the Bigelow tea products are not American-made), they would have
paid less for them or they would not have purchased them at all. As
a result, the Plaintiffs and other consumers have been deceived and
have suffered economic injury.

RC Bigelow Inc., doing business as Bigelow Tea Company,
manufactures specialty tea products. The Company produces black
tea, green tea, her tea, decaffeinated tea, seasonal tea, organic
tea, raspberry tea, vanilla tea, and mint tea among other products.
Bigelow Tea Company markets its products throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


REVCO SOLUTIONS: Wallk Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revco Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Chayim Wallk, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Revco Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-03492 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Revco Solutions provides collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
          2076 East 27 Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Phone: (718) 928-8872
          Email: yoniw18@gmail.com


RUBY PRINCESS: Operator Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that Shine Lawyers has filed a class action against
the owner and operator of the Ruby Princess.

It is alleged that the outbreak of Coronavirus on the Ruby
Princess, which docked in Sydney on Thursday, March 19, March 2020,
resulted from a failure to take appropriate measures to ensure that
passengers were safe and protected from contracting the virus on
the ship.

This failure constitutes breaches of the cruise owner and
operator's duty of care to its passengers, and of the consumer
guarantees and other provisions of Australian Consumer Law.

Background

On Sunday, March 8, 2020, the Ruby Princess cruise ship departed
Circular Quay.

Despite 158 cases of coronavirus symptoms being logged on the
previous voyage, passengers on board the Ruby Princess failed to be
informed of this, and the potential risks they faced of contracting
the virus on the cruise.

After an 11-day round trip to New Zealand, the ship docked in
Sydney on Thursday, March 19. Ruby Princess passengers were
permitted to disembark at Sydney's Circular Quay and return to
their homes.

Since leaving the ship, over 700 passengers have been diagnosed
with COVID-19.

Passengers on the Ruby Princess consisted of Australian residents,
as well as US citizens and citizens of a number of other
countries.

Can I join the Ruby Princess Coronavirus class action?

You are able to sign up to the class action:

   -- if you were one of the passengers on the Ruby Princess that
departed Circular Quay on March 8, 2020 (regardless of whether or
not you contracted the coronavirus); or

   -- if you are an executor or administrator of the estate of a
passenger who contracted coronavirus on the cruise and subsequently
passed away; or

   -- if you are a family member or loved one of an ill or deceased
passenger who has suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of
their loved one's contracting the virus on the cruise.

   -- If you are unsure whether you can participate in the class
action, please contact us so that we can provide you with further
assistance regarding your legal rights. [GN]


SAN BERNARDINO: No Class Status for Special Needs Students' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as A.M. et al., v. San Bernardino
County Superintendent of Schools, Case No. 5:19-cv-01944-PSG-KK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denied the motion
to certify the class.

The Court said that while the Plaintiffs may "have all suffered a
violation of the same provision of law," they have not demonstrated
that they "have suffered the same injury" at the hands of the same
defendant. Because the Plaintiffs claims are not suited for
class-wide resolution, the motion is denied.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, as the superintendent of
schools, "maintains, encourages, fosters, furthers, and facilitates
and executes" a policy of abuse toward its special needs students
and concealment of that abuse toward their guardians.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant has failed to develop
adequate emergency plans, provide proper medical staff, properly
respond to student injuries, provide employees with child abuse
training, and properly administer medication.

The Plaintiffs are the parents and their children with special
needs who are enrolled in the Defendant's special needs educational
programs.

San Bernardino County, California, is comprised of 33 separate
school districts.[CC]

SHOWFIELDS INC: Faces Olsen Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Olsen, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. SHOWFIELDS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06008
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
http://www.showfields.com/,to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Web site,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law,
and New York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Brooklyn, in Kings County, New York,
and is a visually-impaired handicapped person.

The Defendant is a New York based retail shopping experience and
operates two showrooms/art spaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Phone: 212.392.4772
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com


SIENA HEIGHTS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siena Heights
University. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Siena Heights
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-06042 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Siena Heights University is a Roman Catholic university in Adrian,
Michigan.[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


SOL DE JANEIRO: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOL DE JANEIRO USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05989
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://soldejaneiro.com/,and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Web site
violates the ADA.

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

The Defendant is a body and skincare company that owns and operates
the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (929) 324-0717
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SOUTHEASTERN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
GAYHEARD D. CALLUM; and DENIS AIYANKHEBEOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHEASTERN
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.; and PRINCE TELECOM, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02907-TWT (N.D. Ga., July 13, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cable
technician.

Southern Communications Services, Inc., doing business as
SouthernLINC Wireless., provides wireless communication services.
The Company offers telephone voice and data communications
services. SouthernLINC Wireless operates in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Perri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JESSICA PERRI, LLC
          P.O. Box 50972
          Atlanta, GA 30355
          Telephone: (706) 338-2806
          E-mail: jessiperri@gmail.com

               - and -

          Chelsea B. Cusimano, Esq.
          BRENER & KRAUS, LLC
          3640 Magazine Street  
          New Orleans, LA 70115  
          Telephone: (504) 302-7802
          Facsimile: (504) 304-4759
          E-mail: cbcusimano@brenerlawfirm.com  

               - and –

          Douglas R. Kraus, Esq.
          BRENER & KRAUS, LLC
          3640 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Telephone: (504) 302-7802
          Facsimile: (504) 304-4759
          E-mail: dkraus@brenerlawfirm.com


ST. EDWARDS UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
St. Edwards University, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. Edwards University, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05881 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2020).

St. Edward's University, Inc. provides degrees in both
undergraduate and graduate level curriculum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: McNutt Suit Gets Partial Cond. Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY McNUTT, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. RICHARD D.
WOECK, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C18-5668 BHS (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.

On Aug. 15, 2018, McNutt filed a class action complaint against
Defendants Swift and Does 1-10.  McNutt alleged failure to pay rest
breaks, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, and
willful refusal to pay wages pursuant to Washington State law.

