/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200818.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 165

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Teamsters Sues Over Delay in Bystolic Generic Entry
ACT: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Placement Program
ACUANT INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims in Kloss BIPA Suit
ALLIED NEVADA: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued for Shortchanging Salespeople on OT Pay

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 14 Class Suits Related to E-Cigarette Sales
ALTRIA GROUP: Facing 25 Class Suits Related to JUUL E-Vapor
ALTRIA GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss JUULS Investment-Related Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
AMERICAN GENERAL: Bucks Seek Class Status

AMP FINANCIAL: Faces Two New Class Actions on Insurance Products
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in AOT Holding's Suit
ARIZONA MEDICAID: Transgender Teens File Class-Action Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Ulery Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
AUSTRALIA: Law Student Files Class Action Over Climate Change

BAYER AG: Faces New Challenge From Class Action Lawyers
BAYLOR SCOTT: Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status in Employees Suit
BHP GROUP: Brazlians Seeks U.K. Class Action Over Dam Collapse
BUSHWICK ALE HOUSE: Barrera Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses Morgan Class Suit Under RESPA

CALIFORNIA: Caltrans to Pay $2MM for Destroying Homeless Camps
CANADA: B.C. Dad Mulls Class Action Over Back-to-School Plan
CENTURION: Faces Jay-Z, Yo Gotti-backed Lawsuit
CLEAR REAR: Suris Sues in N.Y. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
CMR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Shinn TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Ongoing in Louisiana State Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Tenn. Suit Wins Final Approval
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Zwick Partners Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends Gibson Suit Over Hospital Liens

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in Kirk Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court OKs $7.7MM in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Scanlon Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend
DRIZLY LLC: Barr Sues in Massachusetts Alleging FTCA Violation
EMC INSURANCE: Class Action Over Insurance Pending in Michigan

ENDOLOGIX INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Nguyen Securities Suit
ENTURA FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Embry Class Suit
EUGENE, OR: Court Denies Bid for TRO in Jackson Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals W.D. Okla. Order in Fisher Suit to 10th Cir.
FAIR OAKS FARMS: Honeycutt Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois

FARFETCH LTD: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Omdahl Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Paid Bribes to Pass Bailout Law, Buldas Claims
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Flam Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Files MMWA Class Suit in W.D. Tennessee
GEORGIA POWER: Litigation Over Franchise Fees Ongoing

GOOD STOCK: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
GOODRX INC: Pappas Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Marketing Text
GRAVITAS-2450 LARIMER: Katt Sues in Colorado Over ADA Violation
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Danganan Suit
HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Candelaria Referred to Magistrate Judge Vidmar

HOST INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Victims Struggled with Class-Action Outcome
INTERNATIONAL SURF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Says
J.B. HUNT: Provisional Class Cert. for Settlement Purposes Sought
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accruals Related to XARELTO(R) Suits Set

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing
KAO USA INC: Jones Sues in N.Y. Over Disabilities Act Violation
LAKE POINTE ASSISTED LIVING: Faces Class Action

LOWE'S COMPANY: Forte Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina
MACY'S: Faces Lawsuit for Use of Facial Recognition Software
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ohio State Teachers Seek to Certify Class
MDL 2885: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Orders for 6 Suits
MDL 2948: 10 Privacy Suits vs. TikTok Inc. Moved to N.D. Illinois

MED SHIELD: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Crook Sues in E.D. Calif. Over Violation of FDCPA
MITR PHOL: Thai Court Allows Cambodian Class Action Against Firm
MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Fails to Secure Client Data, Grossman et al. Say

NATIVE HEMP: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Alleging Violation of TCPA
NCAA: Stone Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes
NEW MARKET HEALTH: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Over TCPA Violation
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Fontanez in Gulino Bias Suit
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Court Allows Arbitration in Vergara Suit

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Sued by Box Elder for Breach of Contract
OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Beard Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ORACLE AMERICA: Plaintiffs Win Judgment in Plan Coverage Suit
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in SEPTA Suit to Third Circuit
PB WEST: Oregonians Set to Get Class Action Settlement Checks

PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal Order Still Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Case Schedule in Grower Litigation Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Dates in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. Moved
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Hogan Suit
PINTEREST INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit From Harrington

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
RAYDON CORP: Settles $60.5MM Class Action Over Stock Plan
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Court Certifies Class in IPO Securities Suit
RING LLC: Andrews Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
ROCHESTER DRUG: Meijer May Intervene in DPP Suit vs Shire et al.

SAMSUNG: Averts Class Action Over Fire-Prone Galaxy Note 7 Phones
SAN JOSE, CA: Police Faces Transgender Discrimination Class Suit
SETSCHEDULE INC: Asks Court to Deny Bennett Class Cert. Bid
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: May Compel Arbitration in Carman Labor Suit
SIX FLAGS: Defending Class Suits Over Refunds

SIX FLAGS: Discovery Kingdom Employees' Suit Ongoing
SIX FLAGS: Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
SIX FLAGS: Magic Mountain Employees' Suit Ongoing
SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Corp. Ongoing
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Hughes Suit with Prejudice Upheld

STARBUCKS CORP: Willis Class Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
TONY MCCOY: Road Runner Petitions to Vacate Partial Arbitration
TRUGREEN INC: Expert Discovery Ruling in "Stevens-Bratton" Upheld

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Aussie Tax Drivers' Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks to Delay Classes
VALE S.A.: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
VALE S.A.: Court Grants Attorneys Fees & Costs in Securities Suit
WALMART INC: Sulzer Sues Over False Labeling of Coffee Products

WELLS FARGO: Green and Jacob Sue Over Unfair Forbearance Program
YAHOO INC: Data Breach Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Certifies Class in Karl Suit
[*] Big Law Firms Play Big Role in Bringing Racial Justice
[*] Canadian Insurers Sued Over Business Interruption Coverage

[*] Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss COBRA Class Action Litigation
[*] Market Rebound May Curb Securities Class Actions, Damages
[*] Objectors to Class-Action Settlements Must Return Funds

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Teamsters Sues Over Delay in Bystolic Generic Entry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Local No. 1150 Prescription Drug Benefit Plan, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE, INC.,
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST
LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, FOREST LABORATORIES
HOLDINGS, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND LTD.,
(collectively, "Forest"), Case No. 1:20-cv-06223 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal scheme to
unlawfully delay competition in the United States and its
territories and prevent the entry of less expensive generic
versions of Bystolic.

Bystolic is a prescription drug manufactured by Defendants Forest
and its successors, and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the treatment of high blood pressure or
hypertension. Bystolic, also known as "nebivolol hydrochloride" or
"nebivolol HCI," is a "beta blocker." Bystolic blocks the action of
certain natural substances in a patient's body on the heart and
blood vessels and thereby lowers heart rate, blood pressure, and
strain on the heart.

Recognizing the huge opportunity for this medication, on December
17, 2011, generic drug manufacturers began to file Abbreviated New
Drug Applications ("ANDAs") with the FDA seeking approval to market
generic nebivolol HCI. But no generic competitor has or will enter
until September 17, 2021. Instead, Forest allegedly engineered a
series of unlawful reverse-payment deals (also known as "pay for
delay" deals) with each of its would-be generic competitors.

According to the complaint, from October 2012 through November
2013, Forest entered into these serial deals pursuant to which each
of the Generic Competitors agreed not to compete with Forest or
enter the market prior to September 17, 2021, unless another
generic competitor entered the market earlier. But for the
anticompetitive reverse-payments, the Generic Competitors would
have launched their generic products earlier either: (a) at risk;
or (b) upon prevailing against Forest in the underlying patent
litigation; or (c) via lawful settlement agreements providing for
earlier negotiated entry dates untainted by the delay caused by the
unlawful reverse-payments.

Had any of the scenarios played out--as would have occurred absent
the unlawful reverse-payments--the Plaintiff and the proposed End
Payor Class it seeks to represent would have paid substantially
less for nebivolol HCl, according to the complaint. The Defendants'
conduct was designed to, did, and continues to: (a) delay the entry
of less expensive, AB-rated generic versions of Bystolic; (b) fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize the price of nebivolol HCl; and (c)
allocate 100% of the United States market for nebivolol HCl to
themselves until three months before expiration of the '040
Patent.

The Defendants' monopoly power in the nebivolol HCl market was
maintained through willful exclusionary conduct, as distinguished
from growth or development as a consequence of a legally-obtained
valid patent, other legally-obtained market exclusivity, a superior
product, business acumen, or historical accident, the Plaintiff
contends. The Defendants' unlawful conduct injured Plaintiff and
the proposed End-Payor Class the Plaintiff seeks to represent by
preventing generic nebivolol HCI manufacturers from entering the
market with competing generic products and has cost Plaintiff and
the proposed End-Payor Class hundreds of millions of dollars in
overcharge damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provides prescription drug benefits to its union
members, plus their spouses and dependents, who purchased, paid,
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price
of Bystolic for personal and/or household use in Alabama,
Connecticut, Florida and Massachusetts.

The Defendants manufactured, sold and shipped Bystolic in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          David R. Cheverie
          Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                 DC@hachroselaw.com
                 kh@hrsclaw.com

               - and –

          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          Email: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com


ACT: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Placement Program
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Jump, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that depending on
your perspective, the college admission testing industry either
can't catch a break or is finally getting its due.

In 2020, the testing industry has been -- well, tested. The
coronavirus pandemic has revealed hairline cracks in a number of
areas of American life, from public health to political leadership
to our national will to sacrifice. It has brought to the surface
similar vulnerabilities in the testing industry.

The pandemic wiped out spring test dates for both the SAT and ACT,
with the July 18 ACT administration being the first time since
March that students have been able to take either test. That should
have been a positive step toward a return to normalcy, whatever
normal means in the world we inhabit, but was overshadowed by news
reports that 1,400 students who had registered to take the ACT
showed up on July 18 to find a test center not open. Some of those
test centers had canceled late the night before without even
informing ACT.

The College Board's attempt to salvage the Advanced Placement
program by moving to 45-minute exams taken online and at home led
to some students being unable to upload their completed exams,
resulting in widespread criticism and a class action lawsuit. In
the aftermath, both the College Board and ACT rescinded plans to
introduce online versions of their exams in the coming year.

Then on the day that registration opened up for the next round of
ACT testing, the ACT website crashed and frustrated students
received a message to try again. That may foreshadow deeper issues
for testing this fall.

It is certainly not the College Board's or ACT's fault that the
coronavirus shut down schools and the economy this spring and
summer, but the repeated technology glitches that marked both the
AP administration and the registration process for both tests do
not inspire confidence in the testing industry's commitment or
ability to provide customer service.

The spring has also revealed infrastructure and supply chain issues
with the testing companies' business models. Like Blanche Du Bois
in A Streetcar Named Desire, both testing agencies have always
relied on the kindness of strangers, or at least the tolerance of
strangers. They have relied on high schools and high school
counselors as essential cogs in delivering the tests, relieving the
testing companies of the need to set up their own supply chain.

That may need to change. With many public school systems likely to
start the year virtually amid concern about ongoing spread of
COVID-19, the number of test centers (the vast majority of which
are public high schools) available this fall may be few and far
between. It's not clear that there is any kind of backup plan.

That may not matter because of the large and growing number of
colleges and universities that have decided to go test optional for
the coming admissions cycle. The worry for the ACT and SAT is that
those colleges may find that they can get along perfectly fine
without the tests.

The year 2020 has brought a deeper, more existential threat to the
test industry, however. The events of this year have revealed deep
and vehement anger and distrust about the role that standardized
tests play in college admission and in American society.

The most recent example of that occurred several weeks ago when the
National Association of Basketball Coaches called on the National
Collegiate Athletic Association to abolish the use of test scores
in determining academic eligibility for athletes, calling the tests
"longstanding forces of institutional racism." That's a discussion
for another day, but it revealed the passions associated with
testing and the evolution of attitudes toward the tests.

That evolution is not all that different from the change in
attitudes toward other "longstanding forces of institutional
racism," namely Confederate statues. Both have moved from being
worshipped (by a few) to being tolerated to being seen as
anachronistic and evil.

But might there be a further linkage between the two? We will
probably not see people taking to the streets to protest the SAT
and ACT, but are we seeing the beginning of a movement to end the
use of, or at least the influence of, testing in college
admission?

I wondered about that when I saw references to a blog post from Jon
Boeckenstedt at Oregon State University with the title "Please
Don't Test." I have long admired Boeckenstedt's writing and his
ability to make sense of complex data, and I know that he has been
a powerful critic of the testing agencies, so my first thought was
that he might be calling for a job action or sickout as a form of
protest.

That wasn't the case. The blog post was a message to rising high
school seniors applying to Oregon State not to feel pressured to
take further admission tests. It may not have been the call for
revolution that some on the NACAC Exchange were looking for, but it
was nevertheless an important message from a university to
prospective students. I wish more colleges and universities would
use their bully pulpits and moral authority to help students know
what is and isn't truly important.

There is one point made by Boeckenstedt, by way of quoting Lee
Coffin at Dartmouth, that is particularly salient. It regards the
use of the word "optional." Students tend to interpret the word
"optional" in a college admission context, whether "test optional"
or "optional essay," the way NFL players interpret "optional
practice." Optional means "expected" at the very least, and
students, parents and counselors who lean toward paranoia or
conspiracy theories may see "optional" as a trick question or even
a backhanded test of demonstrated interest (if you are truly
serious, of course you will do all of the "optional" questions).

It is one thing for colleges to tell students "Please don't test."
But what about those of us on the high school side? Is it OK for a
college counselor to advise students not to test? The answer, of
course, is "it depends."

It depends on how we define our job. Are we a trail boss or a trail
guide? Are we directive, pointing out which way to go, or do we
provide information and options to help our students navigate for
themselves? Which approach we choose depends on our personal
philosophy of counseling as well as the level of trust and respect
we have for our students.

It also depends on our priorities. "Please don't test" takes on a
different meaning after the news that two students who took the ACT
on July 18 at Edmond North High School in Oklahoma subsequently
tested positive for the virus. Testing now carries a greater risk
for students than a low score. The advice for a student who is
applying only to test-optional colleges has to be different from
that for a student applying to a flagship public university where
test scores are both required and important.

I'm far from convinced that college admission tests are necessary,
but I tend to see them as flawed rather than evil. We need to stop
assigning them a precision and authority that are unwarranted. We
also need to contextualize a student's test scores, recognizing
that a score earned after hours of expensive test prep isn't the
same as an identical score earned by a student without
socioeconomic advantages.

Can the testing industry recover from its existential crisis? Will
2021 be a year of pro-test or protest? [GN]


ACUANT INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Federal Claims in Kloss BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued an Order granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned SHANICE KLOSS, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. ACUANT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 19 C 6353 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court, sua sponte, severs and remands back to state court the
Plaintiff's claims under Section 15(a) of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and grants the motion to dismiss the
remaining claims.

Ms. Kloss is a resident of Illinois. Acuant is a Delaware
corporation and is registered to do business in Illinois. Acuant
provides biometric enabled verification services to private
companies. Among those services is "Acuant Face," which is a
"Biometric Facial Recognition & Match Software." This software can
be used through Acuant's mobile application.

Ms. Kloss alleges that her facial geometry and related biometric
information was captured, collected, and stored using the Acuant
Face software on Acuant's mobile application. Acuant stored Ms.
Kloss's biometric information in order to compare her biometrics
against existing databases. She alleges that Acuant subsequently
disseminated her biometric information to third parties to compare
against existing databases and for future identity verification and
biometric comparison.

Based on these facts, Kloss filed a class action complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cook County on August 16, 2019. Acuant removed the
case to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Ms. Kloss filed her First
Amended Complaint on November 21, 2019. In the FAC, Kloss claims
one count of violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act. She seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and
reckless violation and $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA.
She also seeks injunctive relief to prevent future violations of
BIPA by Acuant.

Applying the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Bryant v. Compass
Group USA Inc., the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Ms. Kloss's Section 15(a) claims. In the FAC, Ms.
Kloss alleges that Acuant failed to maintain a publicly available
retention and destruction schedule in violation of BIPA Section
15(a). The Court finds that Ms. Kloss lacks standing to bring this
claim in federal court. The Court accordingly severs and remands
Kloss's claims under Section 15(a) back to state court for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

District Judge Charles P. Kocoras opines that Ms. Kloss fails to
support her allegations with enough facts. She alleges that Acuant
"offers biometric enabled verification services to private
companies" and that at some unspecified time she used Acuant's
mobile application. Accordingly, the Court rules that the FAC fails
to state a claim under BIPA Sections 15(b) and (d).

Accordingly, the Court severs and remands Ms. Kloss's BIPA Section
15(a) claims and grants Acuant's motion to dismiss the remaining
claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydy76lpn from Leagle.com.


ALLIED NEVADA: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for: (1) Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement; (2) Certification of the Class for
Purposes of Settlement; (3) Approval of Notice to the Class; and
(4) Scheduling of a Settlement Hearing in In re ALLIED NEVADA GOLD
CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL
ACTIONS, Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.).

Judge Hicks has reviewed the Motion, the Memorandum, and the
Stipulation with the attached exhibits, which set forth the terms
and conditions for a proposed settlement of and for dismissal of
the Action with prejudice, upon the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation, and finds that the Motion should be granted.

Accordingly, in a ruling dated June 10, 2020, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/8jhT5x from Leagle.com, Judge
Hicks preliminarily approved the Stipulation and the Settlement set
forth therein, including the releases contained therein, as being
fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class Members, subject to
further consideration at the Settlement Hearing.  He granted the
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement.

For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and (b)(3), the Judge certified a Class consisting of all Persons
who purchased Allied common stock in the United States or on a
securities exchange in the United States during the Class Period.

Solely for the purposes of effectuating the Settlement, Judge Hicks
finds that Lead Plaintiff Andrey Slomnitsky possesses claims that
are typical of the claims of Class Members and that he has and will
adequately represent the interest of Class Members. The Court
appointed him as the representative of the Class; and appointed
Lead Counsel, Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, as the
counsel for the Class.

The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Court on Nov. 16,
2020, at 10:00 a.m. (PT).

Judge Hicks approved, as to form and content, the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, the Proof of
Claim and Release form , and the Summary Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action for publication.  

The Defendants are required to serve the notice required under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 no later than 10 calendar days
following the filing of the Stipulation with the Court.  The
Counsel for the Defendants shall, at or before the Final Approval
Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with CAFA.

Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. is appointed, under
the supervision of the Lead Counsel, to administer the notice
procedure as well as the processing of claims as more hilly set
forth:

     (a) With 10 business days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order, the Defendants will use their best efforts to
provide the Claims Administrator, at no cost to the Lead Plaintiff
or the Class, reasonably available transfer records containing the
names and addresses of record holders who purchased Allied common
stock during the Class Period.  It will be solely the Lead
Counsel's responsibility to disseminate the Notice and Summary
Notice to the Class in accordance with this Stipulation and as
ordered by the Court.  The Class Members will have no recourse as
to the Released Defendant Parties with respect to any claims they
may have that arise from any failure of the notice process.

     (b) No later than 15 business days after entry of this Order,
the Claims Administrator will cause a copy of the Notice and Proof
of Claim, to be mailed by first class mail to all the potential
Class Members who can be identified with reasonable effort;

     (c) The Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to
be published three separate times, with no less than four business
days between each publication, over the PR Newswire and/or similar
national business-oriented newswire(s), with such publication
completed no later than 28 calendar days after the mailing of the
Notice; and

     (d) No later than 30 calendar days before the Settlement
Hearing, the Lead Counsel will cause proof of such mailing and
publishing to be filed with the Court and served on the Defendants'
Counsel.

All banks, securities brokers and other nominees who purchased the
common stock of Allied for the beneficial ownership of Class
Members during the Class Period will send the Notice to all
beneficial owners of such Allied common stock within seven calendar
days after receipt of the Notice from the Claims Administrator, or
send a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to
the Claims Administrator within seven calendar days of receipt of
receipt of the Notice from the Claims Administrator, in which event
the Claims Administrator will promptly mail the Notice to such
beneficial owners.

To request exclusion from the Class, a putative Class Member must
send a letter, postmarked or delivered, no later than 110 calendar
days after entry of the Order to the Claims Administrator.  The
Lead Counsel will promptly provide the Defendants' Counsel copies
of all requests for exclusion.

Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action,
individually or, at their own expense, through counsel of their own
choice, in which case such counsel must file with the Clerk of the
Court and deliver to the Lead Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel a
notice of such appearance no later than 105 calendar days after
entry of the Order.

All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
the Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses to the Lead Plaintiff's
Counsel, and the Lead Plaintiff's request for an award for
reasonable costs and expenses will be filed no later than 75
calendar days after entry of the Order.

No Person or entity will be heard or entitled to contest, unless
that Person or entity has delivered written objections and copies
of all papers and briefs any such Person and entity wishes to
submit in support of any such objection delivered or post-marked no
later than 110 calendar days after entry of the Order.  Any papers
in response to any such objections and/or in further support of the
above-noted motions will be filed no later than 10 business days
before the Settlement Hearing.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of
the Court.

All reasonable costs and expenses incurred in identifying and
notifying the Class Members, as well as administering the
Settlement Fund, will be paid as set forth in the Stipulation.  In
the event the Settlement is not approved by the Court, or otherwise
fails to become effective, neither the Lead Plaintiff nor the Lead
Counsel will have any obligation to repay any amounts reasonably
incurred or disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation for costs and
expenses of providing notice and administration of the Settlement.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued for Shortchanging Salespeople on OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation on July 21 disclosed that
Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, recognized as one of the
country's best employers for eight consecutive years, is facing a
class action of more than $80 million for shortchanging its
commission-based employees on overtime as well as public holiday
and vacation pay.

Toronto-based Monkhouse Law has filed a statement of claim to
certify the class action in the Superior Court of Justice, alleging
that Allstate violated the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by
failing to accurately pay the commission salespeople. The
allegations must still be proven in court.

The suit alleges that Allstate had a systemic policy of never
paying overtime to its salespeople and that the company failed to
provide minimum employment standards relating to employees. Under
the ESA, employees must be paid additional public holiday pay above
and beyond their regular pay.

"Allstate prides itself on being one of the best employers but, in
fact, appears to us to incorrectly calculate benefits for their
workers or pay overtime" says Monkhouse Law founder Andrew
Monkhouse. "The company's practice of not paying commission
employees proper overtime and vacation entitlements is denying them
their statutory rights. We want to certify this class action to
ensure that employees get paid for what they're owed."

The suit is being filed on behalf of a man, who worked as a
business development agent at Allstate in 2019, but it includes all
commissioned employees of Allstate in Canada who were paid vacation
and public holiday pay on their base draw only and not total
wages.

According to the claim, Allstate has a systemic policy of
recruiting employees by telling them about the possibility of high
bonus incomes, while knowing that can only be achieved by working
over 44 hours a week. It states that the company ought to have
known the employees were working overtime due to the large number
of files they handled and the fact they often had to meet with
clients after hours.

The suit alleges that Allstate acted in a callous manner by not
resolving the issues of underpayment of wages once it learned of
the problem.

The claim states that variable compensation employees at Allstate
often worked in excess of 44 hours per week in order to earn the
individual performance bonus component of their pay, and had to
meet very high sales targets that could only be achieved by
following up with clients after hours.

Allstate also had no written policies or directives, no printed
information for employees, and no standardized systems or
centralized record-keeping, the claim states, and while
commissioned salespeople did receive bonuses for exceeding sales
targets, they did not get vacation and statutory holiday pay
calculated on total wages.

Under the ESA, an employer must pay a worker overtime pay of at
least one and one-half times his or her regular rate for each hour
of work in excess of 44 hours in each work week. Variable
compensation employees also must be paid additional public holiday
pay above and beyond their regular pay.

More information is available on the Monkhouse Law website
including the option to sign up for updates.

The class action is the seventh filed by Monkhouse Law against a
Canadian company for shortchanging employees on vacation and public
holiday pay. Class actions were previously filed against the
Approval Team, Bank of Montreal, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and
Aviva Insurance Co., RBC Life Insurance Co., Medcan Health
Management Inc. and Procom. Those actions are ongoing.

Toronto-based Monkhouse Law is an employment law firm that
specializes in: wrongful dismissal, human rights law, labour law,
employment insurance claims, and denied long-term disability
claims. Monkhouse Law has a strong history of representing
employees in class actions, including having started the first
Canadian contractor misclassification case of Sondhi v. Deloitte in
2015 and having successfully certified an employee
misclassification class action for solar panel sales
representatives in 2019.

For further information: Andrew Monkhouse, Monkhouse Law,
Employment Lawyers, andrew@monkhouselaw.com, (416) 907-9249, x 225
[GN]


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 14 Class Suits Related to E-Cigarette Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of July 24, 2020, 14
putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and
JUUL Labs, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California related to electronic cigarette
marketing.

In April 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an
administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL)
alleging that Altria's 35% investment in JUUL and the associated
agreements constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
("Sherman Act") and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
of 1914 ("FTC Act"), and substantially lessened competition in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act ("Clayton
Act").

If the FTC's challenge is successful, the FTC may order a broad
range of remedies, including divestiture of Altria's minority
investment in JUUL, rescission of the transaction and all
associated agreements, and prohibition against any officer or
director of either Altria or JUUL serving on the other party's
board of directors or attending meetings of the other party's board
of directors. The administrative trial will take place before an
FTC administrative law judge and is currently scheduled to begin
April 13, 2021. Any ruling by the FTC is subject to review by the
FTC Commissioners and subsequently, by a federal appellate court.

Also as of July 24, 2020, 14 putative class action lawsuits have
been filed against Altria and JUUL in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuits cite the FTC administrative complaint and allege that
Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Act,
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and various state antitrust laws by
restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the
U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market.

Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages,
attorneys' fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria
and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of Altria's minority investment
in JUUL and rescission of the transaction.

Altria said, "Neither the FTC nor the private plaintiffs has sought
to preliminarily enjoin Altria from converting Altria's non-voting
JUUL shares to voting shares or appointing directors to the JUUL
board of directors. As of July 24, 2020, Altria has not exercised
these rights."

Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Facing 25 Class Suits Related to JUUL E-Vapor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of July 24, 2020,
Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, were named as
defendants in 25 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor
products.

JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL) is an additional named defendant in each of
these lawsuits.

The theories of recovery include violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), fraud, failure to
warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices.
Plaintiffs also sought to add antitrust claims due to the recent
action by the Federal Trade Commission  (FTC).

Although the court denied this request in the class action
lawsuits, the individual antitrust claims remain pending before the
same court.

Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and
punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales.

Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, also have been
named as defendants in other lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor
products, including 561 individual lawsuits, 11 lawsuits filed by
school districts and 14 lawsuits filed by state or local
governments, including the state of Hawaii. JUUL is an additional
named defendant in each of these lawsuits.

The majority of the individual and class action lawsuits mentioned
above were filed in federal court. In October 2019, the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
coordination or consolidation of these lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial
purposes.

An additional group of cases is pending in California state courts.
In January 2020, the Judicial Council of California determined that
this group of cases was appropriate for coordination and assigned
the group to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
for pretrial purposes.

In the second quarter of 2020, Altria and its subsidiaries filed
motions to dismiss certain claims in these cases, including the
federal RICO claim.

No case in which Altria or any of its subsidiaries is named has
been set for trial.

JUUL also is named in a significant number of additional individual
and class action lawsuits to which neither Altria nor any of its
subsidiaries is currently named.

Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss JUULS Investment-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Defendants are
seeking to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit
related to Altria's investment in JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL).

In October and December 2019, two purported Altria shareholders
filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A.
Willard III, Altria's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria's former Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


In December 2019, the court consolidated the two lawsuits into a
single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

In April 2020, JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL), its founders, and some of
its current and former executives were added to the lawsuit. The
claims allege false and misleading statements and omissions
relating to Altria's investment in JUUL.

Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys'
fees.

In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims.

Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of July 24, 2020, two
"Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions are pending in U.S. state
court. Neither case is active.

Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class
actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair
trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment
or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable
relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive
damages.

These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.

Twenty-one state courts in 23 "Lights" cases have refused to
certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed
prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in
favor of PM USA. As of July 24, 2020, two "Lights/Ultra Lights"
class actions are pending in U.S. state court. Neither case is
active.

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

Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.


AMERICAN GENERAL: Bucks Seek Class Status
-----------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE BUCK AND ANN BUCK, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. AMERICAN
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-13278-NLH-KMW
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the
proposed classes, and appointing proposed class representatives and
proposed class counsel.

American General operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers life, travel, annuities, mutual funds, home loan,
retirement, and other related insurance services.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class are:

          Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
          Craig S. Hilliard, Esq.
          Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq.
          STARK & STARK, P.C.
          993 Lenox Drive, Building Two
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: 609-895-9060
          E-mail: mps@stark-stark.com
                  csh@stark-stark.com
                  scw@stark-stark.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Gorman, Esq.
          GORMAN & GORMAN, LLC
          Liberty View, Suite 400
          457 Haddonfield Road
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: 856 665-4300
          E-mail: sgorman@gormanlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
          Zachary W. Silverman, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          The Legal Center
          One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 410
          Newark, NJ 07102

AMP FINANCIAL: Faces Two New Class Actions on Insurance Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that AMP Financial Planning was hit
with two new class actions, coming under fire from both its adviser
network and buyers of its insurance products.

AMP issued statements to the Australian Stock Exchange
acknowledging the filing of each of the new legal proceedings in
Australian courts.

AMPFP says it will "defend accordingly" a class action brought by
Corrs Chambers Westgarth in the Federal Court.

That action comes after AMPFP terminated the business of hundreds
of advisers last year and lowered the amount it would pay for their
businesses, without notice, from four times recurring revenue to a
maximum of 2.5 times.

Many advisers bought businesses from AMPFP at the higher payment
rate on "the promise" the businesses would be acquired back on the
same multiple when they left, Advisers Association (TAA) CEO Neil
Macdonald said.

Shine Lawyers has filed a separate class action against AMP Life,
AMPFP and two of its subsidiaries, saying clients were hit with
excessive premiums and deserve to be compensated.

Shine alleges AMP Life knew of gains made from inflated insurance
sales by AMP financial advice licensees and says hundreds of
thousands of Australians who thought they were getting objective
financial advice were instead "ripped off".

The action claims advisers received commissions and other
incentives for recommending insurance through AMP Life, while
knowing their clients could obtain equivalent or better policies
with lower premiums through other insurers.

AMP "behaved in a way that was unfair and illegal," Shine Class
Actions Practice Leader Craig Allsopp said.

Shine also plans to file class actions against BT and CBA in coming
weeks, and says more than 500,000 Australians who were allegedly
charged excessive insurance premiums could be eligible to join one
of its three lawsuits.

"The sheer number of people affected by these premium rorts shows
we're not just talking about a few bad apples here but a systemic
misconduct in the industry," Mr Allsopp said. [GN]


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in AOT Holding's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the putative class action suit initiated by AOT Holding AG.

On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions.

In May 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the parties are engaged in
discovery.

On July 14, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit, alleging
substantially the same operative facts, was filed in federal court
in Nebraska by Green Plains Inc. and its related entities, seeking
to represent all sellers of ethanol.

On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC filed a putative
class action in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially
the same operative facts and asserting claims under the Sherman
Act.

The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in
these actions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As these actions are in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARIZONA MEDICAID: Transgender Teens File Class-Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fitzsimons at NBC News reports that two transgender teens sued
Arizona's Medicaid agency, alleging their civil rights are being
violated by the state health insurance program's ban on
gender-affirming surgeries.

The suit, filed in an Arizona federal courthouse, seeks to
establish a class action on behalf of the teens--known only as John
Doe, 15, and D.H., 17, and other transgender Arizonan Medicaid
recipients under age 21 who seek chest reconstruction as treatment
for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The complaint estimates there
are at least 100 Arizonans who would be affected by the suit.

The suit defines the class as "individuals who have been unable and
will be unable" to obtain coverage through the Arizona Health Care
Cost Containment System "for medically necessary male chest
reconstruction surgery because of the [ban], and as a result, have
faced or will face delayed or denied access to these medically
necessary treatments."

The claims say the state's 1982 ban on "gender reassignment
surgeries" violates the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination
provisions, the Medicaid Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

According to the suit, the two came out as transgender years ago
and since then have faced significant challenges as puberty began
to change their bodies. It also states the reliance on chest
binders to create a more masculine appearance forced D.H. to
abandon his beloved hobby of dance and resulted in John Doe wearing
a heavy hoodie through Arizona's sweltering summers.

Both teens' physicians recommended chest reconstruction surgery,
and the state's 1982 ban on Medicaid funding for "gender
reassignment surgeries" means that as Medicaid recipients, they are
ineligible for the medically necessary surgery even if a doctor
recommends it, according to the suit.

Arizona is among 10 states across the U.S. that explicitly ban
transgender health care coverage for Medicaid recipients, according
to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. Twenty-two
states and Washington, D.C., explicitly cover this type of care,
while 18 states have no explicit policy regarding trans health
coverage.

Asaf Orr, an attorney working on the case and the director of the
National Center for Lesbian Rights' Transgender Youth Project, said
there is "no legitimate justification for Arizona's refusal to
provide this critical care to transgender Medicaid recipients."

"Instead, excluding that care creates unnecessary barriers that
prevent transgender young people from thriving in every aspect of
their lives and can cause lifelong harms," he said in a statement.

In June's landmark Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton
County, Georgia, the high court found that the Civil Rights Act's
ban on employment discrimination "on the basis of . . .  sex" also
bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender
identity.

"In Bostock, the United States Supreme Court unequivocally held
that the definition of 'sex' under federal law includes
discrimination against transgender people," Orr wrote in an email
to NBC News. "By maintaining and enforcing a categorical exclusion
for surgical treatment for gender dysphoria, AHCCCS is
impermissibly discriminating against transgender Medicaid
recipients on the basis of sex and, as a result, the Court should
enjoin AHCCCS from denying coverage under that exclusion."

The suit notes that Medicaid requires that recipients under age 21
receive "Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment" so
that major "medical, vision, dental, and hearing" problems are
diagnosed and treated early in life. It then states that "[s]urgery
to treat gender dysphoria, including male chest reconstruction
surgery" is such a service.

Heidi Capriotti, a spokesperson for the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System, declined to comment.

A number of lawsuits involving transgender health care and
insurance coverage have recently made headlines. Earlier, an Iowa
appeals court dismissed a 2019 lawsuit challenging a state law that
does not require Medicaid to pay for transgender Iowans' gender
reassignment surgeries. And last month, a transgender man sued the
University of Maryland Medical System in federal court, claiming
his rights were violated when his gender-affirming surgery was
canceled by one of the hospital system's subsidiaries. In perhaps
the most high-profile case, 23 Democratic state attorneys general
sued the Trump administration last month seeking to block its
implementation of a rule overturning discrimination protections for
transgender people in health care. [GN]

AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Ulery Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ulery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02354 (D.
Colo., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

AT&T utilizes bulk text messaging, to send unsolicited text
messages, including at least 16 unwanted post revocation text
messages to the Plaintiff alone beginning on July 23, 2020, and
continuing through filing of this complaint, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff revoked their consent to receive text
messages from the Defendant by texting "STOP" to the Defendant.
Thereafter, the Defendant sent or caused to be sent informational
text messages to the Plaintiff despite the clear revocation of
consent that the Plaintiff had expressed. The instant action
challenges all post-revocation text messages that were sent by the
Defendant from July 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff's domicile is in Pueblo, Colorado.

AT&T is a national wireless and telephone company that promotes and
markets its services throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-889-3359
          Facsimile: 954-889-5913
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                 mpascucci@JusticeEamed.com

               - and –

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com


AUSTRALIA: Law Student Files Class Action Over Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Slezak and Rahni Sadler, writing for ABC News, report that
a 23-year-old Melbourne law student is suing the Australian
Government for failing to disclose the risk climate change poses to
Australians' super and other safe investments.

The world-first case filed on July 22 in the Federal Court alleges
the Government, as well as two government officials, failed in a
duty to disclose how climate change would impact the value of
government bonds.

Katta O'Donnell, the head litigant for the class action suit, said
she hoped the case would change the way Australia handled climate
change.

"I'm suing the Government because I'm 23 [and] I think I need to be
aware of the risks to my money and to the whole of society and the
Australian economy," Ms O'Donnell said.

"I think the Government needs to stop keeping us in the dark so we
can be aware of the risks that we're all faced with."

Experts say it is the first where a national government has been
sued for its lack of transparency on climate risks.

Government bonds are considered the safest form of investment, with
most Australians invested in them through compulsory
superannuation.

Bonds are similar to shares, but instead of investing in companies,
the investor lends a government money to build infrastructure and
fund critical services such as health, welfare and national
security.

Ms O'Donnell, who has invested in bonds independently from her
super, said she did it to "protect her future".

However bonds, like shares, can lose value if they become less
attractive to the market. This can occur if investors question a
government's ability to repay them due to rising government debt,
ethical or reputational reasons.

Ms O'Donnell said watching the impact of bushfires in Australia
made her worry about the value of her bonds.

Despite the Government not disclosing climate-related risks to its
investment products, government regulators are increasingly forcing
companies to disclose how climate change will impact their
shareholders.

APRA--the Australian financial industry regulator--said in 2017
that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also
"material and actionable now".

APRA is working with corporate regulator ASIC and the Reserve Bank
of Australia to ensure public companies are examining climate risk,
disclosing it to investors, and acting on it.

Ms O'Donnell's lawyer, David Barnden from Equity Generation
Lawyers, said the duty to be transparent extended to the
Government.

"We allege that the Government is misleading and deceiving
investors by not telling them about the risks," Mr Barnden said.

"We don't see any disclosure to investors about the risks that
climate change poses to bonds and to society as a whole. So it
certainly appears as though there is a double standard."

No damages, just recognition
Ms O'Donnell's case names the Commonwealth, as well as the
secretary to the Department of Treasury and the chief executive of
the Australian Office of Financial Management — both of whom are
alleged to be responsible for promoting government bonds.

The case is a class action, with Ms O'Donnell representing all
investors and potential investors in government bonds tradeable on
the Australian Securities Exchange.

It does not seek damages, but instead a declaration that the
Government and those two officials breached their duty.

It also seeks an injunction, forcing the Government to stop
promoting bonds until it updates its disclosure information to
include information about Australia's climate change risks.

The case is backed by heavy-hitting silk and former Federal Court
judge Ron Merkel and barrister Thomas Wood, who was previously the
counsel assisting the solicitor-general of the Commonwealth.

A spokesman for the Australian Government Treasury said it did not
comment on matters concerning current court proceedings.

Australia a climate litigation 'hotspot'
According to University of Melbourne Professor Jaqueline Peel,
Australia is a "hotspot" for climate litigation.

"We have around 90 or so cases so far, stretching back to the
1990s," Professor Peel, who has published extensively on the topic,
said.

"Only the US has more. But we've never seen a case like this
brought forward in Australia, [or] the world.

"It could potentially be very significant because it ties climate
change to real-world financial risk which might make those in the
financial sector, investors, sit up and take notice."

She said it could force the Government to take more action on
climate change and spur on a new wave of climate litigation around
the world by showing private-sector cases had the potential to be
brought against governments.

"This has the potential to be big news around the world," she
said.

Australian government bonds 'exposed'
Most super funds have a significant portion of the public's money
invested in them, with a fixed interest rate.

But they are often also tradeable and if demand drops it could
lower the value of the bonds, impacting investors, including super
funds here.

Former NAB chief economist Rob Henderson said Australians needed to
consider the impact of climate change.

"Australian government bonds are significantly more exposed [to
climate change] than some other countries," Mr Henderson said.

Mr Henderson said Australian government bonds could be impacted by
physical impacts of climate change, like bushfires, which forced
governments to spend money.

Or they could be impacted by "reputational risks" of climate
change, as investors around the world avoided bonds from polluting
countries.

Sweden's central bank has already divested from Western Australian
government and Queensland government bonds because of climate
change.

In November 2019, the deputy governor of the Swedish central bank,
Martin Floden, said it was dumping those bonds, as well as bonds
from the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta.

"Australia and Canada are countries that are not known for good
climate work," he said.

The move was described by former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop as a
form of "protectionism".

Mr Henderson said he was surprised a case like this had not been
brought before.

"It's not clear to me why already the Government is not putting
those risks on the table and telling us what they're going to do
about them." [GN]


BAYER AG: Faces New Challenge From Class Action Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that securities
class action lawyers have added a new litigation front for Bayer AG
to fight in America, filing a complaint accusing the German
chemicals giant of misleading investors when it said lawsuits over
Roundup herbicide were baseless.

Bayer, which received bad news on July 21 when a California appeals
court upheld a jury ruling on liability, still says the scientific
evidence shows Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate is safe--a
position echoed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
nearly every other national regulatory agency. But lawyers at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, in a lawsuit filed July 15,
say the non-scientist jurors who have awarded billions of dollars
in damages against Bayer following its purchase of Roundup-maker
Monsanto revealed the truth about the widely used product.

"We are confident that we have always acted in accordance with our
obligations under the applicable securities laws," Bayer said in a
statement to Legal Newsline.

"Bayer conducted appropriate due diligence regarding all aspects of
the Monsanto acquisition, including having outside counsel conduct
diligence of litigation and regulatory issues throughout the
process that ended with Bayer becoming sole owner of Monsanto on
June 7, 2018. Thus, the acquisition of Monsanto was carefully
planned and executed and the members of the Board of Management and
of the Supervisory Board have acted in accordance with their
duties.

"Reports by independent experts have explicitly confirmed this."

Bayer agreed to buy Monsanto in 2016 for $63 billion, saying the
combination would create the world's leading life sciences company.
Instead the takeover turned tricky, as lawyers spent more than $100
million recruiting plaintiffs who accuse Roundup of causing
non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a common cancer that doctors say has no
known cause three-quarters of the time.

It is pursuing appeals of the three jury verdicts against it,
including on the basis of federal preemption, or the argument it
shouldn't be subjected to a jury trial that effectively challenges
the federal regulations over the product. One of those verdicts was
just upheld, though a California appeals court reduced the damages
from $78 million to $21 million.

Bayer Chairman Werner Baumann repeatedly told investors the Roundup
litigation risk was low because the product was safe. It turns out
he underestimated the lottery-like characteristics of the American
legal system, in which plaintiff lawyers can win huge verdicts
despite the weight of scientific evidence going against them.

In the telling of lawyers at Bernstein Litowitz, "the truth began
to emerge on August 10, 2018, when a jury in the Johnson case found
unanimously that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer
was a 'substantial factor' in causing the plaintiff to develop
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

"Monsanto knew, or should have known, the risks associated with
exposure to the chemical and failed to warn of this severe health
hazard," say the lawyers, who filed the suit in the name of several
Grand Rapids, Mich., pension systems.

Bayer has agreed to pay as much as $10 billion to settle some
100,000 individual lawsuits over Roundup, once again telling
investors it believes the settlement will contain the litigation.
The company's attempt to settle all future litigation hit a snag,
however, when the judge overseeing federal multidistrict litigation
indicated he wouldn't approve a $1 billion class settlement that
would have employed a "science panel" of experts to decide whether
glyphosate causes cancer.

Bayer and negotiating plaintiffs firm Lieff Cabraser withdrew the
proposal, with the company saying it would continue to work out
concerns from the judge and other plaintiffs firms with Roundup
cases.

In a related filing in the federal MDL, the lawyers for Grand
Rapids said they want to fold their case into the federal
litigation because the lawsuits "will involve substantially similar
witnesses and will involve overlapping discovery." They cited
similar cases including the Volkswagen "clean diesel" litigation in
which securities and other tort claims were combined.

The proposed class action would cover investors who purchased Bayer
shares between May 23, 2016, when Bayer first announced its
takeover offer for Monsanto, and March 19, 2019, when a jury in the
first federal bellwether trial delivered a verdict against Bayer.
The company's stock plunged 9% on the news. The shares have yet to
recover.

After the first jury verdict in 2018, Baumann told investors a
"verdict by one jury in one case does not change the scientific
facts and the conclusions of regulators that glyphosate does not
cause cancer." The company still says glyphosate is safe and it
continues to sell Roundup, one of the most widely used chemicals on
earth.

A federal judge recently ruled that California cannot order a
cancer warning on Roundup because it would be false and mislead
consumers. [GN]


BAYLOR SCOTT: Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status in Employees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dmagazine.com reports that eighteen plaintiffs are seeking
collective against Baylor Scott & White Health for violating
overtime compensation laws and making improper deductions from
salaried employees. The federal suit was filed in the Dallas
Division of the Northern Division of Texas and seeks back pay,
additional funds for liquidated damages, as well as attorneys
fees.

In order to classify an employee as salaried, employers must meet
the "salary basis test," which means that wrongful deductions from
an employees salary can take them out of the salaried exemption and
turn them into hourly employees, who are entitled to overtime if
they work more than 40 hours a week. The  plaintiffs were
originally hired as salaried employees, but the plaintiffs allege
that their salary was wrongfully deducted, making them eligible for
overtime pay, which they didn't receive when they worked more than
40 hours.

The suit is alleging damages over a period of two or three years,
depending on the court's ruling. The 18 advanced practice providers
currently involved in the suit allege $53,000 in lost income over
three years due to the BSW's policies. The Federal Labor and
Standards Act, which regulates overtime pay rules, also awards
liquidated damages equal to the amount of lost pay if the lawsuit
is successful. That means the total damages for all eighteen
plaintiffs would be around $1.9 million. The suit is asking the
courts for class-action status, meaning any of the hundreds of BSW
advanced practice providers such as nurse practitioners or
physician's assistants could opt into the suit if they experienced
similar salary deductions, multiplying the damages.

Specifically, plaintiffs are speaking of off-the-clock duties like
answering texts, emails, and other work related tasks on the
computer for which they were not compensated when they exceeded 40
hours a week. The pay issues violated the Fair Labor and Standards
Act, and were "numerous, ongoing, took place over a span of many
years, were made at numerous of Defendants facilities and affected
all of the named plaintiffs and similarly situated employees,"
according to the suit. The alleged violations ran from April 2017
to the present.

The suit involves employees at numerous BSW facilities, some of
whom were in DFW such as Baylor University Medical Center in
Dallas. Because the case involves FLSA, opt-in class action is an
option to other providers, which means employees can join the class
action lawsuit when they are notified. Plaintiff's lawyers have
moved to conditional class certification, which would allow them to
notify all potential class action employees, who can opt in if they
choose. The lawsuit is targeting advance practice providers such as
physician's assistants and nurse practitioners who work for BSW or
HealthTexas Provider Network, a provider group that is part of
BSW.

The suit says that Baylor attempted to make corrective payments,
but claims that the errors were not an accounting mistake, but are
part of the policy and practice for BSW. FLSA allows employers to
make corrective payments for good-faith mistakes, not policy
decisions, so plaintiffs argue that BSW's payments are not viable.

Plaintiffs are asking for a trial by jury. Plaintiffs are awaiting
a decision about whether the suit can be designated class action,
allowing others to join. Because the litigation is pending, BSW did
not comment on the case. [GN]

BHP GROUP: Brazlians Seeks U.K. Class Action Over Dam Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Joffre, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that more than
200,000 Brazilians are asking British judges for the right to sue
BHP Group, the world's biggest mining company, in U.K. courts over
the deadly collapse of a dam five years ago.

Residents, businesses and local governments say BHP bears ultimate
responsibility for the collapse of the Fundao Dam, which killed 19
people and caused lasting environmental damage. The facility was
run by a company jointly owned by a BHP unit and Vale SA.

At an eight-day hearing starting July 22 in Manchester, U.K.,
judges will rule on whether British courts have jurisdiction over
the case. If it goes ahead, it would be the biggest class action in
U.K. history with the local groups seeking a total of 5 billion
pounds ($6.33 billion).

This is the latest in a series of group claims brought in the U.K.
against British companies for the actions of their foreign units in
developing countries. Melbourne-based BHP's shares are listed in
both the U.K. and Australia.

In a landmark ruling last year, the U.K. Supreme Court allowed
Zambian villagers to sue mining company Vedanta Resources Plc in
Britiain over pollution caused by a mine, opening the door to
similar claims. In June, thousands of Nigerians sought permission
to sue Royal Dutch Shell Plc in London over damage caused by oil
spills in the Niger Delta.

"Until there is a change in corporate behavior, I think this type
of litigation is likely to increase," said Tom Goodhead, a lawyer
representing the plaintiffs at law firm PGMBM.

But BHP said that the Manchester case duplicates legal proceedings
in Brazil and shouldn't be allowed to go ahead.

"BHP's overarching position remains that the proceedings do not
belong in the U.K.," BHP said in a statement.

Safety warnings
The Fundao Dam was used to store iron ore tailings, a toxic waste
produced during the processing of mined mineral. Its collapse
destroyed entire villages, polluted rivers and devastated natural
habitats.

The joint venture, Samarco, allegedly ignored safety warnings as it
increased iron ore production and tailings storage at the dam,
PGMBM said in court filings ahead of the hearing. BHP
representatives had been informed of serious structural failings in
a report two years earlier, the claimants said.

BHP said it is committed to supporting ongoing remediation and
compensation through the Renova Foundation, an out-of-court
compensation scheme, to which the company made a provision of $1.7
billion.

The Renova Foundation had announced it was suspending payments to
thousands of victims it alleged had provided false information, but
a Brazilian judge ordered the Foundation to resume aid.

Thousands of individual claims against Samarco are ongoing in
Brazil.

An appeal is currently pending against the dismissal of a class
action filed in New York on behalf of Samarco bondholders, while a
separate class action by BHP investors has been filed in Australia,
according to company filings. Brazilian prosecutors are also
continuing to challenge the dismissal of some criminal charges in
the case, BHP said in a February statement.

Other cases linked to large-scale environmental damage have taken
decades to be processed in the Brazilian courts, and the claimants
are hoping to obtain quicker results in the U.K. The current
proceedings in the British courts don't target Vale.

Work to reopen the joint venture in Brazil has been slowed, in part
because of measures to respond to Covid-19, BHP said in a separate
statement. [GN]


BUSHWICK ALE HOUSE: Barrera Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bushwick Ale
House, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yenifer Barrera, Wendy
Agudelo, Louie Selamaj, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Bushwick Ale House, Inc., Eliana
Grajales, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-03571 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Bushwick Ale House is a restaurant offering American
Hamburgers, Pasta, Sandwiches, Vegetarian, Wraps.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


CALIBER HOME: Court Dismisses Morgan Class Suit Under RESPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland granted Defendant Caliber's motion to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety and motion strike the class action
allegations in the case captioned ROGERS MORGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action
No. 8:19-cv-02797-PX (D. Md.)

Plaintiffs Morgan and Patrice Johnson filed a Class Action
Complaint against Defendant Caliber, alleging violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and implementing
regulations known as "Regulation X" codified at 12 C.F.R. Sections
1024.1 to 1024.5.  Central to the case is whether Defendant Caliber
violated RESPA and Regulation X by providing adverse information to
credit reporting agencies within 60 days of receiving letters from
Plaintiffs Morgan and Johnson regarding their loan obligations.
The Plaintiffs have brought claims individually and on behalf of
two putative classes.

Plaintiffs Morgan and Johnson also bring the same claims on behalf
of a putative class comprised of "all residential loan borrowers"
who have submitted a Qualified Written Request ("QWR") to Caliber
within the last three years, excluding any borrower who has since
obtained a discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code
("Caliber Class").  The subclass are those within the Caliber Class
who have a current borrower-servicer relationship with Caliber in
relation to their residential, mortgage loan.

The Complaint avers generally that Caliber's policy and practice is
to continue reporting negative credit information even after
receiving QWRs and thus in violation of RESPA.

Defendant Caliber has moved to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety and strike the class action allegations.

RESPA aims to provide consumers with greater and more timely
information and protect them from unnecessarily high settlement
charges caused by certain abusive practices.  Against this remedial
backdrop, the Plaintiffs contend Caliber violated RESPA and
Regulation X by furnishing adverse information to credit reporting
agencies within 60 days of receiving their respective letters.
Count I, brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs individually and the
Caliber class, alleges violations of RESPA and Regulation X.  Count
II, brought on behalf of Plaintiff Johnson and the Caliber
subclass, seeks declaratory relief in light of Caliber's "policy
and practice" of depriving borrowers of certain protections
afforded under RESPA and Regulation X.

Judge Grimm concludes that neither letter was a valid QWR and that
Caliber was not required under RESPA or Regulation X to defer its
reporting to credit agencies for 60 days.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' individual claims fail as a matter of law.  Further,
because the letters, attached in their entirety and made part of
the Complaint, do not qualify as QWRs, the legal deficiencies
cannot be corrected by amendment of the pleadings.  The individual
claims will therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

To the extent the Plaintiffs intended to bring class claims based
on legal theories apart from those brought by the named Plaintiffs,
they have not successfully done so.  The Plaintiffs aver generally
that Caliber implemented a "policy and practice" of reporting
adverse credit events during the 60 days that followed receipt of a
QWR.  But apart from the Johnson and Morgan correspondence which
the Court has determined do not qualify as QWRs, no facts support
that Caliber received other qualifying QWRs and thereafter refused
to defer reporting for 60 days.  Put differently, no facts support
the claimed Caliber "policy and practice" which would render
plausible class-wide liability under RESPA.

For these reasons, Judge Grimm granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and motion to strike the class action allegations.  A
full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RersPA from Leagle.com.

CALIFORNIA: Caltrans to Pay $2MM for Destroying Homeless Camps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sfgate reports that the California Department of Transportation has
agreed to pay $2 million for destroying belongings during sweeps of
homeless encampments from 2014 to 2019.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in 2016 on behalf of unhoused
Californians, claims that belongings, including, food, clothing,
and medical supplies, were destroyed during the sweeps enacted by
Caltrans.

The Alameda County Superior Court approved the settlement. Under
the ruling, Caltrans is required to set up a $1.3 million fund to
compensate people for their loss of property and give $700,000 to
the nonprofit organization Homeless Action Center to provide
housing and benefits services for the unhoused.

"For years, Caltrans has unjustly seized the of property of
unhoused people, violating the Fourth Amendment, and has swept
countless homeless encampments, leaving the most vulnerable people
in our society with nowhere to go," Elisa Della-Piana, Legal
Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, told KTVU.

Individuals who believe that they're eligible for reimbursement
will now be able to begin filing claims, but there is concern that
many of the unhoused population in Oakland, who may be eligible for
payouts, are unsure of the steps required to make claims or even
know about the lawsuit at all, reports Berkeleyside.

Those living on Caltrans property--often areas beneath or next to a
freeway--in the East Bay between December 2014 and October 2019 who
believe their personal belongings were unfairly taken and destroyed
by Caltrans may be eligible for reimbursement.

The claim form can be downloaded, and includes questions about what
individuals experienced with Caltrans and what property was
destroyed. Della-Piana said that her committee is available to help
anyone in moving through the process by calling 510-467-0105 for
free assistance.

Caltrans won't review the claims until after a October deadline,
and payments will likely be made in November. [GN]

CANADA: B.C. Dad Mulls Class Action Over Back-to-School Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Paterson, writing for CTV News, reports that ten-year-old
Max Trest has asthma, so he didn't return to his Grade 5 classroom
when part time in-person learning resumed in June.

"I just thought it was unsafe, so I decided not to go," said Max.

He was looking forward to starting Grade 6 in the gifted program at
Crescent Park Elementary School in Surrey in September, so and he
and his dad looked for details of how students can return safely in
the province's back to school plan that was announced on July 29.

"I sat down with Max, we decided to watch the press conference
together, and what we heard was utterly shocking," said Bernard
Trest, Max's father.

B.C.'s plan calls for elementary school students return to the
classroom full time in cohorts of 60, with no physical distancing
requirement and no masks.

Most high school students would also return full time with cohorts
of up to 120, and would have no mask mandate.

"To hear Bonnie Henry and also Fleming on TV tell us this is safe
to return to schools under the conditions they've stipulated is
ridiculous," said Bernard Trest.

The elder Trest much prefers Ontario's back-to-school plan, which
would have elementary school students stay with their classroom
groups exclusively, and high school students learning in-person
only half the time, in classes no larger than 15. Students in
Grades 4 through 12 will be required to wear masks.

"I would feel safe coming back to my classroom if all of my
students and myself wore masks," said Rockridge Secondary School
history teacher Jessica Selzer, who lives with a relative who's
immuno-compromised. "I'm very concerned that its going to be a full
return. Ontario's plan, I feel like, is safer."