The Plaintiffs are truck drivers who allege that Swift failed to
pay them for all hours worked.  They allege they were paid based on
the number of miles driven transporting goods.  They allege that
they drove "over-the-road" ("OTR") meaning they would be gone on
trips for days at a time.  They allege that they were not paid for
on-duty time when not driving, resulting in significant
uncompensated on-duty time for OTR trips.  They allege that in many
weeks they were paid less than minimum wage for each hour worked
and allege that their hours worked include time spent driving, in
inspections, waiting for directions from Swift, waiting for
completion of pick up or delivery, refueling, and myriad other
tasks required by Swift.

On April 1, 2019, McNutt moved for leave to file an amended
complaint.  On May 31, 2019, the Court granted the motion.  On June
3, 2019, McNutt filed an amended complaint styled as a collective
action pursuant to section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  She alleged violation of the minimum wage requirements
of the FLSA.

On June 21, 2019, McNutt filed a stipulated motion to consolidate
the action with Woeck's action against the same Defendants, Woeck
v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, LLC, C19-5342-BHS, and on June 28,
2019, the Court granted the motion.

On Dec. 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification.  The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a
collective action consisting of:  All persons currently or formerly
employed by Defendant in the United States of America as drivers,
who worked during trips of 24-hours or more, and were paid on a
per-mile basis, at any time beginning Dec. 23, 2016 until the date
of judgment after trial.

In January 2020, the parties stipulated to continue the dates for
the conditional certification and the Court granted the motion.  In
February 2020, Swift moved for leave to file over-length briefs and
the Court granted the motion.  Swift and Plaintiffs thereafter
filed their own replies.

The Plaintiffs' legal theory is categorical -- drivers on trips
exceeding 24 hours must be compensated for a minimum of 16 hours
per day.  The Court, at this stage of the pleadings, finds that the
Plaintiffs' facts sufficiently allege putative collective members
were similarly affected by Swift's policy and are similarly
situated for purposes of the broad legal question.

The Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that they and the putative
collective members have similar job descriptions and are subject to
the same or similar compensation policies, the Court avers.  The
class definition is limited to drivers who performed work for Swift
requiring them to be away from home for more than 24 hours at a
time.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs are correct that Swift does not
dispute that to the extent the Plaintiffs' legal theory is viable,
they are similarly situated to the members of the putative
collective.  Therefore, for the purposes of conditional
certification, the Plaintiffs and the putative class members are
similarly situated under the Plaintiffs' theory of liability, the
Court holds.  Whether that theory is viable is a question for a
motion on the merits.

Nevertheless, the Court has serious concerns regarding the
implications of its ruling on the future of FLSA collective actions
and acknowledges the policy arguments raised by other courts.
Despite these serious concerns, Judge Seattle concludes that
personal jurisdiction is lacking over the claims of Swift employees
who did not live or work in Washington.

The FLSA's statute of limitations is two years, unless the
violation was willful, in which case it is three years.  The
Plaintiffs argue the Court should equitably toll the statute of
limitations during the period the motion was pending and during the
notice period.  Plaintiffs argue that Swift has been on notice of
the claims and that they have been diligent.

Judge Settle holds that it is in the interests of justice to follow
the approach it used in Douglas v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, as the
parties were partly responsible for the delay in resolving the
motion for conditional certification, but the Court was also partly
responsible.  The Judge finds that the period attributable to the
Court represents a substantial delay beyond the Plaintiffs'
control.  The Judge will thus toll the statute of limitations for
the period the motion was pending before the Court more than 30
days beyond the noting date (beginning April 8, 2020) until the
date of the Order, and for the period 30 days after the last
supplemental brief until the Court approves notice.

The Judge requested that either the parties stipulate or the
Plaintiffs propose a modified definition of the proposed collective
or otherwise propose how the Court should address the limit on
eligibility for membership in the notice process.  The Plaintiffs
may do so and Swift may raise any objections as part of the
supplemental briefing schedule set out in the Notice section of the
Order.

Finally, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to approve their proposed
notice and consent forms.  In response, Swift requested an
opportunity to confer with the Plaintiffs regarding the proposed
notice and consent forms and to separately submit any objections to
the Court.

The Judge required the parties to meet and confer to determine
whether they can stipulate to a mutually acceptable way to address
the prior settlements and stipulate to notice and consent forms.
If the parties cannot stipulate, the Plaintiffs were to submit its
proposals and reasoning to the Court by July 17, 2020.

Accordingly, Judge Settle granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification with ruling reserved on the definition of
the collective and on notice and consent.  The parties were
directed to submit supplemental briefing as requested.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/iBwGGu from Leagle.com.


TENNESSEE: Washington Ordered to Sign Complaint & Pay Filing Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WHITNEY WASHINGTON and KEVIN WOMACK, on behalf of
themselves and all other prisoners under the jurisdiction of the
Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC), Plaintiffs, v. STANLEY
DICKERSON, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-JTF-dkv (W.D.
Tenn.), Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, has entered an
order directing the Plaintiffs to sign their complaint, comply with
28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(a)(1)-(2) or pay the $400 civil filing fee,
and sign their motion for appointment of counsel.

On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff Washington (booking number 580208) and
Plaintiff Womack (booking number 463617), who are both
incarcerated, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 on behalf of themselves and all other prisoners under
the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Correction.  In
addition to asserting several claims under Section 1983, the
complaint seeks appointment of counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Although Washington's and Womack's typed names are on the
complaint, they failed to sign the document.  Washington and Womack
also neglected to submit either the $400 civil filing fee required
by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1914(a)-(b) or an application to proceed in
forma pauperis.

On May 5, 2020, Washington and Womack separately filed a motion for
appointment of counsel, arguing that the Plaintiffs are inadequate
to represent the interest of their fellow inmates in a class action
Neither Washington nor Womack signed the motion.