Trest agrees.

"What would make me happy in this moment is to follow Ontario's
model," he said. "Mask mandate for (Grades) 4 to 12 or something
along those lines. Ensuring cohorts are small, and obviously
physical distancing."

He started a Facebook group to rally other parents who are worried
B.C.'s back to school plan is dangerous, and he's considering legal
action.

"What I'd like to do is seek a class action lawsuit against the
government. I feel that Horgan, Henry and Fleming are personally
responsible if even a single child becomes infected or dies," said
Trest.

He's encouraging teachers and students who are worried about their
health to stay away from schools in September.

"They cannot fire thousands of teachers if they don't feel safe and
they don't show up," said Trest.

He said he'll continue to homeschool Max unless masks are mandated
and cohorts are made smaller.

"So I plan to continue having him learn from home, we create our
own assignments," said Trest. But he insists "that's unfair to my
son." [GN]


CENTURION: Faces Jay-Z, Yo Gotti-backed Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
NYDaily News reports that it was a Tidal wave of momentum.

The health care provider for Mississippi's state prison system is
terminating its contract with the corrections facilities, the
Mississippi Clarion Ledger reported, says the NYDaily News.

The company, Centurion, and the Mississippi Department of
Corrections are facing a class-action lawsuit from more than 200
incarcerated people. Jay-Z's company Roc Nation, along with rapper
Yo Gotti, hired lawyers for 227 inmates after more than a dozen
prisoners died in Mississippi earlier this year.

Centurion's multimillion dollar contract with the MDOC will
officially end on Oct. 5, according to local CBS affiliate WJTV.
Centurion sent a termination notice on July 7. The MDOC paid
Centurion $52 million in 2019 alone

But according to incarcerated people, that money didn't go very
far. The class-action lawsuit says that at Mississippi's infamous
Parchman facility the conditions were "not suitable for animals."

"There is no excuse for the 53 deaths across the Mississippi prison
system over the past several months, many of which were
preventable," lead attorney Marcy Croft said in a statement. "We
will not stop until the incarcerated receive consistent and
competent medical care."

Centurion said that it was ending the contract because the MDOC did
not provide enough people or money to adequately care for
prisoners. The company provides health care at prisons in 16 other
states as well. [GN]

CLEAR REAR: Suris Sues in N.Y. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Rear LLC. The
case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Clear Rear LLC doing business as:
getaclearrear.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-03577 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8,
2020).

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

Clear Rear provides products that are easy to use and save wasteful
toilet paper use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


CMR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Shinn TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Shinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CMR CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC, Case No.
CACE-20-012923 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its roofing and construction services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited text messaging with no regard for consumers'
privacy rights, according to the complaint. At no point in time did
the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" ("ATDS"). The Plaintiff has never had any type of business
relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not otherwise
disclose his cellular telephone number to the Defendant.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business located in St. Ann, Missouri. The Defendant
directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the
State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-628-5793
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the case, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne
T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, is still pending.

This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.

It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock.

On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.

Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Ongoing in Louisiana State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that  the company's
motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned as, Bowden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana
Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center, are
still pending.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
September 7, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Ruston,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.


The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

As a result of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in the
combined cases of Matthew DePhillips v. Hospital Service District
No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish and Earnest Williams v. Hospital Service
District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish, issued on July 9, 2020,
holding that the proper statute of limitations and class period for
claims like those in Bowden is one year rather than ten years, we
believe the potential liability in the Bowden case, if any, is not
material.

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Tenn. Suit Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the district court
granted final approval of the settlement and ordered the case
dismissed with prejudice.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for the company's common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to
dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended
consolidated class action complaint which was filed on October 5,
2015.

The company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. The company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the
Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
remanded it to the District Court.

The company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February
9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24,
2018. The company also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of
the Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018.
The District Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on July 26, 2019.

The company filed a petition for permission to appeal the District
Court's class certification order in the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals on August 9, 2019, and that petition was denied on October
23, 2019.

On January 21, 2020, the Company and the Plaintiff filed a
stipulation of settlement indicating to the District Court that the
parties had reached agreement on the principal terms of a
settlement for $53 million, which was recognized during the three
months ended December 31, 2019.

The settlement received preliminary approval from the District
Court on January 30, 2020.

On June 22, 2020, the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Zwick Partners Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a tentative
settlement has been reached in Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta.

This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health
Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to
record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against
QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities
laws.

The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on
April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018.

The company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the
plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to
plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss the additional
claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on that same date.

On April 12, 2019, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was
denied on July 31, 2019.

On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for
a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court
denied on August 2, 2019.

Community Health said, "All parties have now reached a tentative
settlement of this case, and we are currently negotiating with
plaintiffs on the final terms of the settlement to submit to the
District Court for preliminary approval."

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends Gibson Suit Over Hospital Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend Gibson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc.
d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated
Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly
improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors
and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated
plaintiffs. The court has certified a class and denied the
company's motion for summary judgment.

The company appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decisions on
March 7, 2019. The company filed an application for writ of
certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May
29, 2019.

Plaintiff's motion for approval of notice of class action was
granted on October 24, 2019.

As a result of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in the
combined cases of Matthew DePhillips v. Hospital Service District
No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish and Earnest Williams v. Hospital Service
District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish, issued on July 9, 2020,
holding that the proper statute of limitations and class period for
claims like those in Gibson is one year rather than ten years, the
company believes the potential liability in the Gibson case, if
any, is not material.

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in Kirk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a tentative
settlement has been reached in Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn
Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc.
Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community
Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Principal Life
Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation, and Principal
Global Investors, LLC.

This purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that
were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other
marketplace alternatives.

Community Health said, "We have reached a tentative, immaterial
settlement with the plaintiffs and will be seeking court approval
of the settlement."

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court OKs $7.7MM in Plaintiff Counsel Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has granted Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motion for Attorney's Fees in
the case captioned JOSEPH STRAUCH, TIMOTHY COLBY, CHARLES TURNER,
and VERNON CARRE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil No. 3:14-cv-956 (JBA) (D. Conn.).

The Court orders Defendants to pay Class Counsel $7,740,152.51 in
attorneys' fees for their work on behalf of Plaintiffs -- lower
than the firms' requested amount.

Class Representatives Joseph Strauch, Timothy Colby, Charles
Turner, and Vernon Carre brought this overtime misclassification
suit on behalf of Associate Professional and Professional System
Administrators (SAs) that had been employed by CSC. Plaintiffs
brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the state laws of Connecticut, California and North Carolina,
claiming that Defendant CSC unlawfully classified the SAs as
overtime-exempt computer employees.

Outten & Golden LLP, Feinberg, Jackson, Wortham & Wasow, LLP; Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Susman, Duffy & Segaloff,
P.C., seek fees for 47 attorneys and 37 named staff members spread
across four law firms.  In their Lodestar Summary Report, Class
Counsel calculate their collective lodestar to be $10,369,189:

   Firm                        Requested Amount
   ----                        ----------------
   Outten & Golden                   $5,394,556
   Feinberg Jackson                  $3,071,477
   Lieff Cabraser                    $1,898,926
   Susman Duffy                          $4,229
                               ----------------
                                    $10,369,189

After auditing their time entries, Class Counsel propose a "reduced
lodestar" of $10,163,289, which "reduced all travel time by 50%" as
is "consistent with Second Circuit practice," "eliminated all
entries by timekeepers who billed fewer than 10 hours total," and
"eliminated time spent on depositions of Senior Professional SAs,
who are not members of the ultimately certified FLSA collective and
state-law classes."

Working from this proposed lodestar, Class Counsel ask the Court to
"apply a 1.5x multiplier to the portion of their fees attributable
to work performed for the benefit of the state law class members"
and "request a 10% per-year enhancement based on federal law . . .
[to] apply to the remaining portion" of the proposed lodestar.  In
all, Class Counsel's total requested fee amounts to $13,616,063.

They also seek another $584,560.54 in costs.

At Outten & Golden (O&G), which is an employment law firm with
offices in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.,
the hourly rates range from $775 to $975 for a partner. The rates
range from $550 to $750 for counsel, $350 to $600 for an associate,
$280 to $600 for a staff attorney, and $240 to $400 for a project
or contract attorney. For an administrative staff member such as a
paralegal, the hourly rates range from $200 to $285.

Feinberg, Jackson, Wortham & Wasow, LLP (FJWW) is a
California-based law firm with a nationwide practice focused on
plaintiffs' public interest class actions and complex litigation.
There, the hourly rates for a partner range from $590 to $840. The
rates for counsel and associates range from $375 to $625 per hour.


Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (LCHB) is a national law
firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, Tenn.
At LCHB, the hourly rates range from $590 to $675 for a partner.
The hourly rates for its junior attorneys range from $370 to $490.
The hourly rates for administrative staff members range from $260
to $405.

Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, P.C. (SDS) is Plaintiffs' local counsel,
and the firm maintains an office in New Haven, Connecticut. SDS's
compensation rates for partners ranges from $250 to $300.
Compensation for associates ranges from $125 to $180. SDS has an
hourly rate of $125 for its administrative staff.

Class Counsel assert that these figures are reasonable given that
Class Counsel are among a very small number of firms that have
successfully tried complex wage and hour cases to verdict. Class
Counsel have not offered affidavits from employment attorneys in
this District describing local prevailing rates, as is often
customary when petitioning for attorneys' fees.   

Class Counsel contend that clients regularly pay Class Counsel's
customary hourly rates in this district, as demonstrated by the
fact that the State of Connecticut has used LCHB's services and
approved hourly rates starting at $240 for support staff up to $800
for LCHB partners. Class Counsel also argue that the factors
articulated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d
714 (5th Cir. 1974), support their rates given that this case
required substantial time and skill to prosecute, that counsel
themselves have reputations as effective trial, complex class
action, and employment lawyers and that the firms obtained the best
possible outcome a recovery of over $18.75 million, including
liquidated damages and damages calculated at 1.5x Plaintiffs'
hourly rate for their clients in the face of enormous risk.

The Johnson factors include (1) the time and labor required by an
attorney (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented
by the litigation (3) the level of skill required to perform the
legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by
the attorney because of acceptance of the case (5) the attorney's
customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent
(7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances
(8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9)
the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys (10)
whether the case is undesirable (11) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client and (12) awards in
similar cases.

Applying the Johnson factors, the Court agrees with Class Counsel
that the complexity of this action and the degree of success that
Class Counsel achieved warrant an award at the higher end of the
fee spectrum. As Class Counsel have detailed, they represented one
nationwide FLSA collective and two state-law classes, made up of
more than 900 SAs. Issues were contested at every stage of this
five-year litigation, culminating in a two-week trial. Class
Counsel bore the risk of investing considerable time and resources
into this litigation, expending more than half a million dollars in
out-of-pocket costs, all with no guarantee of recovery.

Moreover, the many attorneys who participated in this litigation
are well experienced and credentialed, having built strong
reputations as leading employment lawyers in their field. Lead
counsel, for example, have litigated ten large class/collective
actions asserting overtime misclassification claims for computer
technical support workers, making them effective advocates for
Plaintiffs in this case.  

After recalculating the billers' hourly rates and prior to making
any adjustments to the billers' respective hours, the Court reduces
O&G's proposed fee from $5,394,556 down to $4,552,811.10. FJWW's
proposed fee is similarly adjusted from $3,071,477 down to
$2,617,627. Likewise, LCHB's proposed fee is reduced from
$1,898,926.50 to $1,620,383.50. No hourly rate adjustments are made
to SDS's proposed fee of $4,229.50.

In total, the Court's hourly rate revision reduces Class Counsel's
proposed lodestar of $10,369,189, as stated in the Lodestar Summary
Report, to $8,795,051.10.

Reasonableness of Hours

Class Counsel seek remuneration for 20,607 hours billed on this
matter.  Having reviewed the voluminous time entries presented, the
Court agrees with Defendant that this case was overstaffed and that
a number of the hours billed by Class Counsel were not usefully and
reasonably expended. Although it is true that in complex
litigation, multiple attorneys will often be required to work
together, the involvement of four firms and 47 attorneys on this
matter inevitably resulted in an excess of time spent on
communication, making up 11% of Class Counsel's total hours
expended in this litigation. Even if some of the duplication and
inefficiency was not entirely the fault of Plaintiffs' counsel,
they bear some responsibility for it, making an across the board
reduction appropriate.  

The Court also agrees with Defendant that some of Class Counsel's
billing entries are too vague to permit a determination of the
reasonableness of time spent. For example, variations on the entry
"doc review" appear 201 times in Class Counsel's time records,
while variations of the entry "trial prep" appear 276 times. More
than 2,000 entries describe e-mail work, but only a fraction
specify the subject or the recipient of the correspondence.
Additionally, the Court agrees with Defendant that some of Class
Counsel's entries concern non-legal work like printing and filing,
and that this non-legal work should command a lesser rate.

Class Counsel have agreed to a reduction of travel time costs.  The
Court acknowledges that, although it is true hours spent traveling
by out-of-district attorneys into the district are not hours
'reasonably expended' where competent counsel is available within
the district, Class Counsel have established that it was reasonable
for Plaintiffs to hire out-of-district attorneys in this case.  

In light of the deficiencies, the Court orders an across-the-board
reduction of 12% to the fees paid to O&G, FJWW, and LCHB, which is
5% greater than the 7% reduction suggested by Class Counsel. The
Court believes that a 12% reduction takes into account the
overstaffing and over-billing that occurred, while still
recognizing Defendant's role in this case's overlitigation.

The Court reduces O&G's proposed fee from $4,552,811.10 to
$4,006,473.77. FJWW's proposed fee is reduced from $2,617,627 to
$2,303,511.76. Finally, LCHB's proposed fee is adjusted from
$1,620,383.50 to $1,425,937.48. In total, the Court determines that
the lodestar in this case amounts to $7,740,152.51.

Fee Adjustments

Class Counsel request that the Court apply a 1.5x multiplier to the
portion of their fees attributable to work performed for the
benefit of the 440 class members that had California or Connecticut
claims.  Class Counsel also request a 10% per-year enhancement
based on federal law for the remaining 471 class members or in the
alternative, to the full amount of the lodestar, in the event the
Court declines to award a multiplier under state law to treat work
done on state-law claims on par with federal claims.

The Court notes that, under California law, fee enhancements are
intended to approximate market-level compensation for services,
which typically includes a premium for the risk of nonpayment or
the delay in payment of attorney fees.  Here, Class Counsel is
already being awarded hourly rates that are at the upper limit for
out-of-district attorneys, with Class Counsel's associates being
compensated at a rate that is with the range paid to in-district
partners. Thus, even factoring in the premium for the risk that
Class Counsel took in litigating this action, no upward adjustment
is needed in this case to fix the fee at the fair market value for
the legal services provided.

Nor is an upward adjustment merited under Connecticut law, the
Court says. In its efforts to determine a lodestar that constitutes
a reasonable attorneys' fee in this case, the Court has already
considered the Johnson factors and accounted for the quality of
representation, the risk of non-payment, and the successful result
achieved. No adjustment is required because each of these factors
is subsumed within the lodestar.  

Defendant's Request for Downward Adjustment

Defendant asserts that the lodestar, as originally calculated by
Class Counsel, amounts to an over-inflated starting bid and so asks
the Court to impose an additional ten percent reduction to the
lodestar to account for certain billing deficiencies and failure to
properly manage this litigation.

Defendant asserts that Class Counsel's excessively high rates,
excessive overstaffing, vague entries and billing of purely
clerical tasks all of which are considerations the Court has
already factored into its lodestar demonstrate a lack of billing
judgment that warrants an additional across-the-board reduction of
10% to account for remaining deficiencies and Class Counsel's lack
of credibility in billing given these deficiencies.

Class Counsel respond that this proposed reduction amount to an
arbitrary cut that simply double-counts other reductions.

The Court agrees with Class Counsel that further reduction of the
lodestar is inappropriate. The Court has already made discounts to
the lodestar to account for Class Counsel's vague and disallowed
billing entries and for their overstaffing of this case. The Court
sees no reason to further penalize Class Counsel for these
deficiencies. Thus, the Court rejects Defendant's request for an
additional ten-percent across-the-board reduction to the lodestar.

                           *     *     *

The named plaintiffs in this action -- Timothy Colby, Joseph
Strauch, Charles Turner, and Vernon Carre -- separately move for
service awards in the amount of $10,000 each, for a total of
$40,000.  The Court granted the Class Representatives' motion for
service awards.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 27, 2020 Ruling is
available at https://bit.ly/3iObh3j from Leagle.com


CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Scanlon Suit Dismissed w/ Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROMAN SCANLON, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS
INTERNATIONAL LTD., and TECHNICOLOR SA, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
Defendant Technicolor SA's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Scanlon initiated the action by filing a class action complaint on
May 3, 2019 against the Defendants in the Merced County Superior
Court.  Therein, based upon his allegation that the Defendants
misrepresented to him and others similarly situated that they were
purchasing digital home theater projectors with specific brightness
ratings, he asserted causes of action for: 1) fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation; 2) breach of contract; 3) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; 4) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; 5) negligent misrepresentation;
6) unjust enrichment; and 7) unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive
trade practices.

The Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.  

The Defendants timely removed the case to the federal court on July
9, 2019 under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1441.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Merced, California.  Defendant
Technicolor is a French Societe Anonyme (a type of public company),
with its principal place of business and headquarters in Paris,
France.  The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Technicolor does
business through Technicolor USA, Inc., a corporation incorporated
under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Indianapolis, Indiana.  However, Defendant Technicolor's "General
Counsel Corporate" filed a declaration stating that Technicolor USA
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and
headquarters in Los Angeles, California.  Defendant Technicolor is
the parent company of more than 110 companies worldwide.
Technicolor SA owns 100% of the stock of its subsidiary,
Technicolor USA.  Technicolor USA is not a party to the action.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Curtis
manufactures and distributes consumer electronics, which Defendant
Curtis sells under the RCA trademark through a licensing agreement
with Technicolor.  The Defendants have marketed and sold projectors
that purportedly have a brightness of 2,000 lumens or more.  They
induced plaintiff and others similarly situated to purchase select
RCA-brand home-theater projectors by misrepresenting the
projectors' lumens ratings.  According to the Plaintiff had he and
those similarly situated been adequately informed and not
intentionally deceived by the Defendants, he would have acted
differently by, without limitation, not purchasing (or paying less
for) the Accused Products.

In contrast, Technicolor SA's "General Counsel Corporate" Segolene
Simonin-du Boullay's declaration states that Technicolor did not
design or manufacture any of the Accused Products.  Rchnicolor did
not distribute or sell any of the Accused Products in any State in
the United States.  Technicolor did not choose, or have any input
into, the 'lumens' terminology used for the Accused Products.

On Oct. 10, 2019, Defendant Technicolor filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it.
Plaintiff Scanlon filed his opposition on Dec. 4, 2019 and
Defendant Technicolor filed its reply on Dec. 1, 2019.

The parties dispute both general jurisdiction and specific
jurisdiction.  

Judge Drozd decline to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant
Technicolor.  He finds that Technicolor is "at home" in France
because it is incorporated in France and has its principal place of
business in Paris, France.  The Plaintiff's evidence does not
demonstrate Technicolor's affiliations with the State are so
'continuous and systematic' as to render it essentially at home in
California to support general jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff's evidence does not satisfy the unity-of-interests
requirement of the alter ego test.  Accordingly, the Judge need not
address the second requirement of the alter ego test.  The
Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing that Technicolor and
Technicolor USA are alter egos of each other.  Accordingly, the
Judge declines to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant
Technicolor SA.

Moreover, for the reasons discussed in the general jurisdiction
analysis, the Plaintiff's evidence of "Technicolor's" passive
website and LinkedIn listing fail to attribute the alleged
California-based activities to Technicolor SA.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the
Technicolor SA purposefully directed its activities in California.
Accordingly, Judge Drozd need not analyze the second and third
prongs of the specific jurisdiction analysis.  Specific
jurisdiction is not present in the case.

Finally, Technicolor SA's prior involvement in other litigation
before federal courts in California is insufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction.  

In opposing the pending motion, the Plaintiff requests that if the
Court were to find that there is presently insufficient factual
information establishing general jurisdiction over Technicolor SA,
that it permits limited discovery to ascertain whether general
jurisdiction exists.

Judge Drozd holds that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
establishing the existence of personal jurisdiction over
Technicolor SA.  Moreover, the Plaintiff has not explained how
limited discovery would likely reveal continuous and systematic
contacts that would give rise to general jurisdiction.  In his
opposition to the pending motion, the Plaintiff apparently bases
his request on the theory that limited discovery might reveal
additional facts suggesting that Technicolor SA's and Technicolor
USA's funds/assets or debts are commingled, that the subsidiary is
inadequately capitalized, and that corporate records are not
segregated.  The Plaintiff has therefore not established that
jurisdictional discovery is justified on this basis, and the Judge
will not permit the speculative discovery the Plaintiff seeks.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Drozd, in an order entered June
10, 2020, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/uMSOJC from Leagle.com, granted Technicolor SA's
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction with leave to amend.  The Plaintiff will file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above or a notice
informing the court that he will not amend within 21 days of the
date of service of the Order.

DRIZLY LLC: Barr Sues in Massachusetts Alleging FTCA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drizly, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as James Barr, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Drizly, LLC formerly known as:
Drizly, Inc.; The Drizly Group, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-11492-LTS
(D. Mass., Aug. 7, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from alleged violation of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.

Drizly is an e-commerce alcohol marketplace that sells beer, wine
and spirits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jake@blockesq.com
                 jason@blockesq.com


EMC INSURANCE: Class Action Over Insurance Pending in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sanchez, writing for MiBiz, reports that as many people stayed
home and ventured out less for several weeks during the closures
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, auto insurers responded.

Since people were driving less and claims declined accordingly,
auto insurance carriers started to provide credits or adjustments
for premiums, moves that were eventually required by state
regulators and spelled out in an executive order signed by Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer.

Those adjustments and credits totaled $96.7 million, according to
the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services.

A federal lawsuit filed in Grand Rapids now raises the question:
What about similar rate adjustments or credits for businesses on
their liability insurance coverage?

After all, argues the lawsuit filed on behalf of 1259 Post LLC,
which does business as Flo's Pizzeria & Sports Bar on Post Drive in
Belmont, many businesses - particularly bars and restaurants - were
shut down for weeks under the governor's executive order. That
resulted in a "dramatic departure" in the restaurant's liability
exposure from when the policy was purchased and "materially
changed" applicable underwriting guidelines, an attorney for Flo's
Pizzeria claims in a court filing.

Michigan Liquor Control Commission records indicate the sports bar
is owned by Davide Uccello and Daniele Uccello.

The lawsuit against Des Moines, Iowa-based EMC Insurance Group
Inc., which has an office in Lansing, contends that because the
sports bar had a "significantly lower" exposure to liability claims
while it was closed, it overpaid premiums for the period and should
receive an adjustment or credit accordingly.

'Reduction in exposure'

Filed in July in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, the case seeks class-action status and "to remedy that
disparity … on behalf of businesses who were overcharged premiums
during the COVID-19 pandemic."

"Despite a comparable drop in insurable conduct, insurers have not
offered any sort of premium relief to businesses, even though they
also have experienced a substantial reduction in business and
exposure due to COVID-19," according to a court filing. "Thus,
while insurers offer billions of dollars in insurance premium
relief to automotive policyholders, they are offering no premium
relief to businesses that are experiencing a similar reduction in
exposure."

The lawsuit was filed by M. Blake Heath, a trial attorney in Kansas
City, Mo. He did not respond to requests for comment from MiBiz.

A spokesperson for EMC Insurance Group declined to comment, saying
the company does not discuss pending litigation. The company had
yet to file a response to the lawsuit.

MiBiz also reached out to a few West Michigan law firms for a
perspective on the case. In each instance, they also declined to
comment.

Brian Calley, the president of the Small Business Association of
Michigan, offered the perspective that liability coverage for
businesses has several components. Some types of coverage may have
higher risk in the pandemic, such as worker's compensation if a
company remained open, while instances in which a business closed
clearly generated less risk, Calley wrote in an email to MiBiz.

"Whereas with auto policies, the dramatic decline in the movement
of people was nearly universal," he wrote. "Seems like it's
definitely worth a conversation/negotiation with the underwriter if
you had to close. But I think an across the board policy adjustment
for all policyholders would be less clear than on auto policies."

'Dramatic departure'

The federal lawsuit indicates that Flo's Pizzeria & Sports Bar,
which was closed from March 6 to June 8, paid $4,317 for 12 months
of liability coverage, an amount EMC calculated using the company's
"gross sales, sale of alcohol, and percentage of sales related to
alcohol versus total sales."

Under the policy, EMC would conduct an audit and compute an earned
premium for the period. If the sum paid for the prior period
exceeded the earned premium, EMC would return the excess.

"This provision is an admission by EMC that the premium is an
estimate, that it is possible to overpay, and that Defendant EMC is
required to return overpayments by the class," the sports bar
claims in the lawsuit. "However, EMC systematically ignores its
obligations to return excessive premium payments made by the class.
Instead, EMC uses audits to increase the amounts of premiums."

Court papers indicate that EMC "evaluated the exposure" of Flo's
Pizzeria but the review "did not consider the shutdown due to
COVID-19."

The case argues that the sports bar's "current exposure is a
dramatic departure" from when the company bought the coverage from
EMC, and that "materially changed the underwriting guidelines
applicable" to the coverage.

"In this respect, (Flo's) premium rates are excessive and unlawful
because they are unreasonably high for the insurance coverage
provided. Like automobile policyholders, (Flo's) . . . overpaid
their commercial insurance premiums in an amount to be determined,"
the company claims in court documents.

Flo's also paid EMC $10,040 for liability, personal injury
protection, property protection, and uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverage on its commercial vehicles that had "a
substantial decrease in use due to COVID-19." As well, the business
paid $1,266 for a commercial umbrella policy, according to the
court filings.

The case seeks restitution, damages and "other equitable relief as
the Court deems proper."

Surplus continues

The lawsuit comes after the surplus for property and casualty
insurers declined $79.5 billion in the first quarter to $771.9
billion as of March 31, the largest-ever quarterly decline in the
industry's surplus, according to a report  from the American
Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and Verisk
Analytics Inc., a New Jersey-based data analytics company. The
decline, which followed a $35.6 billion surplus increase for the
industry in the fourth quarter of 2019, came mostly from investment
losses in the first quarter.

APCIA reports that property and casualty carriers recorded
collective net income of $17.9 billion in the first quarter, about
the same as the first three months of 2019. Carriers had a net
underwriting gain of $6.3 billion, an increase of nearly 20 percent
from a year earlier.

In the first quarter, property and casualty carriers had net
premium revenue of $164.4 billion, a 6.2-percent increase from
2019.

The association's report noted that Verisk estimates auto carriers
offered more than $13 billion in rebates and credits in the first
half of the year. An arm of Verisk, MarketStance, also estimates
that at least 1 million insured businesses in the U.S. will fail in
2020, resulting in a direct decline of 2.8 percent in commercial
insurance premiums. [GN]


ENDOLOGIX INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Nguyen Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICKY NGUYEN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENDOLOGIX, INC.; JOHN
McDERMOTT; VASEEM MAHBOOB, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-56322
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint and
denying leave to amend.

In the putative securities class action, the Plaintiff alleges that
a medical device company misled the investing public about whether
the Food and Drug Administration would approve the company's new
aneurysm sealing product.  Their central theory is that company
executives knew the device had encountered problems in Europe that
would manifest again in U.S. clinical trials, which would in turn
lead the FDA to deny premarket approval.

Endologix is a publicly traded company that manufactures and sells
medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
The company focuses on treating disorders of the aorta, the largest
artery in the body, which runs from the chest to the abdomen.  One
such disorder is atherosclerosis, a disease that weakens the walls
of blood vessels and can cause them to expand outward.  This
expansion is known as an aneurysm and results in an unwanted bulge,
called an aneurysm sac.  An abdominal aortic aneurysm occurs in the
abdominal section of the aorta and can result in dangerous internal
bleeding if the aneurysm ruptures. Traditional methods of treating
abdominal aortic aneurysms include surgery and endovascular repair.
A new, more innovative method is endovascular sealing.

Endologix's endovascular sealing product is called Nellix.  It
first introduced Nellix in Europe in February 2013, after
regulators there granted "CE Mark" approval.  The Plaintiff
acknowledges that generally, CE marking is thought to be a much
quicker, less rigorous process than FDA approval.  Beginning in
October 2013, Endologix tracked the device's real-world performance
through a global registry.  The global registry was designed to
include 300 patients in up to 30 international centers.  By
September 2016, Endologix had acquired two years of data from the
registry.

So that it could market Nellix in the United States, Endologix
sought premarket approval from the FDA.  As part of the FDA
process, Endologix in December 2013 received approval from the FDA
to conduct a clinical trial for Nellix.  The clinical trial, which
the complaint refers to as the "EVAS Forward IDE," began in January
2014 and involved 179 patients across 29 centers, approximately 25
of which were in the United States.  After one year of monitoring
these patients, Endologix submitted the clinical trial results to
the FDA.  By November 2016, the two-year data were available.

The complaint alleges that device migration in European patients
had "implications for FDA approval of Nellix," because if Nellix
was unsafe for European patients it would prove equally unsafe for
U.S. patients.  The complaint alleges that while the FDA approval
process was ongoing, Endologix, its CEO John McDermott, and its CFO
Vaseem Mahboob, became aware that Nellix was migrating in European
patients.

The complaint alleges that a 2016 United Kingdom case report
"warned of the ominous risks of migration" of Nellix and discussed
one patient whose Nellix device migrated eleven millimeters.  The
case report also cited a 2016 University of Liverpool study, which
examined 35 Nellix devices across eighteen patients.  Migration
occurred in six of these devices, resulting in a 17% migration
rate.  However, the Liverpool study used a definition of migration
different than the one used in the FDA clinical trial.

Despite the issues in Europe, the complaint alleges that Endologix
executives repeatedly assured investors that the FDA would likely
approve Nellix.  These statements form the basis for the
Plaintiff's allegations of securities fraud.

On Jan. 3, 2017, Nguyen filed the putative class action against
Endologix, McDermott, and Mahboob, alleging securities fraud.
Following her appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, Nguyen filed a
first amended complaint.  The district court dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim, but granted Nguyen leave to
amend.  Nguyen then filed a second amended complaint, the operative
complaint, on behalf of persons who bought or acquired Endologix
securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The thrust of
the complaint is that the Defendants made statements about Nellix
migration and the prospects of FDA approval that were false and
misleading in light of Endologix's knowledge of Nellix migration in
Europe.

The district court dismissed the second amended complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because Nguyen had not
satisfied the PSLRA's heightened pleading standard for scienter.
The district court also denied Nguyen's request for leave to amend
to file what would have been her fourth complaint.  Nguyen timely
appealed.

The Plaintiff's core theory is that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements about whether the FDA was likely to approve
Nellix because the Defendants knew, based on their experience in
Europe, that Nellix would encounter migration issues.  The central
theory of the complaint is thus that the Defendants knew the FDA
would not approve Nellix, or at least that it would not do so on
the timeline defendants were telling the market.  That is the
theory of falsity on which the complaint attacks the Defendants'
various statements about the prospect of FDA approval: based on
Nellix's performance in Europe, defendants knew that there was
absolutely no hope of receiving FDA PMA approval by the end of 2016
or the first part of 2017 and knew the FDA would not approve Nellix
for use in the U.S. because of the unacceptable safety risks device
migration posed.

Judge Daniel Aaron Bress, writing for the Ninth Circuit, holds that
in a securities fraud case, the plaintiff must plead scienter,
namely, that defendants made false or misleading statements either
intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.  In the case, and
for all the complaint's girth, it lacks a critical ingredient under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"): allegations
that state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong
inference that the defendant acted with the required state of
mind.

Allegations that are implausible do not create a strong inference
of scienter.  Under the facts alleged, the Plaintiff's core
theory--that the company invested in a U.S. clinical trial and made
promising statements about FDA approval, yet knew from its
experience in Europe that the FDA would eventually reject the
product -- has no basis in logic or common experience.  Based on
the Plaintiff's complaint, the more plausible inference is that the
company made optimistic statements about its prospects for FDA
approval because its U.S. testing looked promising, not because the
company was quixotically seeking FDA approval for a medical device
application it knew was destined for defeat.  

Judge Bress concludes that the district court properly dismissed
the Plaintiff's claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  Because
the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) "controlling person" claims against
McDermott and Mahboob require a violation of Section 10(b) or Rule
10b-5, the Section 20(a) claims necessarily fail as well.

In the alternative, Nguyen argues that the district court erred in
dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice.  Reviewing
for abuse of discretion, Judge Bress holds that the district court
did not err.  Where a plaintiff has previously been granted leave
to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite
particularity to the claims, the district court's discretion to
deny leave to amend is particularly broad.  In the case, the
district court had already given Nguyen leave to amend.  There was
thus no abuse of discretion because it was clear that the Plaintiff
had made her best case and had been found wanting.

Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment dismissing the complaint and denying leave to
amend.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 10, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RS9WWQ from Leagle.com.

Laurence M. Rosen (argued) -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm P.A., Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jason de Bretteville (argued) -- jdebretteville@sycr.com -- Justin
N. Owens, Aaron C. Humes -- ahumes@sycr.com -- and Sheila
Mojtehedi, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth P.C., Newport Beach,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.

ENTURA FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Embry Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELLEN EMBRY, Plaintiff, v. ENTURA FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-2773SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, and granted the Defendant's motion to correct notice of
removal by interlineation.

Embry filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and a Missouri class
of others similarly situated in the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, claiming the Defendant marketed and sold its
Marie's brand dressings and dips in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and Missouri common law.

The Defendant marketed and sold its Marie's brand dressings/dips
with the representation that the dressings are "Made with Real,
Premium Ingredients" and contain "No Preservatives."  The Plaintiff
alleges that, in fact, the Dressings contain Xanthan Gum, which
federal regulations specifically identify as a synthetic
ingredient.  Thus, she claims the representations on the Dressings'
labels--which lead Missouri citizens to believe they do not contain
synthetic ingredients or preservatives--are unlawful under the
MMPA.

The Defendant removed the case to the District Court on the basis
that (1) the Plaintiff and each individual class members' claim may
exceed $75,000 and thus diversity jurisdiction might exist under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(a); and (2) jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), applies because the amount in controversy
for the proposed class as a whole "may arguably exceed" $5 million.


The Plaintiff denies federal jurisdiction exists and filed the
instant motion to remand.  Because CAFA jurisdiction exists, Judge
Laimbaugh denies the motion for remand and does not address the
Plaintiffs' arguments about diversity jurisdiction.

CAFA permits removal to federal court class actions which (1)
include at least 100 putative members, (2) involve an aggregate
amount in controversy that is greater than $5 million and where
there is "minimal" diversity between plaintiffs and defendants.

The Plaintiff's motion argues only that the $5 million amount in
controversy is not satisfied.  The Plaintiff states in her petition
that she believes and alleges that the total value of her
individual claim is, at most, equal to the refund price the refund
of the purchase price paid for the dressings, which is $4.49.  She
states she does not seek punitive damages or statutory penalties.
The only other recovery she does seek is pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Defendant's evidence shows that from September 2014 to
September 2019, it delivered 184,896 bottles of the disputed salad
dressing to customers in Missouri.  At a price of $4.49 per bottle,
the Defendant suggests that actual damages for the class are
$830,183.04.  Additionally, it points out that the Plaintiff brings
the action under Section 407.025 RSMo, which allows the Court, in
its discretion, to award punitive damages.  However, the Defendant
acknowledges that, pursuant to Section 510.265 RSMo, punitive
damages may not exceed the greater of $500,000 or the greater of
five times the net amount of the judgment.  Five times the actual
damages number is $4,150,915.20.  Because the class also seeks
attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 407.025 RSMo, the Defendant
thus argues the amount in controversy may well exceed $5 million.

First, the Plaintiff disputes the class' actual damages would be as
high as the Defendant suggests.  Judge Laimbaugh holds that the
Plaintiff has not set forth any competing evidence to suggest that
some large number of the product was either not sold to a Missouri
resident, or not sold at all.  Further, it's reasonable to assume
that dressings sold in Missouri grocery stores sell products
primarily to Missouri consumers.  With this evidence, a fact-finder
might legally conclude that actual sales to Missouri residents
approach the $830,000 suggested by the Defendant.  Judge Laimbaugh
holds that the Defendant has met its burden of proof with respect
to this evidence.

Next, the Plaintiff insists that because she disclaims punitive
damages, the amount in controversy cannot include punitive damages.
However, the Supreme Court recently addressed the question in the
context of a stipulation filed by a purported class representative
disclaiming punitive damages in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles.
The Supreme Court held that such a stipulation did not preclude the
possibility that punitive damages could be included in the amount
in controversy.  It is thus not improper to consider the
possibility of punitive damages despite the Plaintiff's disclaimer
in light of the fact that they are available under the statute.

Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the attorneys' fees considered
for the amount in controversy are the fees incurred as of the date
she filed her complaint.  The Defendant suggests the amount in
controversy could include hundreds of thousands of dollars in
attorneys' fees.  Judge Laimbaugh finds that an ultimate award of
attorneys' fee may be counted in calculating the jurisdictional
threshold.

Because he holds that CAFA jurisdiction exists, Judge Laimbaugh
need not address arguments regarding the application of 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a).  The motion to remand will thus be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, and granted the Defendant's motion to correct notice of
removal by interlineation.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/cabNq7 from Leagle.com.

EUGENE, OR: Court Denies Bid for TRO in Jackson Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC T. JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY GILL,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00906-MK (D. Or.), Judge Ann
Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene
Division, denied Jackson's motion for a temporary restraining order
("TRO").

Lead plaintiff Jackson pro se filed the putative class action
against 27 Defendants associated with the City of Eugene, Oregon,
Lane County, Oregon, and St. Vincent de Paul, Inc.  Jackson alleges
claims for breach of contract, Title VII Public Accommodations
violations, ORS 659A.104(2)(f), and violations of the First,
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  He seeks money damages,
punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
"retrospective relief."

Jackson has lived in Eugene since Feb. 25, 2018.  He and the other
named Plaintiffs are "homeless currently and Oregon residents."  On
several occasions, Jackson has been ticketed and arrested by
officers of the Eugene Police Department and convicted in Eugene
Municipal Court for violating Eugene Municipal Code ("EMC")
provisions that prohibit trespassing, camping in public spaces in
the City, and certain activities in Eugene's "Downtown Activity
Zone."  Jackson has also been ticketed and arrested while
participating in protests inspired by the Ninth Circuit's decision
in Martin v. Boise.  The Defendants have disposed of some of
Jackson's personal property while he has been in custody.

Then, in March 2020, the City suspended its no camping rules as
part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The City also
adopted the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") guidelines for
shelter-in-place for houseless communities, providing porta-potties
and hand wash stations throughout the City, sanitary units at
established camps, and free bus transportation.  In late May 2020,
the City announced that the no camping rules would go back into
effect when the City entered "Phase 2" of Oregon's COVID-19
response.  On June 5, 2020, the City entered "Phase 2," and Jackson
filed the action and the present motion.

Judge Aiken concludes that she cannot grant Jackson's Motion for
TRO based on the record.  Her denial is based primarily on facial
deficiencies with the Motion and filings--that is, Jackson's
failure to connect the underlying facts and law to the factors that
he must establish under Winters--and the extraordinary relief
offered by a TRO.

Jackson is reminded that this decision is not a ruling on the
merits of the case.  The complaint has only recently been filed,
and service has not been perfected on the named Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Kasubhai must still screen Jackson's complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 before IFP status is granted.
The Judge finds that any determination of whether preliminary
relief should issue in the case would benefit from a more fully
developed record including responsive briefing from the affected
Defendants.  Thus, the Plaintiff shall be granted leave to refile
the request for relief as a motion for preliminary injunction after
the Court has screened the complaint under Section 1915.

For these reasons, Judge Aiken denied Jackson's Motion for TRO
without prejudice.  The Plaintiff is granted leave to renew the
request as a motion for preliminary injunction.  If he moves for a
preliminary injunction and his complaint makes it through the
screening process, the Court shall enter a briefing schedule on the
motion following service of the complaint on the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/YXeaJD from Leagle.com.


EXXON MOBIL: Appeals W.D. Okla. Order in Fisher Suit to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Fisher, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:20-CV-00105-F, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3,
2020, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation.

The case is captioned as Fred A. Fischer, as General Partner of
Fischer Family Farms Family Limited Partnership, for themselves and
for all others similarly situated; Roger A. Fischer, as agent for
the Allan and Carolyn Fischer Family Limited Partnership, for
themselves and for all others similarly situated; and Theodore M
Schneider, Intervenor Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Exxon Mobil Corporation; and Postle
Upper Morrow Unit and Hovey Morrow Unit, individually and as
representative of all other Exxon Mobil-operated units created
pursuant to 52 O.S. 287.1-287.15, Case No. CJ-02-00125. The case
was removed from the Oklahoma District Court, Texas County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma
City) on Feb. 7, 2020.

The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00105-C to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robin J. Cauthron.

The lawsuit involves contract-related issues.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, doing business as ExxonMobil, is an
American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in
Irving, Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.
v. Fisher, et al., Case No. 20-607, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents FRED A. FISHER, as General Partner of
Fischer Family Farms Family Limited Partnership; ROGER A. FISCHER,
as agent for the Allan and Carolyn Fischer Family Limited
Partnership, for themselves and all others similarly situated; and
THEODORE M. SCHNEIDER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          LANIER LAW FIRM
          431 West Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          E-mail: reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
                  ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas E. Burns, Esq.
          Terry L. Stowers, Esq.
          BURNS & STOWER PC
          1300 W Lindsey St.
          Norman, OK 73069
          Telephone: (405) 360-6191
          Facsimile: (405) 928-2019
          E-mail: dburns@burns-stowers.com
                  tstowers@burns-stowers.com

               - and -

          Barbara Frankland, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Rex Sharp, Esq.
          SHARP LAW
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: barbara@sharpbarton.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  rex@sharpbarton.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Lawrence, Esq.
          Joseph C. Woltz, Esq.
          PEZOLD BARKER & WOLTZ
          2431 East 61st Street, Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74136-1242
          E-mail: rlawrence@pbwtulsa.com
                  jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com

Defendants-Petitioners EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; THE POSTLE UPPER
MORROW UNIT; and THE HOVEY MORROW UNIT, both individually and as
representatives of all other Exxon Mobil-operated units created
pursuant to 52 Oklahoma Statutes O.S. 287.1 through 287.15, are
represented by:

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          L. Mark Walker, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7700
          Facsimile: (405) 235-7718
          E-mail: griffinj@crowedunlevy.com
                  walkerm@crowedunlevy.com

               - and -

          Shannon H. Ratliff, Esq.
          DAVIS, GERALD & CREMER
          300 West 6th Street, Room 1830
          Austin, TX 78701-2984
          Telephone: (512) 493-9600
          E-mail: shratliff@dgclaw.com


FAIR OAKS FARMS: Honeycutt Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Paula Honeycutt, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Fair Oaks Farms Food, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00099, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 7, 2020.

The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-04647
to the proceeding.

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

Fair Oaks Farms produces a variety of fresh, ready-to-cook, and
fully cooked beef, pork, and poultry products. The Company
distributes to restaurants and foodservice operators.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 239-4599
          Fax: (619) 234-4599
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
          Robert Collins, III, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 876-7700
          Email: mark.mester@lw.com
                 robert.collins@lw.com


FARFETCH LTD: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Omdahl Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Plaintiffs IAM National Pension Fund
and Oklahoma Pension and Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiffs,
and their chosen law firms, Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz,
as the lead counsel in the case Jeff Omdahl, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Farfetch Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-8657 (AJN)
(S.D. N.Y.).

The case a putative securities class action against an online
fashion retailer, Farfetch.  Plaintiffs IAM Nationa and Oklahoma
Pension moved to be appointed the Lead Plaintiffs, and for their
chosen law firms, Bernstein and Kessler, to be appointed as the
lead counsel.  The motion is now unopposed.

Before appointing the Lead Plaintiff, Judge Nathan must first
decide whether consolidation is appropriate.  There are two
putative securities class actions brought by investors who
purchased Farfetch securities pending before the Court--Omdahl v.
Farfetch Limited, No. 19-cv-8657 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), and City of
Coral Springs Police Officers' Retirement Plan v. Farfetch Limited,
No. 19-cv-8720 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.).  These cases make overlapping
allegations against overlapping Defendants.  They both allege that
Farfetch, a fashion retailer, failed to disclose material adverse
facts about its operations and prospects in the period around its
IPO.  And they allege that when Farfetch eventually disclosed these
facts, its share price plummeted, causing the investor-Plaintiffs
significant financial harm.

Under these circumstances,  Judge Nathan finds that consolidation
is appropriate--indeed courts in the District frequently
consolidate putative securities class actions that overlap in that
manner.  To be sure, there are differences between the two cases.
The Plaintiffs in one case bring claims under only the Securities
Act, while the Plaintiffs in the other rely on both the Securities
and Exchange Act. And the class periods, though overlapping, are
not identical.  However, differences in causes of action, the
Defendants, or the class period do not render consolidation
inappropriate if the cases present sufficiently common questions of
fact and law, and the differences do not outweigh the interests of
judicial economy served by consolidation.  IAM National Pension
Fund and Oklahoma Pension's motion to consolidate these two civil
actions is therefore granted.

Judge Nathan turns next to the motions to appoint the Lead
Plaintiffs and the lead counsel.  Three such motions have been
filed in the matter.  First, IAM National and Oklahoma Pension
jointly moved to be appointed the Lead Plaintiffs and for the law
firms Bernstein and Kessler to be appointed the lead counsel.
Second, Nadia Khan moved to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff and for
the law firm Levi & Korsinsky to serve as the lead counsel.  Third,
Long Pine Capital Limited moved to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff
and for the Rosen Law Firm to be appointed the lead counsel.

Following the initial flurry of motions in the case, Long Pine
Capital withdrew its motion.  Its request therefore is no longer
before the Court.  Moreover, Khan failed to file an opposition to
IAM National and Oklahoma Pension's Firefighters' motion.  As a
result, Judge Nathan deems her motion abandoned.

As an initial matter, IAM National and Oklahoma Firefighters
satisfied the first requirement when they moved for appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff.  Second, they have the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class of any Plaintiff who
moved for appointment of the class counsel.  Third, they satisfy
the relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Finally, given the lack of opposition to these Plaintiffs' motion,
Judge Nathan has been presented with no proof that they will not
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or are
subject to unique defenses that render such Plaintiffs incapable of
adequately representing the class.  Thus, the Judge granted IAM
National and Oklahoma Firefighters' motion to be appointed the Lead
Plaintiff in a June 10, 2020 Opinion & Order, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/pYT7ux from Leagle.com.

It is evident from the documentation provided to the Court that
both law firms the Lead Plaintiffs seek appointed as co-counsel
have had extensive involvement in complex securities class action
litigation. Indeed, both Bernstein and Kessler have litigated
numerous large-scale securities class actions in the District to
resolution, often obtaining large settlements for represented
parties.  And once again, because these Plaintiffs' motion is
unopposed,  Judge Nathan has been presented with no argument for
why these firms should not be appointed.  She thus appoints
Bernstein and Kessler as co-lead counsel.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Nathan granted IAM National and
Oklahoma Firefighter's motion.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a), the securities class action, and any pending,
previously or subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions
that are related to the claims asserted in the action, including
Case No. 19-cv-8720 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), are consolidated for all
purposes.  The Consolidated Action will be captioned as "In re
Farfetch Limited Securities Litigation," and the file will be
maintained under Master File No. 19-cv-08657.

IAM National and Oklahoma Firefighters are appointed as the Lead
Plaintiff pursuant to Section 27(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Act of
1933, and Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, in the Consolidated Action.  IAM National and Oklahoma
Firefighter's selection of Lead Counsel is approved, and Bernstein
and and Kessler are appointed as the Lead Counsel for the Class.
The Opinion & Order resolves Dkt. Nos. 16, 19, 20, and 23.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Paid Bribes to Pass Bailout Law, Buldas Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BULDAS 3768 Corey Road Toledo, OH 43615 individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
FIRSTENERGY CORP., FIRSTENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, CHARLES E. JONES,
JAMES F. PEARSON, STEVEN E. STRAH, K. JON TAYLOR, AND DOES 1-10, 76
S. Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00593-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2020) alleges that
Defendants knowingly and intentionally acted in concert and
conspired with Larry Householder, Jeffrey Longstreth, Neil Clark,
Matthew Borges, Juan Cespedes, and Generation Now and other persons
and entities in activities that violate the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)
and (d), and the equivalent provisions of the Ohio Corrupt Activity
Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 2923.31 et seq.

According to the complaint, from March 2017 to March 2020, the
Householder Enterprise received approximately $60 million from
FirstEnergy and/or FirstEnergy Service paid through Generation Now
and controlled by Householder and the members of the Householder
Enterprise. In exchange for these illicit and unlawful payments,
the Householder Enterprise helped pass Ohio House of
Representatives Bill 6 ("HB 6"), described by a Householder
Enterprise member as a billion-dollar "bailout" that saved from
closure two failing nuclear power plants in Ohio affiliated with
FirstEnergy. The members of the Householder Enterprise then worked
to corruptly ensure that HB 6 went into effect by defeating a
ballot initiative. To achieve these ends, and to conceal the
scheme, the Householder Enterprise passed money received from
FirstEnergy and/or FirstEnergy Service through multiple entities
that it controlled. The Householder Enterprise then used these
bribe payments to further the goals of the Enterprise, which
include (a) obtaining, preserving, and expanding Householder's
political power in the State of Ohio through the receipt and use of
secret payments; (b) enriching and benefitting the Householder
Enterprise, its members, and associates; and (c) promoting,
concealing, and protecting purposes (a) and (b) from public
exposure and possible criminal prosecution.

Plaintiff is a legal resident of the State of Ohio and resides in
Lucas County, who has been injured by the Defendants by his payment
of monthly surcharges, as set forth in HB 6, which provided massive
customer/ratepayer subsidies for FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse and
Perry Nuclear Power Plants.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a public utility holding company which directs
and controls various subsidiary entities organized under the laws
of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business located
in Akron, Ohio. FirstEnergy is involved in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity.

FirstEnergy Service Company provides legal, financial, and other
corporate support services to affiliated companies, including First
Energy. It is under the control of FirstEnergy's management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
          THE KERGER LAW FIRM
          4159 N. Holland Sylvania Road, Suite 101
          Toledo, OH 43623
          Telephone: (419) 255-5990
          E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com

               - and -  

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          MILLER LAW, LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  aszot@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Flam Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yitzchok Flam,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-03573-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. Firstsource provides debt recovery services for credit
card issuers, retail banking and mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Jefferson Files MMWA Class Suit in W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Rilla Jefferson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

General Motors (GM), one of the world's largest auto manufacturers,
makes and sells cars and trucks worldwide under well-known brands,
such as Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, and Holden.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Shepherd Lafferty, Esq.
          LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, INC.
          P.O. Box 292977
          Nashville, TN 37229
          Phone: (615) 878-1926
          Fax: (615) 472-7852
          Email: susanl@laffertylawonline.com


GEORGIA POWER: Litigation Over Franchise Fees Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the company's
collection in rates of amounts for municipal franchise fees.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.

This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years. In one recent appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court
remanded the case and noted that the trial court could refer the
matter to the Georgia PSC to interpret its tariffs.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling and also conditionally
certified the proposed class. In March 2019, Georgia Power and the
plaintiffs filed petitions with the Georgia PSC seeking
confirmation of the proper application of the municipal franchise
fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia PSC's orders.

Also in March 2019, Georgia Power appealed the class certification
decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals. In October 2019, the
Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has
appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.

On March 11, 2020, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the
Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order granting
conditional class certification. The Court of Appeals remanded the
case to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further
proceedings.

Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether a class will be certified, the ultimate composition of any
class, and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.


GOOD STOCK: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Stock Carmine,
LLC, at al. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Good Stock
Carmine, LLC; Good Stock Commissary, LLC; Good Stock Commodore,
LLC; Good Stock, LLC d/b/a Good Stock Soups; Case No. 1:20-cv-06246
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

Good Stock is a soup company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


GOODRX INC: Pappas Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Marketing Text
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Pappas, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. GOODRX, INC. and GOODRX HOLDINGS,
INC., Delaware corporations, Case No. 2:20-cv-07145 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 8, 2020), is brought to challenge the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited automated text messages to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and the regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Federal Communications Commission.

The Defendants sent at least one unauthorized text message to the
Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS" or "auto-dialers") for the purpose of soliciting business
from the Plaintiff. The Defendants sent the Plaintiff a text
message to his cellular telephone number via ATDS, without first
obtaining the Plaintiff's written consent. As a result of receiving
the Text, the Plaintiff incurred expenses to his wireless service,
wasted data storage capacity, suffered the nuisance, waste of time,
and aggravation that accompanies receipt of such unauthorized
advertisements, and was subjected to an intrusion upon seclusion
and invasion of privacy, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, George Pappas, is a citizen of Illinois.

The Defendants provide a price comparison platform for prescription
drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Habashy, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW, PC
          633 W. Fifth St., 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213)233-5900
          Facsimile: (888) 373-2107
          Email: john@lexiconlaw.com
                 tiffany@lexiconlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Phone: 847-368-1500
          Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


GRAVITAS-2450 LARIMER: Katt Sues in Colorado Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRAVITAS-2450
LARIMER, LLC. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. GRAVITAS-2450 LARIMER,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02347-STV (D. Colo., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

Gravitas - 2450 Larimer, LLC, is a business entity registered with
Colorado Department of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Danganan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming the Trial Court's judgment granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned JOBE DANGANAN, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant v.
GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, Case No. 19-2545 (3rd Cir.).

Plaintiff Jobe Danganan signed up for home-security services with
Defendant Guardian Protection Services--locking himself into a
three-year commitment based on the terms of the agreement. When he
moved and sold his house, Guardian continued to bill him.

Mr. Danganan paid for four months of service after his move and
then filed consumer protection claims against Guardian in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleging fraudulent and
deceptive trade practices. He brought claims under the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Guardian removed
the action to federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and the case was transferred to the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

The Trial Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.
Mr. Danganan appealed the dismissal.

According to the Opinion, because the clear terms of the agreement
authorized Guardian to continue to seek payment after Mr. Danganan
moved and did not constitute deceptive conduct on which he could
justifiably rely, the Appeals Court affirms the dismissal.

The Appeals Court explains that both of Mr. Danganan's claims
ultimately fail because the Agreement clearly states that his
financial obligations would continue after he moved or sold his
home and, therefore, Guardian did not act fraudulently or
deceptively by continuing to bill him for payments he owed under
the Agreement. Consequently, he did not justifiably rely on any
deceptive conduct.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' May 21, 2020 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgmt3gt from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Donovan, Esq., Donovan Litigation Group, at 1855
Swedesford Road, in Malvern, Pennsylvania. James M. Pietz, Esq., at
429 Forbes Avenue, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Counsel for
Appellant.

Michael A. Iannucci, Esq., Laura E. Vendzules, Esq., Blank Rome, at
130 North 18th Street, One Logan Square, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Counsel for Appellee.


HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Candelaria Referred to Magistrate Judge Vidmar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico referred the case, NORA CANDELARIA, KIMANI
SINGLETON and all others similarly situated under 29 USC Section
216(b), Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-404-KG-SMV (D. N.M.), to Magistrate Judge Stephan
M. Vidmar to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary
hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend
to the Court an ultimate disposition of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action
Settlement, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sections
636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wood,
901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990).

The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of
fact, if necessary, and recommended disposition, to the District
Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties.
The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed
findings, analysis, and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1).  Objections must be filed within fourteen (14)
days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition.

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


HOST INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jesus Cazares filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Jesus Cazares v. Host International, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04102-PA-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 20,
2020, the lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 5,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04102 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages and
failed to provide meal break and rest break in violation to the
California Labor Code.