Because, neither the complaint nor the motion for appointment of
counsel are signed by either Washington or Womack, Judge Fowlkes
ordered them to file a copy of the complaint and a copy of the
motion for appointment of counsel bearing each of their manual
signatures within 30 days of the date of entry of the Order.  He
reminded the Plaintiffs that all future documents filed in the case
must be signed by both parties, as required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), a prisoner
bringing a civil action must pay the filing fee required by 28
U.S.C. Section 1914(a).  Although the obligation to pay the fee
accrues at the moment the case is filed, the PLRA provides a
prisoner the opportunity to make a "down payment" of a partial
filing fee and pay the remainder in installments.  However, in
order to take advantage of the installment procedures, a prisoner
must complete and submit to the district court, along with the
complaint, an in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of
his inmate trust account statement for the last six months.

Washington and Womack have not complied with any of these
requirements.  Therefore, the Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to
submit, within 30 days after the date of the Order, either the
entire $400 civil filing fee or a properly completed and executed
application to proceed in forma pauperis and certified copies of
their inmate trust account statement for the last six months.  The
Clerk is directed to mail the Plaintiffs a copy of the prisoner in
forma pauperis affidavit form along with the Order.  If the
Plaintiffs need additional time to submit any of the required
documents, they may, within 30 days after the date of the Order,
file a motion for an extension of time.

If the Plaintiffs timely submit the necessary documents and the
Court finds that they are indeed indigent, the Court will grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assess only a $350 filing
fee in accordance with the installment procedures of Section
1915(b).  However, if they fail to comply with the Order in a
timely manner, the Court will deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, assess the entire $400 filing fee from their inmate trust
accounts without regard to the installment procedures, and dismiss
the action without further notice for failure to prosecute,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

If the Plaintiffs are transferred to a different prison or
released, they are ordered to notify the Court immediately, in
writing, of their change of address.  Failure to abide by the
requirement may likewise result in the dismissal of the case
without further notice, for failure to prosecute.

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


TOMMIE COPPER: New York Court Closes Herst Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York closed the case, DAVID HERST, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOMMIE
COPPER INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 Civ. 7008 (AT) (S.D. N.Y.).  

The claims in the action have been resolved by the class action
settlement approved by the Court in In re Tommie Copper Products
Consumer Litigation, No. 15 Civ. 3183, on May 4, 2018.  The Clerk
of Court is directed to close the case.

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


UNITED STATES: Barr Appeals Ruling in Rodriguez Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants William P. Barr, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Alejandro Rodriguez, et al. v.
William Barr, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03239-TJH-RNB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order remanding
to the District Court the case captioned ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for
himself and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals;
ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals; JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO; YUSSUF
ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS,
Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and EFREN OROZCO,
Petitioner v. DAVID MARIN, Field Office Director, Los Angeles
District, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN,
Secretary, Homeland Security; MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney
General; WESLEY LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma
Detention Center; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County;
NGUYEN, Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; DAVIS
NIGHSWONGER, Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; MIKE KREUGER,
Captain, Operations Manager, James A. Musick Facility; ARTHUR
EDWARDS, Officer-in-Charge, Santa Ana City Jail; RUSSELL DAVIS,
Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; JAMES MCHENRY, Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review,
Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Nos. 13-56706, 13-56755.
(9th Cir.).

Alejandro Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Since 1987, he has also
been a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In April
2004, after Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of
a vehicle, the Government detained him under Section 1226 and
sought to remove him from the country. At his removal hearing,
Rodriguez argued both that he was not removable and, in the
alternative, that he was eligible for relief from removal.  In July
2004, an Immigration Judge ordered Rodriguez deported to Mexico.
Rodriguez chose to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, but five months later the Board agreed that Rodriguez was
subject to mandatory removal. Once again, Rodriguez chose to seek
further review, this time petitioning the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit for review of the Board's decision.

In May 2007, while Rodriguez was still litigating his removal in
the Court of Appeals, he filed a habeas petition in the District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging that he was
entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued
detention was justified. Rodriguez's case was consolidated with
another, similar case brought by Alejandro Garcia, and together
they moved for class certification. The District Court denied their
motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed,
concluding that the proposed class met the certification
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate case is captioned as Alejandro Rodriguez, et al. v.
William Barr, et al., Case No. 20-55770, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Petitioners-Appellees ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH,
JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO, YUSSUF ABDIKADIR, ABEL PEREZ RUELAS, ANGEL
ARMANDO AYALA, and ALEX CACHO CASTILLO, for themselves and on
behalf of a class of similarly- situated individuals, are
represented by:

          Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          Peter Jay Eliasberg, Esq.
          Zoe McKinney, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          E-mail: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org
                  mkaufman@aclu-sc.org
                  peliasberg@aclu.sc.org
                  zmckinney@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6010
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com  

               - and -

          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2618
          E-mail: jrabinovitz@aclu.org

               - and -

          Jayashri Srikantiah, Esq.
          MILLS LEGAL CLINIC
          559 Nathan Abbott Way
          Stanford, CA 94305-8610
          E-mail: jsrikantiah@law.stanford.edu
       
               - and -

          Michael K.T. Tan, Esq.
          ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: mtan@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

Respondents-Appellants WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; CHAD F.
WOLF, Acting Secretary, Homeland Security; JAMES MCHENRY, Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review; DAVID MARIN, Field Office
Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; DON BARNES, Sheriff of Orange County; NGUYEN,
Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; LUKE SOUTH, Commander, Theo
Lacy Facility; LISA VON NORDHEIM, Captain, James A. Musick
Facility; and TERRY NELSEN, Assistant Field Office Director,
Adelanto Detention Facility, are represented by:

          Sarah Stevens Wilson, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICE
          1801 Fourth Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 244-2001
          E-mail: Sarah.Wilson2@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over SIV Application Backlog
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Lawrence, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that a Marine
veteran has raised more than $5,000 to help a translator who saved
U.S. troops in Afghanistan come to America.

The Afghan man and his family were set to move to the U.S. earlier
this year on a special visa issued to translators who worked with
the U.S. military, but those plans fell through when the
coronavirus pandemic shut down global travel.

The visa expired as they waited, and the cost to get it reissued
was more than he could afford. That's when Karl Kadon, a veteran
Marine captain now living in San Francisco, decided to help.

"I'll do absolutely anything I can to give him a shot at a life in
America, given the choices he made on behalf of me and my Marines,"
Kadon said in a phone interview.

The translator, who asked to be identified only as Mohammad out of
concern for his safety, served as an interpreter for an infantry
battalion from 2010 to 2011 in Helmand province, during some of the
heaviest fighting of the war. His actions saved the lives of seven
Marines, Kadon said in letters to the State Department.

In the past five years, Mohammad went through the long application
process for a Special Immigrant Visa, available to interpreters who
worked with U.S. troops.

As he waited for a decision, death threats forced him to flee his
home for the relative safety of Kabul, he said.

He and his family finally received a visa last fall and were
scheduled to fly out in April. Then all flights were canceled due
to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

"When I got the call, 'You can't leave, because of the coronavirus
pandemic,' I lost my hope," he said. The visa, only valid for five
months, expired days after his scheduled flight was canceled.

Medical exams for him, his wife and their son had cost $1,400.
These would have to be repeated for the visa to be reissued, he
said, and he didn't have the money.

A fundraiser Kadon launched on Gofundme to assist with those costs,
as well as plane tickets and other travel costs, reached its goal
in slightly more than a day and now stands at $5,215.

"I could not believe it, that people would do that," Mohammad said.
"I have learned about the humanity of people."

Several hundred other translators and their families, with full
clearance for travel and visas in hand, have also been stuck in
Afghanistan due to the pandemic, said Betsy Fisher, strategy
director for the International Refugee Assistance Project, which
assisted Mohammad on his case.

The group filed a class action lawsuit against the State Department
to clear the backlog of SIV applications, leading a judge recently
to order changes to speed up the process.

Some 18,000 applications remain in the pipeline vying for about
8,000 visas, the department's inspector general found in an audit
published in June.

In Mohammad's case, Kadon said he had to write hundreds of emails
and letters to help advance the application.

The translator and his family should finally be able to leave
Afghanistan around September, said Brian Biglin, a lawyer who works
with IRAP.

"I am lucky," said Mohammad, who may settle in Texas or California,
where he has relatives. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Schuchardt Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Elliott J. Schuchardt filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Elliott Schuchardt, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump, President
of the United States, et al., Case No. 20-99.

Response is due on August 31, 2020.

Petitioner Schuchardt petitions for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in the case titled ELLIOTT J. SCHUCHARDT, individually and
doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Appellant v.  PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE;
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND CHIEF OF THE CENTRAL
SECURITY SERVICE; DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Case Nos. 19-1366, 15-3491, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Schuchardt
filed a complaint in the District Court asserting constitutional,
statutory, and state law claims against the President, the Director
of National Intelligence, and the Directors of the NSA and Federal
Bureau of Investigation. He alleged that the Government was
violating the Fourth Amendment by storing his confidential
communications "in a computer database, or through a government
program, which the Defendants call 'Prism.'"  He sought to enjoin
"the [Government] from engaging in any further collection of . . .
[his] information."

Elliott J. Schuchardt alleges that the bulk data collection
programs of the National Security Agency ("NSA") under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. Section 1801 et
seq., violate the Fourth Amendment because they allow the
Government to intercept, access, monitor, and store all or
substantially all U.S. domestic e-mail without probable cause.

On remand, the District Court held that Schuchardt failed to rebut
the evidence the Government submitted to challenge his factual
standing. The Supreme Court agreed and thus affirmed the District
Court's ruling.

Plaintiff-Petitioner Elliott Schuchardt of Knoxville, Tennessee,
appears pro se.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Smith Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Suit to D.C. Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Lee Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled David Smith v. Louise Flanagan, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01700-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of
suit is stated as prison condition.

The appellate case is captioned as David Smith v. Louise Flanagan,
et al., Case No. 20-5231, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. Smith is currently incarcerated at the Pender Correctional
Center, in Burgaw, North Carolina.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant David Lee Smith, and Others Similarly Situated,
appears pro se.

Defendant-Appellee Louise W. Flanagan, U.S. Judge, Raleigh, N.C.,
is represented by:

          R. Craig Lawrence, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          555 4th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2500
          E-mail: craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Suit v. Reclamation Over CND Project Stays in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued
an Order denying the Defendants' motion to transfer this proceeding
to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota in the
case captioned STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. Attorney General Eric S.
Schmitt, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR-BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-4018-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

Defendant Garrison District, a North Dakota state agency, is
constructing the Central North Dakota Water Supply Project (the
"CND Project") purportedly to provide a reliable source of water
for industrial uses in communities and water districts in multiple
counties in central North Dakota. Garrison District applied for a
forty-year water service contract to obtain water from Reclamation,
water that Reclamation claims to be authorized to provide under
various federal statutes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have not evaluated the
impacts upon Missouri's human environment of their usage of
Missouri River water in their proposed construction of the Central
North Dakota Water Supply Project (CND Project), in violation of
the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Finding of No
Significant Impact ("FONSI") that Reclamation issued for the CND
Project focuses exclusively on impacts in the vicinity of the
project and fails to consider the adverse impacts on Missouri that
the CND Project, in combination with the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project and other foreseeable water diversion projects,
would have.

Bid to Transfer Venue

District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey notes that the Plaintiff's home
state is the more convenient forum for it, while North Dakota is
the more convenient forum for the Defendants. The factor of the
parties' convenience, thus, does not weigh in favor of either
forum.