Host International provides catering services to travelers.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Cazares v. Host
International, Inc., Case No. 20-55803, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Jesus Cazares opening brief is due on October 5,
      2020;

   -- Appellee Host International, Inc. answering brief is due on
      November 4, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JESUS CAZARES, individually and on behalf of
other individuals similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Neil Fisher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          246 Fifth Avenue, Suite 522
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (516) 457-7188
          E-mail: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          SAHAG MAJARIAN II LAW OFFICES
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 309-0807
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Shareef Farag, Esq.
          Joseph Persoff, Esq.
          Nicholas Poper, Esq.
          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 949-8472
          E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
                  jpersoff@bakerlaw.com
                  npoper@bakerlaw.com
                  mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com


HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Victims Struggled with Class-Action Outcome
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marg. Bruineman at Orolliamatters.com reports that Marie Slark was
hopeful when former residents of the Huronia Regional Centre (HRC)
came together in a class-action to sue the province for forcing
them to linger for years in an abusive and toxic environment.

She was taken to the former Orillia facility for people with
developmental disabilities when she was seven years old, enduring
all sorts of abuses until she was let out at age 20.

Maybe, she thought hopefully when the $2-billion claim was
launched, she could buy her own home.

But in the end, the case was settled for $35 million. And for years
of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, the maximum former
residents could receive was $42,000.

"It wasn't really worth going to court for," said Slark, now 64 and
living independently in an apartment in Toronto. "Those who don't
speak only got $2,000" no matter how long they lived at the Orillia
facility or what they endured.

If she and other people who knew them hadn't spoken out for them,
her brother, Tommy, and sister, Karen, would have received nothing
more than the $2,000 minimum, she added.

The class size was estimated by the court to be 4,308 people who
were still alive in 2013. But the exact number was never fully
determined.

In the end, 1,705 claims were accepted.

When Toronto lawyer Loretta Merritt argues passionately that
individual lawsuits are often a better approach for victims of
historic institutional abuse, particularly those involving sexual
abuse, than class actions, she points to the HRC case, along with a
series of other settlements in Ontario, including several
institutions in Simcoe County, which are now all closed.

"I think an individual action is a good idea a lot of the time,"
said Merritt.

An individual plaintiff is in the driver's seat, directing its
course. So they, not the lawyers, decide whether to settle or not,
she said.

Merritt adds that they have the opportunity to have their own
individual story told and they can customize the settlement for
their own individual needs.

But a big part of her argument is the financial outcome.

Class-actions can be to the defendant's advantage, allowing them to
pay "pennies on the dollar" for those who come forward and collect
damages under the class proceeding, she said. They could also get
back any settlement fund money that isn't paid out.

And any abuse survivors who don't come forward to collect their
money under the class-action and haven't already opted out, no
longer have a chance to claim anything. The class-action
extinguishes future claims whether victims are aware of the
class-action or not.

"They can get a whole lot more money" through individual lawsuits,
she said. "I'm talking many multiples" of what class members have
been getting in Ontario.

She points to settlement decisions in several local historic
institutional abuse cases involving thousands of victims:

The court approved a final settlement for former HRC residents in
December 2013 for $35 million. The lawyers' cut was $8.5 million,
according to Merritt's analysis.

The Sheila Morrison School for learning disabilities in Utopia,
which is between Barrie and Angus, resulted in a $4-million
court-approved settlement in March 2013. Class members received a
maximum of $50,000. Merrit found that the lawyers were paid $1.1
million.

In another class-action involving several institutions across the
province, residents of the former Edgar Adult Occupational Centre
near Horseshoe Valley received a maximum of $42,000. The total
settlement approved by the court in April 2016 for residents at
Edgar, Muskoka Centre and several other institutions was nearly $36
million. The lawyers received $3.7 million.

All those class-actions were handled by the Toronto law firm,
Koskie Minsky LLP, who did not respond to requests for an
interview.

Jody Brown was one of several lawyers at Koskie Minsky LLP handling
those lawsuits on behalf of the residents and now practises with
Goldblatt Partners LLP. He agrees that class-actions are not
necessarily suitable for all situations involving several
plaintiffs.

"My opinion is that it's not just class-action versus individual
cases in these abuse situations," he said. "It's looking at the
nature of the claims in the group and whether class-action's going
to be the right vehicle to effectively reach this group.

"You've really got to look at the people in the case and the harm
alleged as to which one might be the best way to go."

A group of individuals aggregating their claim wields more power
than an individual, he said.

People who are harmed also find some comfort facing the
organization accused of wrongdoing in court action in the company
of others who have been similarly affected so that they're not
alone.

Brown added that class-actions can tap into notice programs
available through advocates to get the word out in hopes of
reaching all the people impacted. In Ontario, everyone is
automatically part of that defined class unless they decide to opt
out.

Class-actions also achieve more than financial compensation for
class members.

Those who called the Huronia Regional Centre home between 1945 and
2009 when it closed received a lengthy apology from then-premier
Kathleen Wynne just two weeks before Christmas in 2013 for the
neglect and abuse they suffered living in the Orillia facility.

With former residents in the gallery of the Legislature, she
acknowledged that some had been forcibly restrained, left in
seclusion, exploited for their labour and crowded into unsanitary
dormitories.

The following year a commemorative plaque was installed on site to
honour the memory of the centre's residents. A cemetery registry
was also created.

The government filed many of the documents detailing the history of
HRC with the Archives of Ontario to ensure that the sad era of the
institutionalization of society's most vulnerable wouldn't escape
the grip of history.

And of the $35-million total award, about $7.4 million in surplus
was used for Strategic Program Investments, which helped groups
designed to assist people with developmental disabilities as well
as funding efforts to tell some of the HRC stories, which was
important to Slark and others whose earlier complaints about the
abuse were dismissed.

The case didn't go smoothly and definitely didn't achieve
everything the former residents had hoped for. But residents like
Slark, who served as one of two representative plaintiffs, are
satisfied that the world now knows what happened for so many years
at the facility.

In the end, social worker Marilyn Dolmage, who advocated for Slark
and the HRC residents and was a big part in getting the ball
rolling, feels torn.

"I see people jumping into class-actions," she said. "It would be
good for them to know more." [GN]

INTERNATIONAL SURF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL SURF VENTURES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05962 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020) is a civil rights
action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people, therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, which is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the
facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public
on its Website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have
caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past,
and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from visiting the
Website, presently and in the future.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers because Defendant's website,
www.islesurfandsup.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

International Surf Ventures, Inc. is a surfboard and paddleboard
company that owns and operates the website, www.islesurfandsup.com
(its “Website”), offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant ensures
the delivery of throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

J.B. HUNT: Provisional Class Cert. for Settlement Purposes Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KAREEM WILSON, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. J.B. HUNT LOGISTICS,
INC., an Arkansas corporation; J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., a
business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusives,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03487-SVW-AFM (Filed March 2, 2018), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. provisionally certifying class for settlement purposes
      only;

   2. preliminarily approving the class action settlement
      embodied in the Joint Stipulation and Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. approving the notice of class action settlement and the
      plan for its distribution to class members;

   4. appointing ILYM as the Settlement Administrator; and

   5 scheduling a final approval hearing.

J.B. Hunt is a transportation and logistics company.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accruals Related to XARELTO(R) Suits Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the company has
established accruals for its costs associated with the United
States settlement program and XARELTO(R) related product liability
litigation.

Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO(R), an
oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson (J&J); and JPI's collaboration
partner for XARELTO(R), Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the
United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a
state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in a
coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, California.

Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada.

In March 2019, JPI and J&J announced an agreement in principle to
the settle the XARELTO(R) cases in the United States; the
settlement agreement was executed in May 2019, the settlement
became final in December 2019, and the settlement was funded in
January 2020.

This resolved the majority of cases pending in the United States.

The Company has established accruals for its costs associated with
the United States settlement program and XARELTO(R) related product
liability litigation.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the parties in the
contact lens-related suit are awaiting a trial date.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015.

In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied.

Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied in November
2019.

The parties await a trial date.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re Remicade Antitrust
Litigation.

Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson
and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that
Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and
state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to
dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser
cases.

A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was
denied by the district court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
the district court's ruling.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana related to its improper marketing and
promotion of XARELTO(R).

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain
Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed
and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks.

The complaint seeks damages.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


KAO USA INC: Jones Sues in N.Y. Over Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kao USA Inc. The case
is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kao USA Inc. doing
business as: Goldwell, Case No. 1:20-cv-03569-RPK-SJB (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 7, 2020).

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

Kao USA makes beauty care and premium mass and professional hair
care products, marketing them to mostly female customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAKE POINTE ASSISTED LIVING: Faces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Carli Brosseau, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that as
Hurricane Florence menaced the North Carolina coast two years ago,
a National Weather Service meteorologist cautioned against
underestimating the threat: "This will likely be the storm of a
lifetime for portions of the Carolina coast. . . . I can't
emphasize enough the potential for unbelievable damage from wind,
storm surge, and inland flooding with this storm."

But several facilities housing the state's oldest and frailest
residents failed to heed the warning.

The operator of Ashe Gardens Memory Care, a facility in Burgaw
surrounded on three sides by a floodplain, decided to ride out the
hurricane in place. They even invited the residents of an evacuated
sister facility to hunker down with them.

The management of Lake Pointe Assisted Living, a Lake Waccamaw
facility that government maps showed had a high chance of flooding,
chose to shelter in place too. The administrator, Laura Hardison,
went to the grocery store and bought a few packs of hot dogs and
macaroni and cheese, said Willette Mason, a cook at the facility,
who brought a propane grill from home in case the electricity went
out. The generators that Hardison brought from home were just
enough to power the refrigerator and medication cart.

The operators of Highland Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
in Lumberton also opted to stay, despite the devastation Hurricane
Matthew had brought to the city two years before. With
meteorologists predicting "catastrophic" rain, a nearby car
dealership cleared its lot, and families of some residents began
asking staff about evacuation plans.

Doris Vaught, who visited her husband, William, at Highland Acres
almost every day he lived there, said she was so alarmed by the
lack of preparation that she had her husband taken to the hospital.
Other residents would later leave the nursing home on boats,
disoriented and scared, protected from the torrential downpour by
only a cotton sheet.

An investigation by The News & Observer found that despite a long
history of hurricanes in North Carolina and regulations that
require emergency planning, many facilities were unprepared for
Hurricane Florence, relying on vague plans and low-paid staff with
neither the time nor training to carry the plans out, putting
thousands of the state's most vulnerable people in danger.

Two years later, long-term care residents are at no less risk,
advocates say. Scientists predict slow-crawling, super-drenching
storms like Florence will be more common due to climate change. But
proposals to ensure more thorough planning and require generators
have stalled. Staff shortages have worsened.

Administrators and emergency managers are already overwhelmed from
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the logistics of preparing
for extreme weather are now only more complicated.

Among the thorny questions: Where will COVID-positive residents go?
PruittHealth-Trent in New Bern, for example, has three dozen
infected residents and is located in a flood hazard zone.

DEALING WITH A 'NIGHTMARE SCENARIO'

The possibility of colliding disasters has Lauren Zingraff,
executive director of the advocacy group Friends of Residents in
Long Term Care, "gravely concerned."

"We do not have in place the type of emergency preparedness, safety
plans, funding and resources to adequately prevent a repeat of what
we experienced in 2018," she said. "It's scary to think about what
the nursing shortage will look like when you have the devastation
of a hurricane and a pandemic on top of it."

Iris Green, a supervising attorney with Disability Rights North
Carolina, has called on the state to ensure that facilities have
"concrete, effective disaster preparedness and evacuation plans
that take COVID-19 concerns into account."

So has Roger Manus, the director of the Senior Law Center at
Campbell University and chair of the Governor's Advisory Council on
Aging. In a letter to the governor, he wrote, "Planning ahead
(including drills) for this nightmare scenario is a must."

State health and emergency management officials say they have
offered training and drill opportunities, but did not reveal how
many long-term care facilities signed up.

The N.C. Health Care Facilities Association, a nursing home trade
group, said in a written statement that it is gathering guidance
from state agencies and putting together a list of equipment and
supplies, including personal protective equipment and oxygen, that
it hopes the state can stockpile for them.

Hurricane season began June 1. Tropical Storm Isaias is swirling
off the coast of Florida, projected to head this way.

Do you have a news tip? Send it securely to our journalists. Go to
bit.ly/nandotips.

LAST-MINUTE EVACUATIONS

In its examination of the 2018 hurricane season, The News &
Observer compiled data on evacuations, generators, flood hazard
zones and inspections; analyzed emergency plans submitted to
emergency managers in 10 counties; and interviewed more than 50
researchers, first responders, industry executives, care workers,
advocates, residents and their families.

The investigation revealed that at least six elder-care facilities
were evacuated only after Hurricane Florence made landfall -
including Ashe Gardens, whose staff summoned government help after
a lake formed in the parking lot.

More than 1,400 people evacuated from care facilities stayed for
some period in public shelters or churches, which are generally not
equipped to care for people with special needs. The people
evacuated from Ashe Gardens stayed overnight in a Pender County
elementary school. At least 200 elderly North Carolinians were
moved more than once.

The residents of at least one care facility, Lake Pointe, were left
at times with no assistance at all. The staff was spread so thin
during the hurricane that Mason, the cook, was enlisted in patient
care. Staffing dwindled toward zero in the aftermath. Workers said
they weren't being paid what they were owed and stopped showing up.
The administrator quit too. On Oct. 14, 2018, the last staffer
standing told a 911 dispatcher that she was alone with about 60
residents who needed their medicine, which she had no way to give.

Interviews and a review of emergency managers' records in six
eastern North Carolina counties revealed that many assisted-living
facilities, including Lake Pointe, shirked the regulatory
requirement to turn in their disaster plans and some submitted
documents lacking basic information such as whether the facility
was likely to flood. Local emergency managers said they have no
authority to compel facilities to turn in a plan or mandate
improvement.

No one has counted the resulting deaths. The state Department of
Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for Florence
data from at least three researchers and declined to do its own
study.

But anecdotal evidence suggests that bodies quickly piled up.

In the months after the residents of Highland Acres were evacuated,
Vaught amassed a stack of funeral programs as she attended one
memorial service after another. In December 2019, Chris Pittman, a
former resident of Highland Acres who rode out on a boat, counted
on his fingers the names of people who died. "I think the trauma
was too much," he said.

THE HIGH RISK OF MOVING ELDERLY RESIDENTS

To be sure, disaster decision-making is difficult, and the line
between a good decision and a bad one can be blurry.

Researchers Kathryn Hyer of the University of South Florida and
David Dosa of Brown University found in studying 2005's Hurricane
Katrina and subsequent Gulf Coast storms that hurricanes increased
death and sickness among nursing home residents regardless of
whether they were evacuated and that moving residents posed the
greatest risk.

Denis Rainey, a senior vice president who oversees emergency
preparedness for ALG Senior, the Hickory-based company that owns
Ashe Gardens, said the researchers' findings influenced his
company's decisions.

"We know that if you evacuate a 60-bed assisted-living facility,
you can expect two or three people to be hospitalized and two or
three people to expire," Rainey said.

The other major consideration was the facility's history.

"Water had never gotten into the building, and it didn't that day,"
he said. The county's emergency manager recommended evacuation
because of how fast the water was rising, but residents were soon
able to return.

ALG Senior, which has roughly 140 assisted-living facilities in the
Southeast, has improved emergency planning based on lessons from
past storms, Rainey said.

After Florence, for example, the company readied buses across the
coastal plain in case facilities suddenly needed to evacuate.
Workers at Ashe Gardens now know to clear the parking lot's storm
drains. To bolster staffing, ALG Senior sends corporate staff and
workers from sister facilities.

In Lake Waccamaw, where the police chief found the care home's
residents left alone, staff were overwhelmed even before the storm.
A woman hired to do laundry told an inspector she was pressed into
work as a patient care aide due to short staffing on her very first
day.

Hardison, the former administrator, said she couldn't get the
owners, Tony and Edith Bigler, to provide enough toilet paper, let
alone adequate generators in preparation for the hurricane. "There
was zero support and zero concern for the residents," Hardison
said.

A resident died after falling on condensation-slick floors during
the power outage that followed the storm. About a month later,
regulators shut down the building, dispersing residents to new
homes.

The Biglers did not respond to phone calls, emails and social media
messages requesting an interview. They continue to operate other
facilities.

In Lumberton, the building that used to be Highland Acres sits
empty, discarded commodes in the parking lot.

Executives with Principle Long Term Care, part of the Kinston-based
Hillco. enterprise whose affiliated companies operated the
facility, did not respond to emails and calls. Neither did Syreeta
Parham, the former Highland Acres administrator who now oversees a
nursing home in Sanford.

But for the building's former occupants the catastrophe goes on.

'WE HAD ISSUES EVERYWHERE'

Chris Pittman remembers being barefoot and wearing only a hospital
gown when firefighters arrived at Highland Acres the afternoon of
Sept. 15, 2018. He figured the nursing home was evacuating, but no
one told him where he was going.

Hurricane Florence had stalled over the city. The ditches were
already full.

To firefighters and the volunteers who showed up to help them, the
administrator and her corporate supervisors seemed to have no plan.
They resisted leaving, then asked for residents to be taken by
ambulance to a sister facility two hours away, Chris West,
Lumberton's assistant fire chief, recalled.

The fire department had only about eight ambulances, and more than
80 residents needed to be evacuated. "We had issues everywhere,"
West said. "There's no way we could tie up those ambulances to move
these patients. It was just impossible."

One executive "threatened us, said we were kidnapping his patients
and hijacking his facility," Lt. Jarrod Hendren said. Corporate
staff "were throwing things and fighting and arguing" with the
volunteers who showed up to help firefighters, Dr. Andrea Simmons,
the nursing home's medical director, wrote on Facebook.

Meanwhile, the floodwaters rose more than two feet.

Hendren said he eventually told the executive to go into an office
and stay there and told the nurses who wanted to leave that they
couldn't. If they tried, Hendren told them, he would bring in the
National Guard.

Residents who could walk were loaded onto a bus. The rest were
strapped to backboards and covered with sheets.

Pittman wasn't helped into his specially outfitted van as he
expected. Staff asked to use his van to transport certified nursing
assistants, and he agreed because he knew he needed their help. He
was loaded onto a boat, which amateur rescuers from Louisiana
hauled across a flooded field to a gas station, where an ambulance
picked him up.

Rain was coming down so fast it was hard to breathe. Flatwater
stretched from the nursing home to the horizon.

Highland Acres residents stayed overnight in the St. Paul's High
School gym with other people using the community shelter. In the
morning, the nursing home residents, some of them diabetic, were
served ice cream and an energy bar for breakfast, Judy Parker, a
long-term care ombudsman, noticed. A caravan of ambulances
marshaled from as far away as Kentucky then carried the evacuees to
other Principle-owned facilities.

Pittman arrived at his new home, Richmond Pines Healthcare and
Rehabilitation Center in Hamlet, still in his hospital gown and
without any shoes. Though he had been soaked in the boat ride, it
would be more than a day before anyone changed him, Pittman said.
He waited a week for new shoes, longer for a new wheelchair.

Without a wheelchair, Pittman said, he was trapped in his room,
which smelled of urine. His roommate would urinate on the floor,
and the overworked nursing aides had no time to clean it up. There
were just two aides, he said, on his 30-person hallway.

Pittman, 60, soon learned that he had landed in a special focus
facility, a designation that means a nursing home is one of the
state's worst, with a pattern of poor quality care. He and other
former residents of Highland Acres complain that a lack of adequate
staffing at Richmond Pines keeps them from getting better and
sometimes puts them in danger.

"It was like leaving the suburbs and coming to the projects,"
Pittman said. "We didn't know where we were going, and we've been
stuck here ever since."

Inspection records from 2018 detail repeated falls and several
types of medication errors, including administering antipsychotic
medication to a resident for three months without a doctor's order.
Electronic medication records were inaccurate, staffers told an
inspector, because they had been overwhelmed by hurricane
evacuees.

Last April, an inspector found there wasn't enough staff to help
residents with eating and personal hygiene.

EMOTIONAL SCARS

It's difficult to measure the effects of an evacuation on a
population so fragile, but the emotional marks live on in the
families of those caught in the chaos.

Connie Lattie and Deborah Williams noticed a steep decline in their
87-year-old father's health once he got to Richmond Pines.

Roland Pittman looked like he had lost weight. The once-hearty
preacher and farmer, no relation to Chris Pittman, was sequestered
in a back room and seemed to be very thirsty.

Lattie asked him about the evacuation in terms she thought he could
understand. His dementia made communication difficult.

"Did you see a lot of water?" Lattie asked.

"Yes," he said, sobbing.

The sisters wondered: Was their father ailing because of the trauma
of the evacuation? Or was it shoddy care at his destination? He
died within weeks.

Williams sought answers by requesting health records, but the
documents Richmond Pines sent were full of blanks. Some belonged to
another patient.

The family didn't hire a lawyer, but legal action in such cases
isn't unexpected. Lake Pointe, for example, is facing a
class-action lawsuit. However, legislators recently gave long-term
care facilities immunity from most legal claims until the COVID-19
state of emergency is declared over.

Lattie thinks back to the day of the evacuation, the empty car lot
she passed on the way to the nursing home.

"If they thought to move every car out of the lot at a car
dealership, I can't believe they wouldn't have thought to move
people," she said.

Bill Shotwell, the vice president of Lumberton Chevrolet Buick GMC
Cadillac, thought that was curious too. He had lost 88 vehicles to
flooding in Hurricane Matthew, so he found a secured lot on high
ground to store cars for the next big storm.

"Days later, we were able to move them back," Shotwell said. [GN]


LOWE'S COMPANY: Forte Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kaitlin Forte, Dustin Huffman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Company
Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01108, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for District of South
Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina on Aug. 7, 2020.

The North Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00112 to the proceeding.

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

Lowe's Companies, Inc., doing business as Lowe's, is an American
retail company specializing in home improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Phone: (843) 579-7373
          Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Fax: (248) 746-4001
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 rjohnston@sommerspc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradish Johnson Waring, Esq.
          Kenyatta L. Gardner, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          25 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 277-3700
          Fax: (843) 277-3701


MACY'S: Faces Lawsuit for Use of Facial Recognition Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Mitchell at Cincinnati Enquirer reports that an Illinois
woman filed a class action lawsuit against Macy's, claiming the
corporation's use of Clearview AI facial recognition software is an
invasion of privacy.

Clearview is a research tool used by law enforcement agencies to
identify perpetrators and victims of crimes, according to their
website. Clearview compares images from crime scenes to images on
the open web, including public social media accounts.

Clearview built its database of more than 3 billion images gathered
from sites like Facebook, Youtube and Venmo, The New York Times
reported in January.

Macy's has run over 6,000 identities of individual customers
through the database, according to the lawsuit. When Macy's uploads
photos of customers taken from security footage, Clearview then
provides the retail company with access to that individual's
personal details, including names, home addresses and work
addresses.

The Illinois lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of Isela Carmine--a "regular
customer at Macy's"--and "all others similarly situated," court
documents say. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. has 21 department
stores in Illinois.

The complaint asks Macy's to "expunge, delete, and/or remove" all
information associated with Illinois residents from Macy's database
or any other data collection.

The lawsuit states customers, including Carmine, are "at a greater
risk of stalking, harassment, and identity theft" due to the facial
recognition software.

"Any Macy's employee with access to the surveillance database could
use it for their own personal ends--for example, to stalk or track
an individual," the document says.

In Illinois, legislation entitled the Illinois Biometric Privacy
Act safeguards Illinois' residents' absolute right to control their
biometric data, documents say. This includes the positive
identifications that Macy's received from Clearview.

The complaint states that under the act, a private entity like
Clearview or Macy's must develop a written policy, available to the
public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying the biometric identifiers or information. It
must also inform subjects in writing that the information or
identifier is being collected or stored and for what specific
purpose and length before obtaining a person's biometric
information.

Macy's has not provided any such policy, nor informed customers of
its biometric information collection procedures, in violation of
the act, documents say.

For each individual violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy
Act, the complaint states a person may recover $1,000 for each
negligent violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless
violation.

The Enquirer reached out to Macy's for a response to the lawsuit.

"We are unable to comment on pending litigation," Macy's officials
said. [GN]

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ohio State Teachers Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA A. SHENK, et al., v.
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00145-DLF (D.C.), the
Lead Plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio moves the
Court for an Order:

   1. granting the class certification motion in its
      entirety;

   2. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Mallinckrodt plc common stock between
      October 6, 2015 and November 6, 2017, inclusive, and
      suffered damages as a result"

   3. excluding from the Class:

      a. Defendants Mallinckrodt and Individual Defendants  
         Mark Trudeau and Matthew K. Harbaugh;

      b. members of the immediate family of each of the
         Individual Defendants;

      c. any subsidiary or affiliate of Mallinckrodt and the
         directors, officers and employees of the Company or
         its subsidiaries or affiliates;

      d. any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer,
         director, or any other individual or entity in which
         any Defendant has a controlling interest; and

      e. the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs,
         successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded
         party;

   4. appointing Lead Plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System
      of Ohio and Teamsters Local 677 Health Services and
      Insurance Plan as Class Representatives;

   5. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
      23(a) and 23(b)(3) because (a) the Class is sufficiently
      numerous, (b) there are issues of law and fact common to
      the Class, (c) the Class Representatives' claims are
      typical of the claims of absent Class members, (d) the
      Class Representatives are adequate, (e) a class action
      here is superior to other potential mechanisms, and (f)
      issues common to the Class predominate over issues
      pertaining to individual Class members; and

   6. appointing Lead Counsel Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as Class
      Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Mallinckrodt is an Irish–tax registered manufacturer of specialty
pharmaceuticals, generic drugs and imaging agents.[CC]

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System of
Ohio and Lead Counsel for the Class are:

          Leonard Barrack, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          Julie B. Palley, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838

Special Counsel for State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio is:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Rd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  murray@mmmb.com
                  moul@mmmb.com

Special Counsel for Teamsters Local 677 Health Services and
Insurance Plan is:

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          E-mail: fshirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  drehns@hrsclaw.com

MDL 2885: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Orders for 6 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has vacated its conditional transfer orders designated
as "CTO-63, and 64" filed on May 15, 2020, and May 19, 2020,
respectively, as it relates to these actions:

   DIST   DIV.   C.A. NO.   CASE CAPTION
   ----   ----   --------   ------------
   MINNESOTA
   MN      0     20-01153   Trail v. 3M Company et al
   MN      0     20-01157   Kane v. 3M Company et al
   MN      0     20-01161   Taylor v. 3M Company et al
   MN      0     20-01166   Hall v. 3M Company et al
   MN      0     20-01171   Gonzales v. 3M Company et al
   MN      0     20-01175   Skaalerud v. 3M Company et al

Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay of transmittal,
plaintiffs filed notices of opposition to the proposed transfer.
Plaintiffs later filed motions and briefs to vacate the conditional
transfer orders.  The Panel has now been advised that these actions
have been remanded to their respective state courts.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XXkCZR


MDL 2948: 10 Privacy Suits vs. TikTok Inc. Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2948, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 10
actions against TikTok, Inc., to the Northern District of Illinois,
and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable
John Z. Lee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in an action pending in the Southern District of Illinois
moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in
that district.  The litigation consists of 10 actions -- five in
the Northern District of California, four in the Northern District
of Illinois, and one in the Southern District of Illinois.  The
Panel has been notified of nine potentially-related actions.  All
responding parties, including defendants, support centralization,
but differ as to an appropriate transferee district.  Suggested
districts include the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, and the
Southern District of Illinois.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.  The common factual issues concern defendants' TikTok
app, a highly popular social networking app used to create and
share short videos.  Plaintiffs in all actions challenge
defendants' conduct with respect to the scanning, capture,
retention, and dissemination of the facial geometry and other
biometric information of users of the app.  Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery and the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification and other pretrial matters, as well
as conserve judicial and party resources.

The Judge selects the Northern District of Illinois as transferee
district.  Four of the ten actions, as well as three potential
tag-along actions, are pending in the Northern District of
Illinois, and have been proceeding in an organized fashion (for
example, the actions have been consolidated, interim lead
plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and a consolidated
complaint has been filed).  And, although common defendants
ByteDance, Inc., and TikTok, Inc., are headquartered in California,
they support selection of the Northern District of Illinois, as do
multiple plaintiffs.  The Honorable John Z. Lee, to whom the Panel
assigns the litigation, is an experienced jurist.  He is presiding
over the related Northern District of Illinois actions, and has
been actively managing them to date.  Judge Caldwell is confident
that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 4, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/h1ZKox


MED SHIELD: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Med Shield, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-02073-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought for a
finding that the Defendant's form debt collection letter violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and to recover damages.

The Defendant sent Mr. Watson an initial form collection letter,
dated September 14, 2019. This collection letter stated that it was
"Re: KEVIN WATSON EDWARD", and then further stated "Provider:
ESKENAZI HEALTH" and "Your account has been forwarded to Med
Shield, Incorporated for collection". Moreover, the letter directed
payment to "Med Shield, Inc, Agent For Collection." The Plaintiff
asserts that the letter failed to advise him as to the name of the
creditor to whom the debt was then owed.

Because the letter did not explain whether Eskenazi Health was, and
still is, the creditor to whom the debt was owed, and because it
did not say that Med Shield represented Eskenazi Health to collect
the debt at issue and, instead, stated that Med Shield was the
"Agent For Collection" of an unidentified entity, Mr. Watson says
he was unsure as to whom he owed the debt at issue, which worried
and concerned him. The Defendant's form collection letter violates
the FDCPA because it failed to identify effectively the current
creditor to whom the debt was owed, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kevin Watson is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Southern District of Indiana.

Med Shield, Inc., is an Indiana corporation, that acts as a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Phone: (708) 974-2900
          Fax: (708) 974-2907
          Email: davephilipps@aol.com
                 mephilipps@aol.com
                 angie@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Phone: (317) 780-8300
          Fax: (317) 217-1320
          Email: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Crook Sues in E.D. Calif. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Crook,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and John Does
1-25, Case No. 2:20-at-00784 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2020).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MITR PHOL: Thai Court Allows Cambodian Class Action Against Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Busaba Sivasomboon at The Diplomat reports that a Thai court ruled
that several hundred families in Cambodia who were displaced from
their homes may file a class action suit against the Thai company
they believe was responsible, a decision hailed as trailblazing by
land rights activists.

The Bangkok South Civil Court issued the ruling in a case in which
Cambodian farmers are suing Thailand's Mitr Phol company, one of
the world's largest sugar producers.

About 700 families were forcibly evicted from their homes in
2008-2009 when Cambodian subsidiaries of Mitr Phol were acquiring
plots of land in a Cambodian government-approved plan to turn the
northwestern province of Oddar Meanchey into a sugar production
hub.

To make way for the new industrial sugar plantation, hundreds of
houses were demolished or burned to the ground, triggering protests
from villagers. Mitr Phol withdrew from the project in 2014 and its
subsidiaries were shut down.

"The importance of this legal precedent cannot be overstated," said
Natalie Bugalski, legal director for Inclusive Development
International, a private group promoting corporate responsibility.
"This is a David vs. Goliath case that will redefine access to
justice for the victims of corporate abuse in Southeast Asia and
beyond."

The court decision "rightly recognizes that national borders must
not provide corporations with a free pass to act with impunity, nor
should they pose a barrier to anyone seeking justice for alleged
human rights abuses," said Amnesty International, which also
supported the farmers' lawsuit.

The Cambodian farmers filed a lawsuit seeking damages in April 2018
under a provision in Thai law allowing a class action to be brought
by foreign plaintiffs for abuses committed by a Thai company
abroad.

The court initially ruled that the case was not eligible for class
action status due to problems in communication, as the plaintiffs
were hard to reach because they were living in remote areas in
Cambodia and they were not able to communicate in Thai.

The villagers then appealed the decision, leading to the ruling.

"The court made the right decision, these villagers are very poor,
the class action lawsuit will give them more opportunities to fight
their case in the court," said Sor Rattanamanee Polkla, one of the
farmers' lawyers. "This can be seen as the next step of judicial
progress in Thailand, as the case is the first transboundary land
rights class action case filed in Thailand and may be the first in
Asia."

She said the court's appeals division ruled that a class action
lawsuit is appropriate because it is cost-saving and keeps each
plaintiff from filing separate cases that might result in
contradictory rulings that could cause problems for Thailand's
judicial system.

A statement from the Mitr Phol Group said it has a strong
commitment to social responsibility and to upholding the laws and
regulations of every country in which it operates.

The court set October 5 for a meeting between the two sides, which
is a pre-hearing procedure in the Thai judicial system. [GN]

MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Beverage Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit before a Colorado
trial court remains pending.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case.

On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the
Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District
Court, and subsequently was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019.


On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in
Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated case. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed
its amended complaint alleging that the Defendants made false
statements and material omissions to the market beginning in
February 2017 and ending in February 2019, which, it alleges,
misled the market as to the strength of the company's financial
condition and internal control processes related to financial
accounting.

The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the
Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial
results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax
benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to
inflate the price of our common stock.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to
our motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and the company filed its
reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020.
The motion remains pending before the trial judge.

Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time. "

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

Molson Coors Beverage Company (NYSE: TAP) is a multinational
brewing company, formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada,
and Coors of the United States.  At December 31, 2019, the
Company's reporting segments included: MillerCoors LLC
("MillerCoors" or U.S. segment), operating in the United States;
Molson Coors Canada ("MCC" or Canada segment), operating in Canada;
Molson Coors Europe (Europe segment), operating in Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, the Republic of
Ireland, Romania, Serbia, the United Kingdom and various other
European countries; and Molson Coors International ("MCI" or
International segment), operating in various other countries.


MORGAN STANLEY: Fails to Secure Client Data, Grossman et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GROSSMAN, HOWARD KATZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06012 (S.D.N.Y., July 31,
2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers,
passport numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
account numbers, dates of birth, income, asset value and holding
information (collectively, "personal identifiable information" or
"PII").

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant failed to provide timely,
accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
Morgan Stanley current and former customers that their PII had been
lost and precisely what types of information was unencrypted and in
the possession of unknown third parties.

On or about July 9, 2020, Morgan Stanley began notifying various
state Attorneys General about multiple data breaches that occurred
as early as 2016. Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
those individuals by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a
benefit from Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PII. The missing
equipment and servers contain everything unauthorized third-parties
need to illegally use Morgan Stanley's current and former
customers' PII to steal their identities and to make fraudulent
purchases, among other things.

This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect customers'
data. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent the Data
Breach, Defendant failed to detect the Data Breach for years, and
when they did discover the Data Breach, it took them over a year,
possibly longer, to report it to the affected individuals and the
states’ Attorneys General.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was
compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately
protect its customers' PII; (ii) warn customers of its inadequate
information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure
hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
Defendant's conduct constitutes negligence, the proximate cause of
which caused damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members as alleged
herein.

Morgan Stanley is a New York-based company that sells securities
and other financial products throughout the world, maintaining
offices in the U.S. and globally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
                  csanchez@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

NATIVE HEMP: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Native Hemp Co. The
case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Native Hemp Co., a Missouri
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00115-cr (D. Vt., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

The Native Hemp is a Maryland-headquartered CBD company
specializing in sourcing and manufacturing the best hemp-derived
products for your business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Pettersen, Esq.
          PETTERSON LAW PLLC
          1084 East Lakeshore Drive
          Colchester, VT 05446
          Phone: (802) 477-2780
          Email: pettersenlaw@gmail.com


NCAA: Stone Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-02088-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result
of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Oregon student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Oregon
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them,
according to the complaint. The Defendant did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former Oregon football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries, says the complaint. As
such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to
vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Donald Stone is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Oregon.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Greensboro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: 713.554.9099
          Fax: 713.554.9098
          Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.589.6370
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          Email: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: 415.212.9300
          Fax: 415.373.9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEW MARKET HEALTH: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Market Health
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Market Health
Products, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00116-cr (D. Vt., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

NewMarket Health is a publishing and supplement company located in
Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Pettersen, Esq.
          PETTERSON LAW PLLC
          1084 East Lakeshore Drive
          Colchester, VT 05446
          Phone: (802) 477-2780
          Email: pettersenlaw@gmail.com


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Fontanez 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 29, 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. 20-2361, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Angel Fontanez 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


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Court Allows Arbitration in Vergara Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ZACHARY VERGARA,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 19 C 6374 (N.D.
Ill.).

Zachary Vergara brought this putative class action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Nintendo of America Inc.,
alleging various state law torts. After removing the suit under the
Class Action Fairness Act, Nintendo moved under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") to compel arbitration. After briefing
closed on that motion, Mr. Vergara moved for leave to file an
amended complaint.

The Court grants Nintendo's motion to compel arbitration, with the
understanding that Mr. Vergara may pursue his claims in this Court
if the arbitrator finds that they are not arbitrable, and his
motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice as moot.

The Court rules that the parties must submit Mr. Vergara's claims
to arbitration administered by the AAA. The lawsuit is stayed
pending resolution of the arbitration. If the arbitrator decides
that Mr. Vergara's claims are not arbitrable, the Court will reopen
these judicial proceedings on his motion. Because the amendments he
proposes to make to his complaint would not alter this result, his
motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied without
prejudice as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yag4mjvq from
Leagle.com.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Sued by Box Elder for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Box Elder Kids, LLC; C C
Open A, LLC; Guest Family Trust; individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs; Constance
F. Guest, Trustee v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation; Oxy USA,
Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC;
Anadarko Land Corporation; Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02352-CMA (D. Colo., Aug. 7, 2020).

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

Occidental Petroleum Corp is an international oil and gas
exploration and production company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs and Trustee are represented by:

          Lance F. Astrella, Esq.
          ASTRELLA LAW PC
          1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
          Denver, CO 80202-3800
          Phone: (303) 292-9021
          Fax: (303) 296-6347
          Email: lance@astrellalaw.com

               - and -

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, P.A.
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com


OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Beard Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BEARD, et al., v.
SCOTT CROW, Interim Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00310-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order certifying a Class of:

   "all individuals in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
   Corrections."

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is an agency of the state of
Oklahoma. DOC is responsible for the administration of the state
prison system. It has its headquarters in Oklahoma City, across the
street from the headquarters of the Oklahoma Department of Public
Safety.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald "Skip" Kelly, Esq.
          Two Broadway Executive Park
          205 NW 63rd, Suite 150
          Oklahoma City, OK 73116
          Telephone: (405) 235-1976
          Facsimile: (405) 286-6316

               - and -

          K. Hampton, Esq.
          Debra K. Hampton, Esq.
          HAMPTON LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          3126 S. Blvd., No. 304
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 250-0966
          Facsimile: (866) 251-4898
          E-mail: hamptonlaw@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jon Williford, Esq.
          Jackie Zamarripa, Esq.
          OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL' OFFICE
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          E-mail: jackie.zamarripa@oag.ok.gov
                  jon.williford@oag.ok.gov

ORACLE AMERICA: Plaintiffs Win Judgment in Plan Coverage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned ANDREW C. AND ROBERT C., Plaintiffs,
v. ORACLE AMERICA INC. FLEXIBLE BENEFIT PLAN, UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al., Defendants. Case No. 17-CV-2072-YGR.
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Andrew C. was 16 years old when he was admitted for
residential mental health treatment at Change Academy Lake of the
Ozarks (CALO). Andrew remained at CALO for a little over one year,
from January 29, 2014 through February 20, 2015. Robert C.,
Andrew's father and a participant in the Plan, made a claim for
benefits for Andrew's treatment at CALO. Ultimately, after several
appeals, UHC denied benefits for all but the first 30 days of
treatment at CALO, giving rise to the action.

Plaintiffs moved for judgment pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on plaintiffs' claim for health benefits.

Mental Health Professionals' Opinions

The vast majority of the mental health professionals who actually
examined or treated Andrew found that his symptoms required
inpatient residential treatment. Andrew's regular therapist, who
had been treating him and his family since August of 2012, opined
that the escalation of Andrew's rage in his interactions with his
family made the dynamic at home unsafe, and that Andrew needed
residential treatment to gain greater self-control before he
returned home.  

Montgomery, his psychiatrist, recommended residential treatment
again based on Andrew's aggression and lack of insight into his
behavior. Likewise, the opinions of the professionals who treated
Andrew at CALO, and who evaluated him after his stay there, found
that he needed residential treatment to reduce his reactivity and
develop the tools to manage his rage in a healthier way.  

In sum, these opinions all support a conclusion that Andrew's
condition at the time of his treatment at CALO resulted in behavior
that cannot be safely managed in a less restrictive setting as set
forth in the ODD criteria for residential treatment. Courts
generally give greater weight to doctors who have examined the
claimant versus those who only review the file.

UHC Reviewers' Opinion

UHC's internal and external reviewers all determined that Andrew
was not entitled to benefits for the treatment period at issue
because the Plan did not cover custodial care. For the reasons
stated, the Court finds that the UHC reviewers' opinions -- that
Andrew was in need of custodial care -- are entitled to very little
weight.

While the Court is not required to give any particular weight to
the opinions of medical professionals who treated or personally
evaluated the claimant, neither should it give deciding weight to
the opinions of a plan's reviewers who arbitrarily refuse to credit
a claimant's reliable evidence, including the opinions of a
treating physician.

According to the Court, although UHC's internal reviewers purport
to have considered the medical records, therapy notes, and
treatment plans from CALO, their decisions only minimally
acknowledge the contents of those records. CALO's records indicate
that, after his first 30 days in the program, Andrew consistently
participated in individual, family, and group therapy, conducted by
a licensed professional, multiple times per week. The records show
a decrease in frequency of Andrew's aggressive or violent conduct
and an increase in his engagement in therapy, none of which the
internal reviewers acknowledge. The record does not support a
conclusion that Andrew's condition was unchanging and not likely to
improve with treatment.

Dispute on Plan Coverage

In their briefing, defendants argue that the real question before
the Court is whether the care Andrew received at CALO was custodial
and therefore not covered by the Plan. They contend that Andrew's
weekly individual and family therapy sessions and his weekly group
therapy sessions were all conducted by a licensed professional
counselor and the vast majority of Andrew's interactions with staff
members at CALO were with staff members who were not licensed
mental health professionals.

According to the Court, none of these arguments was the basis the
Plan provided for its denial of benefits. The Plan's reviewers
found that Andrew was in need of custodial care, not that the
program offered by CALO was not covered or was merely custodial.
Custodial Care is not defined in the Plan itself. The general 2015
LOC Guidelines describe custodial care as assistance in activities
of daily living, such as feeding, dressing, or bathing; services
that are not required to be performed by trained personnel; or
activities that are done for the purpose of meeting the member's
personal needs, or for maintaining the member's functioning. The
ODD Guideline does not mention nor define custodial care.

In short, the contention that UHC properly denied benefits because
CALO only provided custodial care is without merit.

The Court finds that plaintiff was entitled to coverage for the
residential treatment provided from February 28, 2014 to February
12, 2015 in the CALO program. Plaintiff's motion for judgment is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 27, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3145aSw from Leagle.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in SEPTA Suit to Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Orrstown Financial Services Inc., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled SEPTA v. Orrstown
Financial Services In, et al., Case No. 1-12-cv-00993, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 1,
2020, the Defendants in a class action initiated by The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) intend
to appeal a trial court ruling that granted SEPTA leave to file a
third amended complaint.

On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain current and former directors
and executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Orrstown Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January
11, 2013.

Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK
and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case
on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the
previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown
Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants.

Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule, defendants filed their
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020.
SEPTA's oppositions were due May 29, 2020, and defendants' reply
briefs were due June 19, 2020.

On February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and the underwriter
defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) asking the Court to certify its February 14, 2020
Order for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

SEPTA filed its brief in opposition on April 21, 2020. Defendants'
reply briefs were due May 11, 2020.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's third amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate
reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as SEPTA v. Orrstown Financial
Services In, et al., Case No. 20-8030, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: nick@chimicles.com
                  kimdonaldson@chimicles.com
                  benjohns@chimicles.com
                  timothyMathews@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS
          222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500
          E-mail: tiffanycramer@chimicles.com

Defendants-Petitioners ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC, ORRSTOWN
BANK, ANTHONY F. CEDDIA, JEFFREY W. COY, MARK K. KELLER, ANDREA
PUGH, THOMAS R. QUINN, JR., GREGORY A. ROSENBERRY, KENNETH F.
SHOEMAKER, GLENN W. SNOKE, JOHN S. WARD, JOEL R. ZULLINGER, BRADLEY
S. EVERLY, JEFFREY W EMBLY, SMITH ELLIOTT KEARNS & CO, SANDLER
O'NEILL & PARTNERS LP, and JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC are
represented by:

          David J. Creagan, Esq.
          David E. Edwards, Esq.
          Justin K. Fortescue, Esq.
          WHITE & WILLIAMS
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-7032
          E-mail: creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
                  edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com
                  fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

               - and -

          Seth L. Laver, Esq.
          Michael P. Luongo, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Ziss, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1418
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 519-6852
          E-mail: slaver@goldbergsegalla.com
                  mluongo@goldbergsegalla.com
                  jziss@goldbergsegalla.com

               - and -

          Adam D. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
          WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          E-mail: BRWilson@wlrk.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Monhait, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Weil, Esq.
          Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr., Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1650 Market Street, One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2084
          E-mail: jmonhait@cozen.com
                  twilkinson@cozen.com


PB WEST: Oregonians Set to Get Class Action Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bjorke, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports
that an Oregon consumer advocate wants the public to know the
checks are real.

More than 1 million Oregonians will receive checks in the coming
weeks for $94.42, their share of a $409 million class action
settlement to people who were improperly charged 35-cent debit fees
at Arco and ampm gas stations between Jan. 1, 2011, and Aug. 30,
2013.

Beneficiaries of the settlement are getting their checks now, and
the nonprofit Oregon Consumer Justice and state Attorney General
Ellen Rosenblum want people to know the money is not part of a
scam.

"We always encourage Oregonians to be on the lookout for scams and
to know the signs that something could be a scam. But, in this
case, the checks are real, and we want Oregonians to know they are
safe to cash this check at the bank," Rosenblum said in a news
release.

According to OCJ, 27 percent of the checks sent in the first round
of payouts were not cashed by their expiration date, and the
organization wants the recipients this time to know the money is
theirs.

The checks are a result of Scharfstein v. PB West Coast Products
LLC in 2014, which awarded damages to the gas station customers.

OCJ has set up three websites to spread information about the
checks: ThisCheckisReal.org, EsteChequeEsReal.org and
debitcardclassaction.com. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal Order Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the court's February decision
granting the company's motion to dismiss is still pending.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris
International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations,
financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of,
and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1
product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including
damages.

In November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder
class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in
the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed
in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
due to similar allegations in these proceedings.

On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its
entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.  The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims
(allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's
Platform 1 product) did not state a viable claim but allowed
plaintiffs to replead that claim by March 3, 2020.

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision. The court
extended the time for plaintiffs to replead the claim relating to
four non-clinical studies mentioned above within 30 days after the
court's decision on the motion.

Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and will continue to defend it vigorously."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Case Schedule in Grower Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the parties in the
purported class action suit entitled, n re Broiler Chicken Grower
Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS, are awaiting a case schedule.


On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition
for grower services and depress the price paid to growers.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages.

The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed
consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017. The Oklahoma
Court initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during
which it considered and granted only certain other defendants’
motions challenging jurisdiction.

Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in the Oklahoma
Court occurred on April 20, 2018. In addition, on March 12, 2018,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
Worth Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC
because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the
confirmation order relating to PPC’s bankruptcy proceedings in
2008 and 2009.

Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any
claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28,
2009. On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the Oklahoma Court of the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction.

On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court held a motion hearing and
denied the pending Rule 12 motion and lifted the stay on discovery.


A status conference was held on April 6, 2020 and a case schedule
is pending.

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

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Dates in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois has issued General Orders in
re Coronavirus ("COVID-19") Public Emergency extending all
deadlines in all civil cases.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Illinois Court") against the company (PPC) and 13 other
producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
and unfair competition laws.

The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.

Between December 8, 2017 and June 12, 2020, 39 individual direct
action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual
direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints, with four complaints including additional allegations
of fixing prices and rigging bids on small birds sold to quick
service restaurants.

The Illinois Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling
of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated.

On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed
a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following
a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Illinois Court
granted the government's motion to intervene, ordering a limited
stay first until September 27, 2019, and then, following a
subsequent request for an extension by the DOJ, to June 27, 2020.

On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection
with its investigation. PPC is currently in the process of
complying with the subpoena.

On December 18, 2019, the Illinois Court reset the date for the
lifting of the stay to March 31, 2020. On January 29, 2020, the
Illinois Court issued a scheduling order through trial, which
contemplates class certification briefing and related expert
reports proceeding from June 18, 2020 to November 25, 2020, the
close of all merits fact discovery on December 18, 2020, and
summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding
from January 15, 2021 to August 10, 2021.

The Illinois Court has set a trial date of April 4, 2022. The
Illinois Court issued General Orders in re Coronavirus ("COVID-19")
Public Emergency on March 17, 2020, March 20, 2020 and March 30,
2020, which extended all deadlines in all civil cases first 21 and
then 28 days.

Further revisions to the schedule are anticipated in the coming
weeks.

The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ in connection with
the ongoing federal antitrust investigation into alleged price
fixing and other anticompetitive conduct in the broiler chicken
industry.

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

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Hogan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the plaintiff in the
putative class action suit initiated by Patrick Hogan, has filed a
Second Amended Complaint.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of the company's
(PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with
several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken
market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal
antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the
result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting.

The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive
and seeks compensatory damages.

On April 4, 2017, the Colorado Court appointed another stockholder,
George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date
of the putative class period to November 17, 2017.

PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and
the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the
other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14,
2018, the Colorado Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants.

On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
Colorado Court's decision and for permission to file a Second
Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to
the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the
Colorado Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,
based in part on the Indictment.

PPC plans to file motions to dismiss in due course.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PINTEREST INC: Faces Copyright Infringement Suit From Harrington
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAINE HARRINGTON III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PINTEREST, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-05290 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2020) is a putative class
action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to remedy the harm that
Defendant has caused to Plaintiff and other owners of federally
registered copyrights as Defendant misused artistic works to peddle
products in a manner to which the copyright owner has never and
would never consent, in violation of the Copyright Act of the
United States, 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and the the Digital
Millennial Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 1202(b).

According to the complaint, Defendant monetizes the images "pinned"
by its users to the detriment of federally registered image owners
like Plaintiff. By providing a mechanism for people to easily "pin"
images from the Internet, including the registered copyrighted
works of people like Plaintiff, Defendant collects, stores, sorts,
manipulates, distributes, and displays the billions of images that
its users "pin."

Further, Defendant monetizes those images -- often without the
identifying source of those images and certainly without
authorization or compensation to the copyright holders of those
images -- by displaying and distributing those images to its users,
which are incorporated with targeted advertisement. The enormous
volume of images that are "pinned" by users is the data that feeds
Defendant's artificial intelligence used to generate advertisement
revenues for Defendant. The more images that are "pinned," the more
the Defendant can use those images to make its websites and app
more personalized and "sticky" to users, thereby making its paid
advertisement more effective and more valuable.

Photographers, visual artists, and other owners of federally
registered copyrights are damaged by having their images
commercialized without consent by and through Defendant. The
unauthorized use by and through Defendant negatively impacts the
value of the federally registered images, which were registered by
the owners of the images because they expressly wish to protect
their images to the fullest extent of the law.

Plaintiff is a resident of Littleton, Colorado and a renowned and
award-winning professional travel photographer.

Pinterest Inc. is an American image sharing and social media
service designed to enable saving and discovery of information on
the World Wide Web using images and, on a smaller scale, GIFs and
videos, in the form of pinboards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Sue J. Nam, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  snam@reesellp.com  

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 393-0070
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          David C. Deal, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. DEAL, P.L.C.
          P.O. Box 1042
          Crozet, VA 22932
          Telephone: (434) 233-2727

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Principal Life, a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Frederick Rozo.

On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and the company.

The company was later dismissed as a defendant.

The Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and
engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA in connection with a
general account guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed
Income Option ("PFIO").

On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts. On September 25, 2018, the district court granted
Principal Life's motion for summary judgment.

On February 3, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
that ruling and remanded the case back to the district court.

Principal Financial said, "Principal Life will continue to
aggressively defend the case."

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

Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment
managementcompany offering retirement services, insurance solutions
and asset management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa.


RAYDON CORP: Settles $60.5MM Class Action Over Stock Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Florida
defense contractor Raydon Corp. will settle a class action
challenging a $60.5 million transaction in which the company became
employee-owned through an employee stock ownership plan.

The settlement notice, filed on July 20 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, comes four months after Judge
Wendy W. Berger certified the case as a class action covering at
least 109 people.

Details of the settlement aren't yet public.

The lawsuit is led by Raydon stock plan participant Stephanie
Woznicki. [GN]


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Court Certifies Class in IPO Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In RE RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-03712-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order:

   1. certifying a class action consisting of:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Restoration Robotics, Inc. common stock in or
      traceable to Restoration's October 12, 2017 Initial Public
      Offering and who were damaged thereby, but excluding the     

      Defendants; the past and current executive officers and
      directors of Restoration, the Venture Capital Defendants,
      and the Underwriter Defendants; the legal representatives,
      parents, subsidiaries, heirs, immediate family members,
      successors and assigns of any excluded person; and any
      entity in which any Defendant(s) has or had a controlling
      equity interest";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini is:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com

RING LLC: Andrews Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ANDREWS, for Himself, as
a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. RING LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00889-RGK-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 14,
2020, for an order:

   1. certifying a class and two sub-classes:

      Class:

      "all California citizens who, during the applicable
      limitations period, purchased any Ring video doorbell or
      security camera product at a brick and mortar store in
      California where the outside box did not contain any
      language which indicated that the video recording,
      playback or snapshot features of the camera could only be
      accessed if the consumer also purchased an additional
      Protect Plan subscription for a monthly or annual fee";

      Doorbell 2 sub-class:

      "all California citizens who, during the applicable
      limitations period, purchased a "Ring Video Doorbell 2"
      product at a brick and mortar store in California"; and

      Plug-In sub-class:

      "all California citizens who, during the applicable
      limitations period, purchased a "Ring Indoor Cam Plug-In
      Security Camera" product at a brick and mortar store in
      California"; and

   2. appointing Stephen P. DeNittis of the law firm of DeNittis
      Osefchen Prince, P.C. and Daniel M. Hattis of the law firm
      of Hattis & Lukacs as co-counsel to the class and sub-
      classes.

Ring Inc provides security products. The Company offers alarms,
video doorbells, security systems, cameras, and lighting
products.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Ave NE, Ste 500
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 233-8650
          Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
          E-mial: dan@hattislaw.com
                  pkl@hattislaw.com

ROCHESTER DRUG: Meijer May Intervene in DPP Suit vs Shire et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted Meijer, Inc. and Meijer
Distribution, Inc.'s motion to intervene in the case captioned In
re INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION. (Direct Purchasers) Civil Action
No. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB (D. Mass.).

This case arises from an alleged anticompetitive agreement made
between the brand and generic manufacturers of an ADHD medication.
Defendants Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. manufacture Intuniv, the
brand-name for extended release guanfacine hydrochloride.
Defendants Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., and
Actavis LLC manufacture Intuniv's generic counterpart. DPPs allege
that they paid inflated prices for Intuniv due to Defendants'
having improperly agreeing to delay competition for both brand
Intuniv and generic Intuniv in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1-2.

On Sept. 2, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved a New
Drug Application for Shire's brand-name drug, Intuniv. A few months
later, on Dec. 29, 2009, Actavis filed an Abbreviated New Drug
Application for its proposed generic version of Intuniv. Several
other companies subsequently sought FDA approval to manufacture
their own generic alternatives to Intuniv. As the first generic
manufacturer to file an ANDA, Actavis would have enjoyed "a 180-day
period of exclusivity during which no other generic" manufacturer
could have manufactured an Intuniv alternative. During that
exclusivity period, Shire and Actavis would have been the only
manufacturers approved by the FDA for Intuniv or a generic
alternative.

Shire filed suit against Actavis pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section
335(j)(5)(B)(iii), which triggered a 30-month stay of the FDA's
approval of Actavis' ANDA for generic Intuniv. After a bench trial,
the 30-month stay of the FDA's consideration of Actavis' ANDA
expired and the FDA approved generic Intuniv.

Before the trial court could issue its opinion, however, Shire and
Actavis entered into a settlement agreement. The DPPs argue that it
appeared likely that the verdict was going to be in Actavis' favor
and that the settlement was a reverse payment agreement, which
guaranteed Actavis a 180-day exclusivity period in return for its
delaying the launch of generic Intuniv until Dec. 1, 2014.