While the convenience factor weighs in favor of transfer because of
where the claim is said to have arisen, the interest-of-justice
analysis slightly favors the current forum, Judge Laughrey opines.
Because the Court cannot find that the interest-of-justice factors
warrant transfer, the Court concludes that transfer is not
appropriate.

Hence, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to transfer the
case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yallwyxb Leagle.com


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Velocity
Financial, Inc. ("Velocity" or "the Company") (NYSE: VEL) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
January 2020 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
September 28, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Velocity's non-performing loans sharply
increased in size from the values presented as part of its IPO
materials. The Company failed to share information with investors
about the potential impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on its
business, despite the fact that international spread had been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Velocity, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


WEALTH KNOWLEDGE: Green Files Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wealth Knowledge
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Maria Green,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wealth Knowledge Solutions, LLC, doing business as:
Signature Preferred, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
9:20-cv-81221 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory
Actions.

Signature Preferred Financial Solutions is part of the new wave of
debt consolidation companies that are targeting American
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
   Edwards Pottinger LLC
   425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 524-2820
   Fax: (954) 524-2822
   Email: seth@epllc.com




WELL PATH: Hawkins TCPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to M.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JANIE HAWKINS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELL PATH, LLC,
Case No. 7:19-cv-08969 (Filed Sept. 26, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
(Nashville) on July 31, 2020.

The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00657 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. The suit demands $5 million in
damages.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Well Path for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing calls and sending text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system to the landline
telephones and cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without
their prior express written consent and using an artificial or
prerecorded voice or message.

Wellpath is a provider of localized care to vulnerable patients in
challenging clinical environments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (646) 837-7142
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Beth-Ann Ellenberg Krimsky, Esq.
          Jamey Robert Campellone, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LAW
          200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 527-2427
          Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
          E-mail: beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com
                  jamey.campellone@gmlaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Charlotte Resident Files Racial Profiling Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gordon, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that
three years ago, Joshua Brown says he went shopping at Whole Foods
for some fresh fish, stopped for a piece of pizza, and ended up
being racially profiled by one of Charlotte's most upscale
groceries.

The Charlotte resident's account of his 2017 experiences at the
Whole Foods store on Sharon Road is included in a new federal
lawsuit that claims Brown was singled out by the store's manager
because of his race.

Charlotte attorney J.M. Durnovich, who is defending Whole Foods
against Brown's lawsuit, told the Observer that the chain had no
comment.

Yet Brown's complaint, if true, embodies the background
discrimination Black people say they face even in routine
situations, like shopping for food.

His trip three years ago to Whole Foods began with a stop at the
fresh-fish counter at the SouthPark store where he asked for
mahi-mahi. It ended, according to the lawsuit, with a confrontation
between Brown and two Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers.

The nature of the outing changed when Brown decided to stop by the
store's hot-food section for lunch. According to the complaint, he
asked for a piece of pizza, then sat down in the dining area to eat
it. Under the store's policy, customers can pay for lunch at
check-out along with their other purchases, the lawsuit says.

Except, according to the lawsuit, after Brown took a seat among
Whole Foods' other lunching clientele, he was visited by store
manager Tim Burroughs.

Burroughs, in an apparent breach of store policy, asked Brown to
pay for his pizza before he ate it, the lawsuit claims.

"Mr. Burroughs did not approach any of the white customers in the
dining area (who) also were eating the food they ordered prior to
the purchase," the lawsuit says.

Brown, according to the lawsuit, declined Burroughs' demand, saying
he would pay for the pizza and his fish before leaving the store --
just like everybody else.

Burroughs, according to the complaint, then called 911 -- "falsely
accusing Mr. Brown of acting suspicious and attempting to steal
food from the store."

As Brown remained seated in the dining area, two unidentified CMPD
officers approached him. Brown, the lawsuit says, pulled out his
cell phone and started filming.

He says one of the officers demanded "in a provoking manner" that
Brown pay in advance for his lunch. Brown, according to his
complaint, said he wasn't stealing and that he would settle his
bill immediately after he finished his pizza.

Police, the lawsuit says, gave one more warning for Brown: Leave
without paying and you'll be arrested for stealing. Brown said he
understood, finished his meal, paid up and left the store.

Now, his complaint claims that "the irrational and discriminatory"
treatment he received at Whole Foods has left emotional and
psychological damage, while also violating his constitutional
rights.

Brown's attorney, Ryon Smalls, did not respond to Observer emails
and phone calls seeking comment.

The complaint surfaces as the country debates patterns of systemic
racism and racial profiling in the wake of the police killing of
George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In New York's Central Park in July, a white woman called police to
claim a black birdwatcher had "threatened her life" after he asked
her to leash her dog.

Two years ago, Starbucks shut down its entire chain for
racial-sensitivity training after two black men were arrested and
charged with trespassing when they asked to use the bathroom at a
Starbucks in Philadelphia while waiting for a white friend.

As for Whole Foods, claims of discrimination have cropped up among
its minority customers and employees in the Bay Area, Miami,
Philadelphia and other cities, now including Charlotte.

A 2018 petition on Change.org calls for a boycott of the grocer
over what the petition says is Whole Foods' practice of having its
security officers "surveil, secretly follow, and monitor people of
color who patronize their stores."

More recently, a class-action lawsuit claims that Whole Foods
punished workers in multiple states for wearing Black Lives Matter
masks.

In a statement involving a 2017 profiling allegation against a
Whole Foods store in California, the chain said it has "zero
tolerance" for discrimination within its stores.