FWK Holdings, LLC filed this action on Dec. 30, 2016, and RDC filed
similar claims on Jan. 11, 2017. The Court granted a joint motion
to consolidate the two actions. The case has proceeded in
coordination with claims originally brought on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchasers of Intuniv.

On Sept. 24, 2019, the Court granted the DPPs' motion to certify
the following class: "All persons or entities in the United States
and its territories, or subsets thereof, that purchased Intuniv
and/or generic Intuniv in any form directly from Shire or Actavis,
including any predecessor or successor of Shire or Actvais, from
Oct. 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015 (the Class)."

The Court, however, dismissed FWK as a class representative after
finding that the relationship between FWK and class counsel was too
entangled. The Court had reservations about RDC's adequacy as a
class representative given that it had entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement and settled civil claims with the United
States in connection with failures to report suspicious opioid
purchases, but ultimately agreed that it could serve as class
representative. As the case progressed, the parties filed a number
of evidentiary motions, as well as motions for summary judgment,
which remain pending.

On March 12, 2020, RDC filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New
York. Defendants moved to decertify the DPP class, in light of
RDC's bankruptcy. The Court granted the motion in part and found
that RDC could no longer adequately represent the interests of
absent class members due to a conflict of interests arising from
its bankruptcy. The Court declined to decertify the class, however,
and allowed motions to intervene.

Meijer is a pharmacy retailer headquartered in Michigan. As a
member of the DPP class, it received notice of the class action on
Jan. 24, 2020. Meijer claims to have "purchased many millions of
dollars of brand and generic Intuniv throughout the class period."
Additionally, it holds a long-standing agreement for assignment of
direct-purchaser claims for brand Intuniv from Frank W. Kerr Co.
Meijer has prepared a complaint in intervention, which is nearly
identical to the second amended complaint, but adds Meijer as a
class representative.

Meijer filed its motion to intervene on June 2, 2020, and
Defendants opposed. On July 8, 2020, the Court found that RDC could
no longer adequately represent the DPP class due to its bankruptcy
and informed the parties that it would consider the pending motion
to intervene. The following day, the Defendants filed a non-motion
letter in which they reiterated arguments made in their opposition
to the motion to intervene. With leave of the Court, Meijer replied
in support of its motion on July 10, 2020.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow intervention of right
and permissive intervention. Rule 24(a) addresses "intervention of
right" and states that, upon a "timely application," the Court
"must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest
relating to the . . . transaction that is the subject of the
action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest." A party may intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) if that party
meets the following four requirements:

First, the application must be timely. Second, the applicant must
claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is
the subject of the action. Third, the applicant must be so situated
that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair
or impede [its] ability to protect that interest. Fourth, the
applicant must show that [its] interest will not be adequately
represented by existing parties.

In one of their arguments, Defendants contend that Meijer will not
be prejudiced if it is not permitted to intervene in this action,
because it could pursue its individual claims in a separate action.
As Meijer notes, this case was certified to proceed as a class
action because the value of an individual judgment would likely be
insufficient to justify the costs of bringing the claim. Defendants
maintain that, even if the costs of bringing a separate action
would be prohibitive, Meijer and other absent class plaintiffs
could proceed by joinder. The Court has already found, however,
that joinder would be impracticable in this case.

Judge Jones states that Meijer would undoubtedly be substantially
prejudiced if it were not allowed to intervene in this action and
the class was decertified. The Court, therefore, finds that the
balance of prejudices favors allowing Meijer to intervene.

The circumstances of this case provide further support for Meijer's
intervention, according to Judge Jones. If the Court were to deny
the motion to intervene, there would be no other proposed class
representative and the class would need to be decertified. It is
obviously in the interest of all of the absent class members that a
class member be permitted to intervene as a plaintiff.

Meijer filed its motion to intervene shortly after it became
apparent that RDC might no longer be able to adequately represent
Meijer's interests, and the interests of other class members.
Though Defendants may be prejudiced by having to address Meijer's
adequacy as a potential class representative, such prejudice is
minimal when compared to the potential prejudice to Meijer and
absent class plaintiffs who would otherwise have no adequate
alternative remedy, Judge Jones says.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 24, 2020 is
available at https://bit.ly/3fCpjmp from Leagle.com.

Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc., is an independently owned New
York cooperative corporation formed in 1905 and incorporated in
1948 with a principal office and place of business located at 50
Jet View Drive, Rochester, New York 14624.  Its principal business
is to warehouse, merchandise, and then distribute, on a cooperative
basis, drugs, pharmaceutical supplies, medical equipment and other
merchandise commonly sold in drug stores, pharmacies, health and
beauty stores, and durable medical equipment business.  It is a
wholesale regional drug cooperative that operates as both a buying
cooperative and a traditional drug distribution company created for
the purpose of helping independent pharmacies compete in the
current healthcare environment.

Rochester Drug Cooperative sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr.
W.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-20230) on March 12, 2020, for the purpose of
winding-down the Debtor's operations and liquidating its assets.
The Debtor was estimated to have $50 million to $100 million in
assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities.


SAMSUNG: Averts Class Action Over Fire-Prone Galaxy Note 7 Phones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that a Seoul court ruled in favor of Samsung
Electronics Co. in a class action suit filed by more than 500
consumers over battery explosions of the tech giant's ill-fated
Galaxy Note 7 smartphones released in 2016.

The Seoul Central District Court said it rejected the indemnity
claim by some 520 consumers, who argued they experienced
psychological damage due to the explosions of Galaxy Note 7
batteries.

The ruling is in line with a similar verdict issued by the Supreme
Court in May, which concluded the plaintiffs' anxiety and fear felt
prior to the recall of Galaxy Note 7 handsets did not amount to
mental damage warranting legal compensation.

The Samsung smartphone model, released in August 2016, drew fierce
criticism globally due to reports of handsets catching fire while
being charged. In September of the same year, Samsung announced a
global recall of Galaxy Note 7 after admitting that the fires were
caused by faulty battery cells.

The plaintiffs in the latest class action suit, including lawyer Ko
Young-yeel, demanded compensation of 500,000 won (US$418) per
person for the psychological damage they suffered from the faulty
batteries.

Ko said Galaxy Note 7 owners who didn't agree to the company's
recall offers could not receive repairs or other services while
some of them had to exchange their phones or get a refund against
their will, which are infringements of consumer rights. [GN]


SAN JOSE, CA: Police Faces Transgender Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Salonga, writing for Mercury News, reports that a woman is
suing San Jose police in federal court on the allegation that she
was targeted, arrested, and jailed because officers took her
transgender status to mean she was a sex worker.

Roxanne filed the discrimination lawsuit July 8, a day shy of the
one-year anniversary of her July 9, 2019 arrest near her home on
Second Street south of downtown San Jose. She is being represented
by Bruce Nickerson, a prominent LGBTQ-rights attorney who is
pursuing class-action status for the suit.

It's a similar tack to when Nickerson successfully sued San Jose
police over undercover decoy stings at Columbus Park that he argued
unlawfully targeted gay men. In that case, he did not attain
class-action status, but the litigation helped prompt SJPD to end
the practice, similar to other California cities that were running
the stings.

Roxanne, a 63-year-old UC Hastings-educated attorney, said she has
been subject of regular encounters with police due largely to being
transgender.

"The jailing was new, but the harassment is routine," she said in
an interview with this news organization. "A lot of our community
faces the same thing, and we need to stand together and stop this.
You shouldn't be harassed just on your appearance. Trans women are
lightning rods because we stand out so much."

Nickerson said the lawsuit has taken on more gravity in light of
the U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that LGBTQ people are
covered by federal Title VII protections against workplace
discrimination and harassment.

"I took this case because it had a great deal of justification,"
Nickerson said. "I fought their decoy operations for years, and we
stopped their decoy enforcement. I think this can be successful."

San Jose police declined to comment on the lawsuit on account of it
being pending litigation. But in a statement, the department
defended its enforcement in the area where Roxanne lives.

"Mothers along the Monterey corridor continue to ask for the police
department for help with the chronic issues of crime that have long
impacted families, schools, and businesses in this area," the
statement reads. "Our efforts there are in response to our
community demanding a safer neighborhood, and we are making a big
difference. Street prostitution and other crimes bring a
disproportional amount of harmful activity to this neighborhood
from different areas and other cities."

The statement also sought to outline SJPD's bona fides in embracing
LGBTQ people, including being among the first police agencies to
fly a rainbow flag at headquarters during Pride month, promoting
LGBTQ recruitment, and backing 2018 legislation compelling
statewide LGBTQ awareness training for police and emergency
dispatchers.

Roxanne said she had gotten home after a trip to San Francisco just
before midnight on July 9, 2019 with a transgender friend and the
two parted ways. Roxanne said she changed and went for a walk, and
as she got back to her home, she noticed a vehicle park across the
street.

Out of fear she was being followed, she said she didn't go to her
home, but instead to a neighbor's yard, and then a laundromat. When
the vehicle left, she said she walked back to her home but before
she could get there, an SUV raced toward her.

Roxanne said she was called over to the vehicle, and was told she
was under arrest.

"What for?" she recalls asking in the lawsuit, to which the officer
responded, "You know."

In an interview, she said, "They do this coy discussion. They say
there's lots of prostitution in the area, but they don't come out
and say you're a damn prostitute. They do it by their actions and
how they treat you."

Roxanne said officers "laughed and ridiculed" her after she told
them she was right by her home. She added that they refused let her
lock up the residence before she was placed in a police vehicle and
taken to the Santa Clara County jail, where she was booked on
suspicion of loitering with intent to engage in prostitution.

In jail, Roxanne said her request to be held with other transgender
women was denied, and she was booked as a man. She also contends
she was forced to be barefoot in a filthy cell, and that jail staff
ridiculed her. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, which
operates the county jails, declined to comment for this story.

Roxanne said she was released the next morning, and discovered that
her friend had also been arrested in what appeared to be a
prostitution enforcement sweep. They had to walk home from jail.
More than a year later, no criminal charge has been filed against
her, according to court records.

She says she filed the suit to continue a fight she has kept up for
most of her life.

"You don't see trans women out in public because of hate we face.
Every day we walk out the front door, I call it the waterfall of
hate," Roxanne said. "I feel like I have got no choice. I've been
an advocate for my community since the late 1970s, and I'll fight
for my community for as long as I can." [GN]


SETSCHEDULE INC: Asks Court to Deny Bennett Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BENNETT, v. SETSCHEDULE,
INC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00422-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will
move the Court on Aug. 24, 2020, for an order denying class
certification.

The Defendant contends that it did not call the Plaintiff. It does
not have any knowledge of or record of ever calling the Plaintiff.
It did not even ever have control over or utilize the phone number
that the Plaintiff alleges it called him from.

Accordingly, the Defendant filed a pre-emptive motion to deny class
certification because the facts make clear that a class cannot be
certified.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant asserting a
single claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
on behalf of himself.  He seeks to represent a putative class
defined as all persons that were similarly situated in that they
were called by the Defendant purportedly using an auto-dialer
without adequate legal prior consent.

SetSchedule develops and markets a customer relationship management
software tool for the real estate industry.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen D. Weisskopf, Esq.
          LEVATOLAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 420
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 734-2026
          E-mail: sweisskpf@levatolaw.com

SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: May Compel Arbitration in Carman Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANASTASIA CARMAN, Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00087-JHM (W.D.
Ky.), Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, (i) granted
the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration, and
(ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff Carman as a Registered Nurse on Jan.
4, 2019.  Carman was assigned to work at Riverside Care and
Rehabilitation Center.  During the onboarding process, the
Defendants sent Carman an email on Jan. 3, 2019 that included a
link to the onboarding documents that she needed to review and
execute.  Carman had a unique login and password that only she
knew.  To electronically sign the documents, Carman had to click a
screen that asked her specifically whether she wanted to sign.  She
completed and signed the various onboarding documents including an
arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement also included a
waiver of class and collective claims.  It also includes a
delegation clause.

Later, Carman sued the Defendants alleging six claims: (1) Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") nonpayment of overtime on behalf of a
class, (2) Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") nonpayment of wages
on behalf of a class, (3) FLSA nonpayment of overtime on behalf of
the Plaintiff individually, (4) KWHA nonpayment of overtime on
behalf of the Plaintiff individually, (5) KWHA nonpayment of wages
regarding a signing bonus on behalf of the Plaintiff individually,
and (6) declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff does not have to
pay signing bonus back.

Additionally, after filing suit, Carman moved for discovery about
the timing and procedure around Carman electronically signing the
arbitration agreement.  The Court granted discovery on this issue.

The Defendants now seek to compel arbitration and request
attorney's fees for Carman "misrepresenting" how she onboarded
regarding the requested discovery.

After considering Carman's specific challenges to the delegation
clause, Judge McKinley finds that the delegation clause is a clear
and unmistakable agreement for the arbitrator to decide all aspects
of the arbitration.  When there is a valid delegation clause, a
court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue.  As
such, Carman's challenges about the arbitration agreement are
issues that should be submitted to the arbitrator based on the
delegation provision of the agreement to arbitrate.

Carman also asserts that the Defendants waived their right to
compel arbitration when the Defendants invoked the jurisdiction of
the Court by filing a motion to dismiss requesting that the Court
(and not any arbitrator) dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendants Signature HealthCARE, LLC and LP Calhoun, LLC.

Contrary to Carman's assertion, the Defendants' motion to dismiss
is not inconsistent with its right to arbitration.  The Defendants'
motion simply pointed out that Carman sued some parties that should
not have been sued as only one of the named parties was Carman's
actual employer.  The Defendants did not seek a decision on the
merits. They have not waived the right to compel arbitration.

The Defendants argue that because Carman unreasonably multiplied
these proceedings to the detriment of the Court and the Signature
Defendants, the Court should award the Signature Defendants their
reasonable attorney fees caused by Carman's misrepresentation of
the onboarding process.

It appears that Carman simply sought discovery, among other things,
about the timing and procedure of having Carman electronically sign
the arbitration agreement.  Judge McKinley, hence, finds the
conduct of Carman's attorney does not warrant such an extreme
action.

Based on the foregoing, Judge McKinley granted the Defendants'
Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration, and denied their Motion for
Attorney's Fees. A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2020
Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/ysz1YE
from Leagle.com.

SIX FLAGS: Defending Class Suits Over Refunds
---------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company or
one of its subsidiaries continues to defend purported class action
suits seeking refund for passes.

Since COVID-19 began affecting the operations of the company's
parks in mid-March 2020, three similar purported class action
complaints were filed against the company (Holdings) or one of its
subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 10, 2020, April 13, 2020, and April
21, 2020.

These complaints allege that the company, in violation of
California law, charged members and season passholders while the
parks were closed and did not provide refunds for the amounts
charged.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and unspecified injunctive relief.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
these lawsuits. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and we have accrued our best
estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our
consolidated financial statements."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Discovery Kingdom Employees' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Magic Mountain
LLC, continues to defend purported class action suits in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, initiated by
current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.

On September 18, 2019, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain
LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on
behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six
Flags Discovery Kingdom.

An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2019.

On May 27, 2020, a copycat complaint was filed by the same law firm
on behalf of a different named plaintiff alleging identical causes
of action. The complaints allege violations of California law
governing payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks,
and seeks statutory damages under California law as well as under
the Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys fees costs.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of
loss or range of loss cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.)

In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the company (Holdings) and certain of its former
executive officers (collectively, the "defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D.
Tex.) (the "Electrical Workers litigation"), and an amended
complaint was filed on March 20, 2020.

On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was
appointed as liaison counsel.

On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth
prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six
Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its
partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the
federal securities laws.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other
relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings'
publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24,
2018 and February 19, 2020.

Six Flags said, "We believe that these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend this litigation vigorously. However, there can
be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Magic Mountain Employees' Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Magic Mountain,
LLC continues to defend a purported class action initiated by
current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain.

On February 14, 2020, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain,
LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on
behalf of purported class of current and former employees of Six
Flags Magic Mountain.

The complaint alleges one cause of action for failure to furnish
accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California
labor law, and seeks all applicable statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and we have accrued our best
estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our
consolidated financial statements."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Corp. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Park Management
Corp. continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated
by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.

On February 20, 2020, a complaint was filed against Park Management
Corp. in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf
of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags
Discovery Kingdom. The complaint alleges violations of California
law governing payment of wages, wage statements, and background
checks, and seeks statutory damages under California law and
attorneys fees costs.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of
loss or range of loss cannot be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Hughes Suit with Prejudice Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN HUGHES, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 19-3001 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim and because the contract
barred the claimed damages.

Hughes bought a Southwest Airlines ticket to fly him from Phoenix
to Chicago on Feb. 11, 2018.  Shortly before the scheduled boarding
time, Southwest cancelled the flight and informed Hughes it might
be several days before it could reschedule his flight.  Hughes
asserts that Southwest cancelled his flight because it ran out of
de-icing fluid in Chicago, leading the airline to cancel hundreds
of flights out of and into Midway Airport.  According to Hughes, no
other airline had a similar issue that day.  Hughes eventually
decided to fly to Omaha, spend the night at a hotel there, and
proceed to Chicago the next day, incurring consequential damages
for the costs of lodging and the like.

Hughes brought a purported class action against Southwest, alleging
breach of contract and negligence.  He argued that his ticket
obligated Southwest to timely transport him to his destination, and
the airline's failure to maintain a sufficient supply of de-icer
entitled him to damages.

The district court dismissed the negligence claim with prejudice
and Hughes did not appeal.  The court dismissed the
breach-of-contract claim without prejudice.  Hughes amended his
complaint, which the court subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
Hughes timely appealed the dismissal of his contract claim.

Hughes argues that under Contract Section 4 he was entitled to
transportation and that Southwest breached the Contract by failing
to keep sufficient de-icer on hand, thus forcing him to incur
damages (such as lodging in Omaha) in his attempt to reach Chicago
sooner rather than wait days for an alternate flight.  The district
court concluded that the Contract did not require, explicitly or
implicitly, Southwest to maintain sufficient reserves of de-icer,
and that imposing such a requirement would constitute an
impermissible implied term.

The Seventh Circuit agrees.  

Judge Joel Flaum, writing for the Seventh Circuit, held that the
complaint reflects that Southwest told Hughes it could fly him
directly to Chicago in several days, but also offered him an
earlier flight connecting in Omaha, which he accepted.  Faced with
the fact that the cancellation of the flight itself was not a
breach, Hughes argues that Southwest breached an implied Contract
term: maintaining sufficient deicer to avoid flight cancellations.


The district court was correct to reject this argument for two
reasons.  First, having determined that Southwest did not breach
the Contract by cancelling a scheduled flight, it would be strange
to hold that the circumstances underlying the cancellation somehow
constituted a breach of an unstated contractual duty.  It is the
cancellation that is the salient fact for the passenger.  Second,
to read in such an implied duty would violate Texas law regarding
contracts.

Because Southwest fulfilled its duties under the Contract by
offering Hughes a later flight or a refund, the district court
appropriately held that Hughes failed to state a claim for breach
of contract.  Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court in an order entered June 10, 2020, a
full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/AUibhY from
Leagle.com.

STARBUCKS CORP: Willis Class Suit Deal Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has granted
final approval to a settlement agreement in the class action Kevin
Wills and Jonathan Santiago Rosario v. Starbucks Corporation, Case
1:17-cv-03654-CAP.

Plaintiffs Wills and Rosario had asserted in separate class action
complaints that Starbucks allegedly systematically violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to give job applicants
timely notice that consumer credit reports may be used against them
in the hiring process. As a result of these two class actions,
Starbucks has made substantial changes to its background screening
procedures. The modifications should ensure that prospective
employees will have a reasonable amount of time to dispute
information in their background check.

"Innocent consumers should not be denied jobs or timely employment
due to potential inaccuracies in their background checks," said
John Soumilas, partner with Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. and lead
counsel in this litigation. "This settlement will prevent future
Starbucks job applicants from enduring the injustice of immediate
termination without the chance to correct errors and save their job
opportunity. Cases like this foster transparency and promote
fairness in the hiring process, which is increasingly dependent
upon background screening."

Also, as part of the settlement, Starbucks promised to comply with
the FCRA going forward. Equally important, the settlement provides
tangible benefits for approximately 8,000 former Starbucks job
candidates who were allegedly not timely provided with copies of
their background check reports and a summary of their rights under
the FCRA as required by law. The settlement compensation per class
member varies depending on the circumstances, from an $125 gift
card to $840 in cash plus the gift card. The settlement class
includes all persons who applied for employment with Starbucks
between December 21, 2011 through and including September 19, 2017,
who were the subject of a consumer report that was allegedly used
by Starbucks to take an adverse employment action against them.
Attorneys John Soumilas, David A. Searles, and Jordan M. Sartell of
Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. worked with co-counsel from the
firms Skaar & Feagle, LLP and O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora,
Co., LPA on the case.

                  About Francis Mailman Soumilas

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C.--http://www.consumerlawfirm.com--is
one of the nation's premier consumer rights firms. The firm has
obtained top verdicts and settlements, ground-breaking legal
rulings and class certification in countless important consumer
rights cases. The firm represents consumers subjected to unfair
credit reporting, debt collection, robo-calling, and employment and
tenant screening, as well as general consumer fraud and deceptive
practice matters. [GN]


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland over its 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action.

T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is
vigorously defending the action.

T. Rowe said, "This matter is in the expert discovery phase of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is
afinancial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. T&D CUSTOM FENCES AND DECKS, LLC and TIMMY WELLS, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00144-BO (E.D.N.C., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees from the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours
per week, the Defendants altered the Plaintiff's paystubs to
reflect no overtime wages. The Plaintiff's paystubs consistently
reflected a flat fee pay equal to the product of the Plaintiff's
hours that week multiplied by his regular hourly wage. The
Defendants willfully and wantonly failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required statutory overtime pay for every hour worked over 40 hours
per week. The Plaintiff's paystubs did not reflect every hour
worked.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him the
required statutory minimum wage for every hour worked. He also says
that he never agreed to any deductions from his wages, and the
Defendants never provided him with any notice that his wages were
going to be deducted. The Defendants' deductions violated the FLSA
and the NCWHA because the Plaintiff was not paid at least the
minimum wage for the hours worked or paid as promised, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2010 to 2020 as a
general laborer and project supervisor.

T&D Custom Fences and Decks, LLC, is a North Carolina corporation,
which operates a construction company focused primarily on the
installation of fencing and decks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNERLAW, PLLC
          1213 Culbreth Drive, Suite 426
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Phone: (910) 218-8268
          Fax: (980) 206-0286
          Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


TONY MCCOY: Road Runner Petitions to Vacate Partial Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCoy. The case is
styled as Road Runner Sports, Inc., Petitioner v. Tony McCoy,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, Case No. 3:20-cv-01539-W-KSC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 7,
2020).

The Plaintiff files with the Court a Petition to Vacate Partial
Arbitration Award.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Arbitration for the
U.S. Arbitration Act.

Sir Anthony Peter McCoy OBE (born 4 May 1974), commonly known as AP
McCoy or Tony McCoy, is a Northern Irish former horse racing
jockey.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Aaron Alan Buckley, Esq.
          PAUL PLEVIN SULLIVAN AND CONNAUGHTON
          101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101-4232
          Phone: (619) 237-5200
          Email: abuckley@paulplevin.com


TRUGREEN INC: Expert Discovery Ruling in "Stevens-Bratton" Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KASIE STEVENS-BRATTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUGREEN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-2472 (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Samuel H.
Mays, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Order
Granting Motion to Conduct Expert Discovery.

Stevens-Bratton filed the putative class action against TruGreen,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). She alleges, inter alia, that TruGreen called her
cellular telephone several times without her permission using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), a violation of 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A).  

In October 2017, TruGreen filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing, in part, that its telephone dialing system is not an ATDS.
Stevens-Bratton opposed summary judgment, arguing, inter alia,
that she had not had a sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery
about the features of TruGreen's telephone dialing system and that
she needed an opportunity for her expert to review information
obtained in discovery.

About three weeks after TruGreen filed its motion for summary
judgment, the Court entered a scheduling order setting merits
(non-expert) discovery to be completed by July 31, 2018.  It
expressly reserved the parties' opportunity to conduct expert
discovery.  July 31, 2018 came and went.  The parties did not
request further discovery because they were waiting for the Court's
decision on TruGreen's motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 4, 2020, the Court granted in part, and denied in part,
TruGreen's motion for summary judgment.  Addressing TruGreen's ATDS
arguments, the Court found that Stevens-Bratton had not yet had a
substantive chance to procure any discovery responses, deposition
testimony, or expert testimony. It ssaid that the parties have had
the opportunity for further discovery.  They can now address
summary judgment on Stevens-Bratton's ATDS claims with the benefit
of an adequate record.

On Feb. 14, 2020, the Court held a status conference at which
Stevens-Bratton asserted the need to conduct expert discovery.
Stevens-Bratton subsequently filed a motion to conduct expert
discovery, which the Court referred to the Magistrate Judge.  On
April 9, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted Stevens-Bratton's
motion to conduct expert discovery.  

The Magistrate Judge found that courts often admit expert testimony
about the technical features of purported ATDSs.  The court cannot
conclude any expert testimony Stevens-Bratton may develop would be
so clearly inadmissible as to bar discovery.  Expert discovery may
well be helpful in identifying the technical features of Trugreen's
call system and allowing the parties to develop their arguments
about whether Trugreen's system qualifies as an ATDS.  Though it
would perhaps have been better practice to move to conduct expert
discovery earlier, given this context, Stevens-Bratton's delay was
not so egregious as to constitute a waiver.

On April 23, 2020, TruGreen timely objected to the Magistrate
Judge's order.  TruGreen argues that the Magistrate Judge acted
contrary to law when he decided that: (1) expert discovery is
necessary or helpful to resolve another round of summary judgment;
and (2) Stevens-Bratton did not waive her opportunity to take
expert discovery.

Judge Mays holds that TruGreen's argument fails for two reasons.
First, the proposition that courts sometimes grant summary judgment
on the ATDS issue without expert testimony is not equivalent to the
proposition that expert testimony is barred in determining whether
a specific telephony dialing system can function as an ATDS.
Second, although there may be legal authority to support TruGreen's
argument, report and recommendation adopted, there is legal
authority to support the Magistrate Judge's conclusion.  The
Magistrate Judge's order is not contrary to law for failing to
follow non-binding precedent.

TruGreen argues that the Magistrate Judge acted contrary to law
when he concluded that Stevens-Bratton had not waived her request
for expert discovery.  Whether a party has waived an opportunity is
a legal question.

Judge Mays finds that the context of the litigation does not
support a conclusion that Stevens-Bratton intentionally, clearly,
unequivocaly, and decisively abandoned her opportunity to conduct
expert discovery.

The Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that Stevens-Bratton
did not waive her opportunity to conduct expert discovery, rules
Judge Mays.  In reaching his decision that Stevens-Bratton had not
waived her opportunity to conduct expert discovery, the Magistrate
Judge said that Stevens-Bratton moved for expert discovery promptly
after the court's ruling on the first summary judgment motion, and
that given this context, her delay was not so egregious as to
constitute a waiver.  TruGreen argues that the Magistrate Judge
erred in finding that Stevens-Bratton had moved for expert
discovery promptly because Stevens-Bratton made the strategic
decision to wait 19 months to request expert discovery, which is
not prompt.  A brief review of the timing in the case establishes
the "context" to which the Magistrate Judge referred.

Judge Mays concludes that TruGreen fails to establish that the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions were contrary to law.  In its
objection to the Magistrate Judge's order, TruGreen makes many of
the arguments it made to the Magistrate Judge.  TruGreen is not
entitled to a different result simply because it disagrees with the
Magistrate Judge's ultimate conclusion. Accordingly, Judge Mays, in
a ruling entered June 10, 2020, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/Bgl1aD from Leagle.com, overruled
TruGreen's objections, and affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Face Aussie Tax Drivers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that Uber has lost a bid to have a class
action against it from thousands of Australian taxi drivers thrown
out of court.

Legal firm Maurice Blackburn is behind the class action, which is
seeking damages for loss of income to taxi, hire car and limousine
drivers after UberX began operating in Australia.