Brown, however, has called for a jury trial and is asking for
punitive damages in excess of $25,000. [GN]


WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Lopez ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victor Lopez filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated July 6, 2020, issued in his lawsuit entitled Lopez
v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-11770, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

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

The appellate case is captioned as Lopez v. Williams-Sonoma Stores,
Inc., Case No. 20-2512, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Victor Lopez, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., is represented
by:

          Michael Fleming, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6207
          E-mail: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com


YMCA OF GREATER: Mercer Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YMCA of Greater
Boston, Inc. The case is styled as Stacey Mercer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. YMCA of Greater
Boston, Inc. doing business as: The Constitution Inn, a
Massachusetts nonprofit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06038
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

The YMCA of Greater Boston is the largest social services provider
in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Mathew Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


ZAVANNA LLC: Double Diamond Files Class Suit in D. North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zavanna, LLC. The
case is styled as Double Diamond C Mineral, LLC, on behalf of
itself and a class of similarly situated persons v. Zavanna, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., Aug. 3, 2020).

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

Zavanna LLC is an oil and gas exploration and production company
based out of Denver, Colorado with field offices in Williston,
North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          218 NP Avenue
          PO Box 1389
          Fargo, ND 58107-1389
          Phone: (701) 237-6983
          Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON
          7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Phone: (913) 563-6255
          Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM
          PO Box 2097
          200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
          Phone: (701) 258-7899
          Fax: (701) 258-9705
          Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com


[*] Canadian Senior Care Threatened by COVID-19 Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for Pique News Magazine, reports that
Canada's seniors' care system has problems has been made plain
through the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is, said B.C. Minister of Health Adrian Dix, " a severe
consequence of our ability to control the virus generally."

Langley Care Society CEO Debra Hauptman expanded on that.

"It is evident that the COVID-19 virus affects the elderly
population more severely than other segments of our population,"
Hauptman told Glacier Media. "It is more challenging to control,
due to the advanced age and frailty of our residents, our facility
physical design with communal spaces, but also the nature of this
virus which is highly virulent and can be spread by asymptomatic,
infected workers and visitors."

The society runs Langley Lodge, where an outbreak was declared
April 28. It left 25 dead before the outbreak ended.

Hauptman said residents average 85 years old with complex care
needs.

"Care levels need to be augmented to meet the higher acuity levels
of the elderly in long term care, and ensure that operators can
also perform the more intense levels of infection prevention and
control in typically large facilities more frequently than
pre-COVID," she said.

"Due to the pandemic, there is an awakening nationally to the
critical situation that we have for seniors' care and there is
momentum for change," Hauptman said.

"Those older adults deserved a good closing phase of their lives
and a good death," the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) said in a June
analysis. "We failed them."

As of July 16, 189 people died as a result of the virus in B.C.
-- 123 or more of them seniors in multiple assisted living or
long-term care facilities. The system deals with a range of seniors
-- those needing assisted living to those who can no longer look
after themselves due to physical or perhaps mental and dementia
issues.

A key issue, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)
said in a June report, has been increasing government reliance on
the private sector to deliver seniors' care.

There's significant red tape to negotiate, training issues,
now-pending unionizations and the threat of pending legal actions
that could hamstring the system.

Victoria has moved on some issues, through visitation rules,
staffing changes and addressing personal protective equipment
concerns (PPE).

Researcher Andrew Longhurst divides care into assisted living and
long-term. The former is preventative care aimed at delaying
entrance to long-term. If that's handled, reliance on the latter is
less, he said. But, he added, there's a shortage of publicly funded
long-term care.

Severe staffing and training problems exist across the board and
B.C.'s system needs a thorough review, he said.

Also in June, the Royal Society of Canada said "profound,
longstanding deficiencies in the long-term care sector"
contributing to the pandemic's magnitude, far worse in Canadian
facilities nursing homes than in comparable countries.

"The pandemic just exposed long-standing, wide-spread and pervasive
deficiencies," the RSC said.

Financing of care

Some critics charge B.C. has moved to far with the private sector
handling seniors' care.

"This financialization of seniors' care -- in which the real estate
assets associated with this care are treated as financial
commodities to be bought and sold on international markets -- is at
odds with the basic social purpose of providing care to vulnerable
seniors, many of whom have low or moderate incomes," a February
CCPA report said.

"It is the failure of provincial governments to invest in new
public and non-profit-owned assisted living units that has
contributed to the shortfall in publicly subsidized spaces."

The CCPA wants changes starting with increased funding for
non-profit organizations and health authorities to increase
publicly subsidized assisted living unit capacity.

Second, it wants to see detailed disclosure and public of reporting
of ownership, costs and quality of services to enhance
accountability and transparency.

Hauptman isn't so sure. She said governments know what they spend
and receive detailed financial reports from private operators at
regular intervals. Financial model misinformation is frustrating,
she said.

"The private sector has invested in new facilities, we have
mortgages, some organizations fundraise for equipment and quality
of life programs for our residents," Hauptman said. "We can only
spend the funding that we receive from government, and it is much
more apparent now that we have been underfunded for an appreciably
long time."

For the RSC, though, it's less about who runs or funds facilities
than it is about staffing, data, a lack of standards and a lack of
seniors' voices in the conversation.

The RSC makes 16 recommendations for change, foremost of which are
that funding must be adequate and sustained, with Ottawa leading
the way. And, the RSC said, quality and end of life care are
non-negotiable.

Regulation

At the legal heart of providing services to seniors sit the
Hospital Act, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the
Assisted Living Regulation.

The RSC called provincial and territorial laws "disparate and
piecemeal."

Buried in the fine print is the general health and hygiene section
saying facilities must make a plan describing the procedures to be
followed to promote general health and hygiene amongst residents
and prevent the spread of infectious disease in the assisted living
residence. The accompanying handbook specifically addresses this.

Despite those requirements, provincial medical health officer Dr.
Bonnie Henry on June 29 had to stress that facilities "must have
required written safety plans."

The RSC goes further.

"Provincial and territorial governments must assess the mechanisms
of infection spread from multi-site work practices and implement a
robust tracking system," it said. "When the COVID-19 outbreak
occurred, nursing homes lacked capacity to handle the surge."

Further, it said, data collected must include resident quality of
care and life, resident and family experiences, and quality of work
life for staff. And, the collection should be independent of the
sector and government.

B.C.'s Office of the Ombudsperson said "the problem with having two
different legislative frameworks is that different standards, fees,
and monitoring and enforcement processes apply to each, and neither
seniors nor their families are generally aware of which legislation
governs their facility. This creates unnecessary disparities in the
care provided to seniors in residential care."

Facilities also found themselves subject to inspections not by
provincial government inspectors but by health authority officials
with results posted online.

"Neither of these steps offers a long-term solution that provides
seniors and their families with the confidence that consistent
standards will apply no matter where in the province they receive
residential care," the ombudsman said.

Inspections, though, won't solve all issues.

The Office of the Seniors Advocate of B.C. tracks inspections and
complaints. However, complaints or past disease outbreaks don't
necessarily correlate with a COVID-19 outbreak, as is evidenced by
the Lynn Valley Care Centre, which saw 20 deaths but few past
problems.

Hauptman said, "There are inspections, quality reviews,
investigations, financial reporting requirements, WorkSafe
requirements, accreditation, and food services licensing
requirements.

"This is due to the nature of our business, providing 24-hour care
for the most frail in our population," she said. "There are
differences in the types of regulations. It would likely not have
any measurable benefit to try to streamline these."

The ombudsperson has twice studied the situation – in 2012 and
again in 2019. The second study found the government had not
implemented multiple recommendations.

For instance, the ombudsperson suggested all B.C. health care
assistants (HCS) be required to register with the BC Care Aide
(HCA) and Community Health Worker Registry. But, only those working
in publicly funded facilities were required to do so. The same
applies to criminal record checks.

"This leaves a significant gap in protection for seniors," the
office said.

The RSC said hands-on care is now almost entirely given by
unregulated workers -- care aides and personal support workers
receiving the lowest wages in the healthcare sector with minimal
training.

"They often have insufficient time to complete essential care and
are at high risk for burnout and injury," the RSC said.

Workforce change, the RSC said is key. It wants national standards
and workforce benefits. Also lacking in many cases are physical,
occupational, speech and recreational therapists and technicians;
recreational opportunities and access to uninsured medical
services.

Legal action

Further compounding problems for future care of seniors is the
looming threat of class action lawsuits from families of those who
have died. They've already begun in Ontario and lawyer Darryl
Singer of Diamond & Diamond firm said he's had multiple inquiries
about similar actions in B.C.

The law firm is behind a $120-million class action case filed in
Ontario aimed at several private sector operators, some of which
also operate in B.C., Singer said.

He said the situation is a prime example of private health care.
"This is a perfect example of why we don't want to do this," he
said, saying private care can lead to cases of maximizing profits
through lowering staffing levels.

"The cost of contingency planning and the cost of having adequate
staff are all things that can eat away at profit," Singer said.

"They knew or ought to have known if they failed to take these
steps it was reasonable to foresee that people were going to get
sick and die," Singer said.

What homes should be doing now is getting ready for a second and
third wave, Singer said.

Another threat, Singer said, is if the class action succeeds, it's
insurance companies that would pay out. That could lead to
insurance companies refusing to insure such facilities in future,
he explained.

It's not the first COVID-related legal action in Ontario. The
Ontario Nurses Association got an April judge's order that
companies provide staff with masks and also to separate staff and
clients to prevent disease spread. The need for such was to be
determined by health professionals and not companies, the judge
said.

However, the PPE shortage has been a global issue for the health
care sector, one the RSS said provinces need to handle.

"We are just starting to have more supplies in the supply chain and
things have eased substantially," Hauptman said. "In March and
April, there was very limited supplies in Canada and it created
challenges across the sector. Once the federal government announced
that shipments had arrived and were being sent out to the
provinces, the situation improved dramatically."

University of Windsor Faculty of Law class action clinic director
Jasminka Kalajdzic said companies not being sued will be looking
for the court's decision so they can be proactive in providing
care.

"If private market actors can't do business in a way that is
effective and safe and does harm to customers, they shouldn't be in
the market."

But, would that leave a scarcity of seniors' homes if some withdraw
from the market?

Kalajdzic doesn't think so.

"It would open up space for other companies," she said. "That's
capitalism."

But, she said, the situation certainly indicates a need for
discussion about the role of the state in regulation of homes.

PPE scarcity has also manifested itself in B.C. in the amount of
2020 COVID-19 sickness claims to WorkSafeBC. Some 337 of a total
533 were pandemic-related by June 1, 82 of those coming from
long-term or seniors' care workers. It's a situation that removes
workers from the job, placing greater stresses on those remaining
in the workplace.

In the end, the RSC said, "reform and redesign must tackle not just
the pandemic crisis, but also long-standing systemic failures."

"To fail in doing this leaves us with our currently woefully
inadequate (long-term care) system and the certainty that the next
crisis will create similar or more catastrophic outcomes." [GN]


[*] Class Actions Drive D&O Insurance to Unaffordable Levels
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mizen and John Kehoe, writing for Financial Review, report
that funder-backed securities class actions are driving directors'
and officers' insurance (D&O) to unaffordable levels, with some
premiums increasing by more than 200 per cent a year, according to
insurance broker Marsh.

Appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services on July 27, Scott Leney, chief executive of
Marsh, Australia's largest C-suite insurance broker, said the
impact of securities class actions had reverberated through all D&O
insurance policies.

"The D&O insurance market is at a tipping point," Mr Leney said.
"Securities class actions, supported by litigation funding are
causing an unprecedented increase in premiums and retentions that
we fear is unsustainable."

Marsh reported in the year to June 30 the average cost of D&O
insurance for ASX 200 boards was up 170 per cent, with retention --
the amount of the loss the client bears themselves before insurance
kicks in -- up 300 per cent.

"Across Marsh's SME and medium-sized clients, we have seen
management liability and D&O premiums increase this year by
anywhere from 40 per cent to over 200 per cent across [some]
industries," Mr. Leney said.

"Australia faces a future in which D&O insurance is no longer
available, affordable or provides the coverage required."

The Insurance Council of Australia said D&O premiums had increased
on average 88 per cent across the board in 2018 and 75 per cent in
2019, which the Council attributes to funder-backed securities
class actions.

Research conducted by litigation funding expert and Monash
University Professor Vince Morabito showed there has been a steady
increase in class actions over the past decade, growing from 14 in
2009 to 59 in 2019.

The number of shareholder class actions has also grown from two in
2009 to 19 in 2019. Shareholder class actions as a percentage of
all actions varied over the decade, but declined over the past four
years.

Professor Morabito also found that 88 per cent of shareholder class
actions were supported by litigation funders.

Insurance Council senior policy adviser Tom Lunn told the
parliamentary committee that Australia's securities class action
regime makes it one of the most attractive and profitable in the
world for litigation funders.

"The result has been a steep increase in the cost of directors' and
officers' liability insurance . . . and a sharp contraction and
hardening of this section of the insurance market," Mr Lunn said.

Australian companies and directors are at particular risk because
breaches of continuous disclosure obligations are strict liability
offences that do not require a fault element (for example,
recklessness) to be proved in court.

King & Wood Mallesons partner Evie Bruce said Australia was an
international outlier in having a strict liability offence.

"In the US, you have to have fraud, recklessness or gross
negligence," Ms Bruce said. "In Australia you don't need any of
those things, you just need loss."

Mr. Lunn said this makes such actions "exceedingly difficult to
defend".

"This is highlighted by the fact that the vast majority of
securities class actions are resolved by settlement with only one
matter proceeding to judgment with an adverse finding against the
company."

Ewen McKay, chair of the Insurance Council's professional indemnity
committee, said the question often came down to a simple equation.

"If you look at a case and, in theory, think the damages are $100
million but your lawyers are saying you have a 60 per cent chance
of success, it still means you a 40 per cent chance of losing," Mr
McKay said.

"You do the simple maths and say: well, would it be better to make
this go away for $20 million to $30 million?" [GN]


[*] Litigation Funders Criticize New Class Action Regulations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mizen, writing for Financial Review, reports that litigation
funders have slammed regulations which would require funder-backed
class actions to be conducted as Managed Investment Schemes, saying
the new rules could see funded class actions grind to a halt later
this year, leaving thousands of victims shut out of the legal
system.

Appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services on July 25, Litigation Capital Management
investment manager Susanna Taylor said the new rules were not fit
for purpose.

"Class members are not investors; they don't put any money into
this. All they do is pool their causes of action," Ms Taylor said.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced in May the government would
require litigation funders to hold Australian Financial Services
Licensees (AFSL) from August 22 and operate as Managed Investment
Schemes (MIS).

"Litigation funders do not face the same regulatory scrutiny and
accountability as other financial services and products under the
Corporations Act," Mr Frydenberg said.

"AFSL holders are obligated to: act honestly, efficiently and
fairly; maintain an appropriate level of competence to provide
financial services; and have adequate organisational resources to
provide the financial services".

But Ms Taylor said the MIS scheme simply did not fit litigation
funding, a view shared by the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission.

"We don't know how to comply. We don't know what a class actions
MIS looks like. We don't know what we need to set up," Ms Taylor
said.

"We don't operate the causes of action. We have no participation in
that. We provide funds. The lawyers could be said to be the scheme
operator … but they're prohibited [by law] from doing so.

"This regulation does not fit class actions, but after August 22 we
will have to comply with something that makes no sense.

"What that will mean is nobody will be able to file a funded class
action until this is sorted out, which might take six to 12
months."

In 2009, the Full Federal Court found litigation funder-backed
class actions met the definition of Management Investment Schemes
and were required to register and be managed by the holder of an
AFSL.

Then Labor Treasurer Chris Bowen amended the Corporations Act to
exempt litigation funders and overrule the court's decision.

Regulations introduced on July 24 repeal Labor's amendments which
reverts the system back to the decision of the Full Federal Court.

"It is expected that the members of the MIS will be the class
action plaintiffs in any similarly constituted litigation funding
scheme," A Treasury spokeswoman told The Australian Financial
Review on July 27.

"The relevant parties will need to ensure that there is an operator
of any litigation funding scheme constituting a MIS. Any parties
who do not want to be considered to be operating the MIS will need
to ensure that there is another party performing that role."

In 2015, Treasury warned previous requirements for litigation
funders to hold AFSLs "may have resulted in some litigation firms
leaving the market, dampening competition and/or raising the price
at which litigation funding was offered".

The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia said while it
supports funders being required to hold AFSLs, the current MIS
regulatory regime was "unsuitable for class actions".

"If Treasury seeks to shove the square peg of class actions into
the round hole of the MIS regime by 22 August 2020, there will be
material prejudice to group members seeking to enforce the rule of
law," ALFA chief executive Pip Murphy said.

"Does the government really think that the thousands of Indigenous
Australians who sued to recover their stolen wages are investors in
a MIS?

"To categorise class members in this way is inappropriate and has
the potential to do great harm to the class action regime in
Australia as well as decreasing a claimant's ability to access to
justice."

Ben Phi, managing director of funder Phi Finney McDonald, warned
the new rules would reduce competition and drive up prices.

"Plaintiffs in a class action aren't investors trying to make a
profit – they're everyday Australians seeking recompense for a
wrong," Mr McDonald said.

"ASIC and the ALRC say the MIS regulations aren't fit for purpose
and even Treasury admits they'll push up regulatory costs for
business, force smaller players out of the market, destroy
competition and drive up prices."

Litigation funders have launched a marketing campaign -- Keep
Corporations Honest -- against the government's proposed changes.
[GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***