It alleges UberX is "unlawful" and has not been operating under the
regulations, accreditation procedures and licence fees that apply
to taxi drivers.

More than 6000 taxi and other drivers are involved in the class
action, with a lead plaintiff in Victorian taxi driver Nicos
Andianakis.

The rideshare giant argued in the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal
that a class action could not be brought against it in Victoria
because it was an international company.

But Justices Richard Niall, Kim Hargrave and Karin Emerton on July
21 rejected its bid to have the case thrown out.

Uber claimed there were five reasons the class action should be
thrown out, all of which were rejected by the Court of Appeal.
[GN]



UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks to Delay Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Duncan, writing for Spectrum News1, reports that faculty
and staff at the University of North Carolina System's 16 campuses
are preparing a class-action lawsuit to delay in-person classes
this fall.

As North Carolina continues to record more than 1,500 new confirmed
cases of the coronavirus each day, the UNC system is preparing to
reopen for the fall semester. While many classes are moving online
or will have some combination of virtual and in-person instruction,
many are worried the reopened campuses could become new hotspots
for the pandemic.

Faculty and staff, concerned about reopening North Carolina's
public universities, are preparing a class-action lawsuit. A lawyer
for the UNC employees says there is no way the universities can
guarantee they'll be safe when students return to campus.

In fact, attorney Gary Shipman said, "it is certain" that
university employees will get the virus. Statistically, he said, it
is likely that some staff and faculty could get very sick or even
die from COVID-19.

"As each day goes by," he said, "those risks increase instead of
decrease."

Shipman said the lawsuit will ask for an injunction to delay
reopening the public universities to in-person instruction until
the schools can make a plan that will assure employee safety.

On July 28, Shipman's Wilmington-based law firm asked the North
Carolina Department of Labor to "request the UNC system to suspend
bringing students back to campus."

The current plans, which differ over the 16 university campuses, do
not comply with state law, Shipman argues. He said the universities
have a duty to protect their employees from risks like the
coronavirus pandemic, but instead they are putting that duty on the
staff, faculty, and students by handing out cleaning supplies,
masks, and hand sanitizer.

He pointed to North Carolina employment law, which states, "Each
employer shall furnish to each of his employees conditions of
employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards
that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious injury or
serious physical harm to his employees."

But university administrators say they are doing everything they
can to keep people safe on campus.

"The UNC System is prioritizing the health and safety of all of our
students, faculty, and staff. We have consulted with the foremost
medical professionals and disease researchers, including at our
member institutions, and are taking the necessary precautions to
ensure our campuses are safe places to teach, study, live, and
work," UNC system spokesman Josh Ellis said in an email to Spectrum
News 1.

"No one can accurately predict what this pandemic will have in
store for us in the coming months, but our institutions will be
ready and prepared for the full range of potential impacts," he
said

What are the universities' plans?

Many classes this fall will be online, and others that require
in-person instruction will use some sort of hybrid model to meet
virtually and in the classroom. Universities are reconfiguring
classrooms, requiring masks, distributing hand sanitizer and
encouraging everyone to stay 6 feet away from one another. Students
who are living on campus, including many first-year students, will
begin moving into dorms in early August.

At UNC Chapel Hill, students, staff and faculty will get welcome
packages with face masks and hand sanitizer. UNC Wilmington
students will get two cloth masks when they show up on campus. At
UNC Charlotte, administrators decided to delay starting the
semester until Sept. 7.

Each campus is using a slightly different approach as
administrators work to reopen.

The UNC Board of Governors, the governing body for the university
system, instructed campuses to reopen for the fall semester.

Speaking to the Board of Governor, UNC infectious disease
specialist Dr. David Weber said that cases of the coronavirus were
rising dramatically in 18- to 22-year-olds . He said that increase
was because businesses started to reopen and people were not social
distancing, leading to a spread in the virus.

But, Weber told the board, it is possible to reopen campuses safely
as long as everybody can keep that six-feet of distance, wear face
masks, wash their hands frequently and disinfect surfaces.

UNC Wilmington creative writing professor Wendy Brenner said she
plans to teach her big intro class with 120 students all online,
but will still have to be on campus some to work with her graduate
students.

She said teaching 120 students over Zoom with be "a special kind of
challenge" and wants to get back in front of her students as soon
as possible. "Everybody is trying to figure out how to do this
safely, but the answer is ‘you can't,'" she said.

What the CDC says about reopening campuses

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for
reopening colleges and universities breaks down options for
campuses based on risk. The lowest risk is to move all classes
online and keep dorms closed.

Under "more risk," the CDC says, schools can have "small in-person
classes, activities, and events. Individuals remain spaced at least
6 feet apart and do not share objects (e.g., hybrid virtual and
in-person class structures or staggered/rotated scheduling to
accommodate smaller class sizes)." The CDC says dorms should be at
reduced capacity and common areas should be closed.

The highest risk is to reopen residence halls at full capacity,
including common areas like kitchens. The highest risk in the
classroom, the CDC says, is, "Full-sized in-person classes,
activities, and events. Students are not spaced apart, share
classroom materials or supplies, and mix between classes and
activities."

UNC system school plans for teaching are between the low risk to
higher risk category, but the plans for reopening dorms falls
closer to the highest risk.

Other models to reopen universities

Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC Chapel Hill, said the
administration there is "proceeding full speed ahead" to reopen
campus. He said he was particularly concerned about the housing
plans that would put students back in dorms with little room for
social distancing.

"We can't simply sacrifice the health and safety of people in our
community," he said.

Smith pointed to the plans for University of California schools,
which allows each campus to make their own plans. UC Berkeley, for
example, is opening with fully remote instruction for the fall
semester, while also planning to allow limited in-person classes if
things improve with the coronavirus.

Other campuses, like UC San Diego, plan to have 30 percent
in-person classes in the fall, and are also reopening residence
halls but with fewer people in dorm rooms. Students will be tested
for free when they move to campus and will be screened daily for
symptoms. [GN]


VALE S.A.: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered Final Judgment in In re: Vale S.A.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 15 Civ. 09539 (GHW), Consolidated
with Case No. 16 Civ.00658 (GHW) (S.D. N.Y.).

The parties have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated Feb. 5, 2020 and amended Feb. 20, 2020, that
provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims
asserted against the Defendants in the Action on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of
the Court.

By Order dated Feb. 22, 2020, the Court: (a) found, pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(1)(B), that it (i) would likely be able to approve the
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2)
and (ii) would likely be able to certify the Settlement Class for
purposes of the Settlement; (b) ordered that notice of the proposed
Settlement be provided to potential Settlement Class Members; (c)
provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity either to
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object to the
proposed Settlement; and (d) scheduled a hearing regarding final
approval of the Settlement.

Due and adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class.

The Court conducted the Settlement Hearing on June 10, 2020.  

Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed
and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all
oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and
the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor, Judge
Woods certified for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action
as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Vale common or preferred American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") during the period from May 8, 2014 through Nov. 27, 2015,
inclusive and were damaged as a result of declines in the prices of
Vale ADRs allegedly caused by the revelation of the truth of
alleged false statements made by Vale before the collapse of the
Fundão Dam on Nov. 5, 2015 concerning the safety of its mining
operations and dams, including, in particular, various
representations concerning Vale's risk mitigation plans, policies
and procedures.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Judge appointed the
Lead Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives, and Lead Counsel
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Class Counsel.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge fully and finally approved the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects.  The
Parties are directed to implement, perform, and consummate the
Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions contained in
the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Lead Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class
Members are hereby dismissed with prejudice.  The Parties will bear
their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly
provided in the Stipulation.

Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees
and Litigation Expenses.  

There is no just reason to delay the entry of the Judgment as a
final judgment in the Action.  Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court
was expressly directed to immediately enter the final judgment in
the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2020 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/rTNAeW from Leagle.com.


VALE S.A.: Court Grants Attorneys Fees & Costs in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15
Civ. 09539 (GHW), Consolidated with Case No. 16 Civ. 00658 (GHW)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Lead Counsel's motion
for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses.

The matter came on for the Settlement Hearing on June 10, 2020 on
the Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses.  

In an order dated June 10, 2020 Order, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/mtS7fx from Leagle.com, Judge Woods
awarded the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of 17% of
the Settlement Fund, net of Litigation Expenses awarded, and
$1,811,120.54 in payment of the Lead Counsel's litigation expenses
(which fees and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund).

Lead Plaintiff Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association is
awarded $9,360.90 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its
representation of the Settlement Class.

Lead Plaintiff Orange County Employees Retirement System is awarded
$14,783.45 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its
representation of the Settlement Class.

WALMART INC: Sulzer Sues Over False Labeling of Coffee Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Sulzer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-01536-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their
Great Value brand ground coffee products, in violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law.

This case revolves around an allegedly straightforward and systemic
course of false, misleading, and unlawful conduct: the Company has
grossly exaggerated the number of cups of coffee that certain
varieties of Great Value ground coffee products (the "Products")
can make in order to induce consumer purchases and to charge
consumers more for these Products.

The Company 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"), according
to the complaint. However, by following the Company's own
definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain nearly
enough ground coffee to make the number of servings represented.
Indeed, the Plaintiff alleges, 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 says he 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. 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.

Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


WELLS FARGO: Green and Jacob Sue Over Unfair Forbearance Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMARA GREEN; and BRETT JACOB, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY;
and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05296
(N.D. Cal., July 31, 2020) is a class action lawsuit brought by the
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed Classes, for
damages and injunctive relief resulting from the unlawful actions
of Defendants who unilaterally and without consent opted in
unwitting clients including Plaintiffs into its COVID-19 mortgage
forbearance program.

According to the complaint, Wells Fargo earns "float" income on
unapplied funds from its mortgage servicing operations, which
accrues for the time between when consumers pay and when funds are
remitted to the loans' owners.

Wells Fargo retains all or part of certain fees it collects from
borrowers, such as late charges, and for loans owned by various
government sponsored enterprises ("GSEs"), like Ginnie Mae, Fannie
Mae, and Freddie Mac, Wells Fargo earns fees for, among other
things, filing incentive payments after loans are placed in
forbearance.

Following the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19, Congress passed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security ("CARES") Act in
order to, among many other things, provide some relief to millions
of American homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments
as a result of the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic.
The CARES Act makes it abundantly clear that participation in a
COVID-19 mortgage forbearance program is entirely voluntary; that
is, a mortgagor must be informed of the various terms and
conditions of the program and then make a conscious decision to
enter the program.

The requirement of a volitional act on the part of mortgagor
participants is intentional, as mortgage forbearance has serious
consequences including an inability to obtain additional credit
and/or to refinance any existing loans.

Plaintiffs, suffered damages, including, but not limited to, an
inability to access credit, to refinance and in dealing with the
difficult situation of removing their mortgages from a program they
did not want as Wells Fargo unilaterally and without consent opted
in unwitting clients into its COVID-19 mortgage forbearance
program.

Wells Fargo & Company is a San Francisco, California-headquartered
diversified financial services company that provides banking,
insurance, investments, mortgage banking and other products and
services to consumers, businesses and other institutions.

Wells Fargo & Company is the parent corporation of Defendant Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

YAHOO INC: Data Breach Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alaina Lancaster, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has granted final approval in a $117.5 million class action
settlement over Yahoo Inc.'s data breaches, but found that class
counsel's $30 million fee request was too high.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said that she is "convinced that the
size of the settlement fund is largely a function of the size of
the settlement class, and 'not entirely attributable to class
counsel's skill'" in an order on July 21 granting final approval of
a class action settlement over Yahoo data breaches. [GN]


ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Certifies Class in Karl Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES KARL, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, v.
ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC, a Delaware corporation, ZIMMER US,
INC., a Delaware corporation, BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana
corporation,, Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "any person who, during the period commencing June 24,
      2015, to the present, was hired or otherwise engaged as an
      independent contractor for the purposes of solicitation or
      sales of Zimmer Biomet products and/or services in
      California by Zimmer US, Inc., Biomet U.S. Reconstruction,
      LLC, and Biomet Biologics, LLC, or any one of them";

   2. appointing Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP and Scherer Smith
      & Kenny, LLP as class counsel; and

   3. directing the parties to jointly submit a proposal for
      class notification with a plan to distribute class
      notice, including by first-class mail. In crafting
      their joint proposal, the parties shall please keep
      in mind the guidelines for notice to class members
      given in the NOTICE AND ORDER RE PUTATIVE CLASS
      ACTIONS AND FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED FOR ANY PROPOSED
      CLASS SETTLEMENT.

Zimmer Biomet is a publicly traded medical device company. It was
founded in 1927 to produce aluminum splints. The firm is
headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana, where it is part of the medical
devices business cluster.[CC]


[*] Big Law Firms Play Big Role in Bringing Racial Justice
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Penton, writing for Law360, reports that Perkins Coie, Gibson
Dunn and other BigLaw firms have jumped into racial justice battles
in recent weeks, backing organizations and individuals who assert
the Trump administration and local authorities are violating the
U.S. Constitution in their response to protests over the killings
of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Firms have dispatched scores of attorneys to work on largely pro
bono efforts, such as filing a putative class action claiming
police used excessive force in Minneapolis, obtaining an injunction
restricting Seattle police from using tear gas against peaceful
protesters, and suing the Trump administration after federal agents
forcefully cleared Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square.

While there is no shortage of attorneys who can handle individual
allegations of abuse by the police, BigLaw can play a significant
role in broader fights for racial justice, said T. Andrew Brown,
president-elect of the New York State Bar Association and founder
and managing partner of Brown Hutchinson LLP. These firms are able
to throw large numbers of attorneys at a case and devote
considerable resources toward getting the work done.

"Situations where you have to act quickly, that's often where the
ability to access greater financial resources and manpower is
particularly important," Brown said.

Perkins Coie LLP, for example, has directed several dozen partners
and associates to work on three cases related to the protests, all
on a pro bono basis, a firm spokesman said.

The firm is working together with Debevoise & Plimpton LLP to
represent Don't Shoot Portland and Wall of Moms -- two
organizations active in the protests in Oregon's largest city -- in
a lawsuit over the Trump administration's use of federal agents to
disrupt protests. The protests had been going on nightly since late
May, following Floyd's murder. The government sent federal agents
in July, contending they were needed to defend federal property.
The groups contend that the government's actions are
unconstitutional.

Perkins Coie secured a temporary injunction on behalf of Black
Lives Matter Seattle-King County in June, as a Western District of
Washington judge placed limits on how Seattle police could use tear
gas or similar chemical irritants, along with rubber bullets and
other projectiles, during peaceful protests.

The firm is also teaming up with the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Oregon on behalf of several emergency medical
technicians working independently during recent protests in Oregon.
The medical workers contend that city police and federal agents
unlawfully struck them, arrested them and otherwise injured them
with tear gas, rubber bullets and other munitions as they attempted
to tend to those injured during the protests.

Perkins Coie views its work on the cases as representative of its
commitment to racial equality and access to justice, said Leah
Medway, the firm's pro bono counsel.

"Our pro bono work on these cases reflects the firm's overall
commitment to racial equality and the importance of providing legal
representation to protect the civil rights of those who would
otherwise have limited legal options," Medway said.

Fish & Richardson LLP and the ACLU of Minnesota in late July filed
a putative class action on behalf of several individuals who claim
that Minneapolis police and Minnesota State Patrol officers used
excessive force to suppress the First Amendment rights of
individuals to protest against racial injustices

"The police in Minnesota, and throughout our country, should be
protecting and serving those who exercise their rights under these
laws, not impeding and chilling such actions," said Fish &
Richardson principal Ahmed J. Davis in a statement. "Every person
in this country should be able to peacefully protest without fear
of injury or harm, and we plan to continue fighting for these basic
constitutional and human rights."

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP is representing three individuals who
are suing the federal government after they were hit with rubber
bullets and sprayed with tear gas at Washington's Lafayette Square
as federal agents cleared the space moments before President Donald
Trump arrived to take pictures outside a church. The administration
has denied the actions were taken for a presidential photo-op.

The firm is also representing Asbury Park Press reporter Gustavo
Martinez after the journalist was arrested while covering a protest
in New Jersey in June.

The two cases are indicative of Gibson Dunn's commitment to
pursuing racial justice through the pursuit of litigation, said
Katherine Marquart -- kmarquart@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn's pro
bono counsel and director.

"We look forward to not only vindicating our clients' rights but
also to getting strong rulings from the courts that advise [the]
government that the types of aggressive, unconstitutional conduct
we've seen nationwide will not and cannot be tolerated," Marquart
said.

Like Gibson Dunn, Sidley Austin LLP is representing a journalist
who was covering a protest. The firm in June filed a suit against
Minneapolis police on behalf of Linda Tirado, who alleges she is
blind after she was shot in the face with foam bullets.

With protests expected to continue this year, BigLaw can marshal
its deep resources to achieve quick outcomes, such as temporary
injunctions restricting authorities from using certain tactics
against protesters, said Brown, the NYSBA's president elect.

"If you're seeking quicker relief, as opposed to filing an action
and waiting for it to play its way through the courts over a longer
period of time, I think BigLaw can certainly play a role in that
regard," Brown said. [GN]


[*] Canadian Insurers Sued Over Business Interruption Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Markell, Esq. -- adrianne.markell@crowesoberman.com -- of
Crowe Soberman LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in
April, Even Greenberg, CEO of Chubb Limited, told Bloomberg that
forcing insurers to pay for losses that policies do not cover or
were not priced for would damage the insurance industry.

"Pandemics, unlike other catastrophes such as a hurricane or
earthquake, are not limited by geography or time . . . The loss
potential from a pandemic, in practical terms, is infinite, and
insurance companies have only finite balance sheets," said
Greenberg.

While there is consensus that the coronavirus has caused billions
of dollars in damages as a result of the widespread shut downs
across the country, insurance companies, shareholders, and
policymakers do not see eye to eye as to who will be responsible to
fund the damages as a result of the pandemic.

In Paris, the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris ruled that insurer AXA
must pay a restaurant owner's business interruption losses after
COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health
Organization. This decision may open the door to a wave of similar
litigation in Canada because of government-mandated business
closures.

Many Canadian insurers are now facing class-action lawsuits over
pandemic-related business interruption coverage. In dispute is
whether policy interpretation excludes coverage for pandemic and
communicable disease in the specific circumstances advanced in the
claims.  A component of the dispute seems to relate to policy
terminology references with respect to standard business
interruption claims which typically require physical damage to the
insured property.

In a recent article, the question was raised whether COVID-19
constitutes "damage" to the premises and whether closures and the
associated losses from COVID-19 (or any virus for that matter) can
be categorized as physical damage.

Where a business shuts down as a result of a contaminated person in
the workplace, an argument could be made that the contamination is
considered to be physical damage. However, where a business shut
down as a precaution, coverage may not be afforded under an
all-risks policy.

Lloyd's of London has outlined three frameworks to better protect
insureds against catastrophic events and their related impacts on
businesses.  Most recently, Lloyd's has proposed corresponding
coverage options for small to medium-sized enterprises. The first,
ReStart, is a business interruption risk-pooling solution without a
"physical damage" trigger. The second, Recover Re, is a proposed
non-damage business interruption insurance product for losses
occurring 'after-the-event' where premiums are paid to recoup
costs. The third, Black Swan Re, would provide coverage for
long-term effects from 'black swan' events through a
government-backed industry pool.

The implementation of coverage under these frameworks could allow
businesses to re-open prior to a second wave of COVID-19, or
throughout future pandemics, with managed risk and support from
their insurers. Further, the frameworks are meant to provide
support for insurers through proposed re-insurance and government
guarantees.

Very few pandemic insurance products exist at this point as the
risk is not predictable and, as such, it is difficult for insurers
to determine an appropriate annual premium. However, when
businesses have been paying insurance premiums for years, they
expect coverage to be afforded when disaster strikes. As such,
Canada is seeing a growing number of class action lawsuits against
insurers in order to recoup losses due to COVID-19.

For example, Aviva Canada has been named in several class actions
for denial of coverage due to COVID-19. In a recent example Aviva
is alleged to be denying a claim on the basis that the COVID-19
"pandemic" does not constitute an "outbreak" as defined in their
policy wordings.

A standard Aviva "Business Income Actual Loss Sustained 912000-01"
form includes wording for standard business interruption and
supplementary coverages. Included within the supplementary coverage
is a subcategory titled "Group Three" which is subject to time or
distance limitations, two of which consider "outbreaks" as an
extension of coverage: (i) negative publicity coverage, and (ii)
restricted access. Both categories provide coverage for the actual
loss of business income sustained relating to an outbreak of a
contagious or infectious disease that is required by law to be
reported to government authorities.

Miller Thomson LLP, a national law firm, has commenced several
individual and class action claims seeking business interruption
losses under policies issued by Aviva. Chris Blom, a partner in the
Insurance Group suggests, "Coverage should be available under the
Negative Publicity and Restricted Access cover, when one reads the
plain language of the endorsement."

While it is still unclear whether coverage exists under business
interruption policies, both businesses and insurers will require
assistance in assessing/calculating losses specific to the impact
of COVID-19.

For businesses, specific attention should be paid to financial
impacts affecting their operations during the pandemic.  Having
clear and concise records will allow for a more efficient claim.
Where specific costs have increased/decreased as a direct result of
the pandemic (examples could include increased telephone or travel
costs, reduction in salaries), or where incremental costs have been
incurred (i.e. cleaning or sanitization, printing, or repair and
maintenance costs, etc.), companies should separately track these
from normal operating expenses.

Further, it is important to determine the trends both prior to and
as a result of COVID-19. Where a business may have been in its
early stage could greatly impact projections. Vice versa, companies
may also look to recover losses which are unrelated to the impact
of the pandemic entirely.

Business interruption losses are less tangible than property
losses, making them more difficult to calculate. In determining
losses due to COVID-19, businesses need to establish projected
profits (absent the pandemic) as compared to profits/losses as a
result of the pandemic. In extreme situations, the entire value of
the business may be lost necessitating a pre-COVID-19 business
valuation to be determined. [GN]


[*] Hogan Lovells Attorneys Discuss COBRA Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Benvenuto, Esq.--maria.benvenuto@hoganlovells.com--Kenneth
Kirschner, Esq.--kenneth.kirschner@hoganlovells.com--and Martha
Steinman, Esq.--martha.steinman@hoganlovells.com--of Hogan Lovells,
in an article for JDSupra, report that the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) permits employees and their
dependents to extend health coverage under an employer's group
health plan when coverage would otherwise be lost due to
termination of employment or other "qualifying events." Under
COBRA, employees must receive specific notices explaining their
COBRA rights. In recent months, there has been an onslaught of
class action litigation against employers who are allegedly
omitting critical information from their COBRA notices. While
seemingly a mere oversight, class action litigation over faulty
COBRA notices may involve thousands of participants and
beneficiaries of a health plan, and amount to millions of dollars
in informational and economic injuries, specifically in the form of
lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills. Just recently, a
Fortune 500 company settled a class action lawsuit, relating to
deficient COBRA election notices, for US$1.6 million dollars.

In addition to informational and economic damages asserted by
individuals, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) have the right to impose civil penalties if COBRA
notices are noncompliant. The DOL can impose civil penalties up to
US$110 per day per person and the IRS can impose an excise tax of
US$100 a day per beneficiary and US$200 a day per family, until
employees receive an adequate notice. In the context of class
action litigation, employers may face hundreds of thousands of
dollars in damages although certain defenses may be available.

The specifics of COBRA notices are fairly straightforward.
Principally, an employer subject to COBRA is required to notify its
group health plan administrator within 30 days after an employee's
termination of employment, or certain other qualifying events.
Within 14 days of that notification, the plan administrator is
required to notify the individual of his or her COBRA rights. If
the employer is also the plan administrator and issues COBRA
notices directly, the employer has the entire 44-day period in
which to issue a COBRA election notice. COBRA election notices must
be written in a manner calculated "to be understood by the average
plan participant" and include:

* The name of the plan and the name, address, and telephone number
of the plan's COBRA administrator;
* Identification of the qualifying event;
* Identification of the qualified beneficiaries (by name or by
status);
* An explanation of the qualified beneficiaries' right to elect
continuation coverage;
* The date coverage will terminate (or has terminated) if
continuation coverage is not elected;
* How to elect continuation coverage;
* What will happen if continuation coverage isn't elected or is
waived;
* What continuation coverage is available, for how long, and (if
applicable), how it can be extended for disability or second
qualifying events;
* How continuation coverage might terminate early;
* Premium payment requirements, including due dates and grace
periods;
* A statement of the importance of keeping the plan administrator
informed of any new addresses of qualified beneficiaries; and
* A statement that the election notice does not fully describe
COBRA or the plan and that more information is available from the
plan administrator and in the summary plan description.

Failure to comply with the details of COBRA notice requirements may
have significant consequences if not remedied. A current putative
class bringing a lawsuit, for instance, alleges that a Fortune 500
company's COBRA notices are confusing, misleading, and fail to
identify the administrator of the health plan or explain how to
enroll in COBRA coverage, instead directing workers to a
"catch-all" human resources phone number. Similarly, a class action
lawsuit brought against another large employer alleges that its
COBRA notices fail to include an address indicating where COBRA
payments should be mailed, explain how to enroll in COBRA, and
provide information about the COBRA administrator, but merely
direct employees to a general human resources phone number. In
another COBRA notice class action filed this June, the putative
class alleges that COBRA notices are not "written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant"
because the notices fail to sufficiently identify the plan
administrator or provide a termination date for COBRA coverage if
elected. An airline is facing a class action COBRA notice lawsuit,
whereby its employees allege that its COBRA notices were
noncompliant in failing to include the date of the qualifying event
or the name of the plan and plan administrator. Moreover, the
putative class alleges that the company failed to timely provide
the notice within the requisite 44-day period.

More than 20 class action lawsuits have been filed in 2020 for
alleged COBRA notice deficiencies against companies of all sizes.
Employers should be familiar with the content and details of their
COBRA notice obligations and review their COBRA notices carefully
to ensure that all requisite information is provided. The DOL has
provided a model COBRA notice and considers use of the model notice
to be good faith compliance with the general notice content
requirements of COBRA. Employers who choose not to use the DOL
model notice should compare their notices to the model notice to
ensure they are sufficiently detailed to comply with COBRA.
Moreover, the use of a third party administrator to issue COBRA
notices does not mitigate an employer's risk of noncompliance.
Employers should periodically check in with their third party
administrators to ensure that they are aware of current legal
developments, as well as draft their service agreements to provide
for indemnification of the employer for any acts of negligence or
contractual breaches with respect to COBRA compliance. We recommend
engaging the advice of counsel to review COBRA notices issued by
your company or a third party. [GN]


[*] Market Rebound May Curb Securities Class Actions, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that on Feb. 12, the Dow Jones Industrial Average
recorded an all-time high of 29,551.42 points. The NASDAQ Composite
and S&P 500 Index likewise reached record highs that day, which
they then surpassed within a week.

Days later, however, as the gravity of the coronavirus outbreak
began to come into focus, stock markets worldwide plummeted,
marking the worst week for stocks since the 2008 financial crisis
and ushering in a period of extreme and continuing volatility. By
March 23, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen to
18,591.93.

Not surprisingly, this swift market downturn led to a notable
uptick in securities class action filings. According to Lex
Machina, through April, there had been a 50% year-over-year
increase in such complaints.

But in a significant and potentially dispositive development for
recently filed stock-drop cases, the second quarter of 2020 ended
with stocks having experienced their largest quarterly gain since
1998. In what The New York Times described as "an epic reversal of
fortune in the second quarter," the S&P 500 nearly completely
recovered from the first quarter plunge, in the most dramatic
quarter-to-quarter swing since 1932. Indeed, by July 15, the Dow
Jones Industrial Average had rebounded to 26,870.10.

A rarely invoked--and, heretofore, rarely applicable--provision of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or PSLRA, may play a
crucial role in the spate of recently filed securities fraud
lawsuits. The PSLRA's so-called bounce-back rule places a
bright-line cap on plaintiffs' damages in such cases. It provides
that:

[I]n any private action . . . in which the plaintiff seeks to
establish damages by reference to the market price of a security,
the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed the
difference between the purchase or sale price paid . . . by the
plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of
that security during the 90-day period beginning on the date on
which the information correcting the misstatement or omission that
is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.

The PSLRA goes on to clarify that the mean trading price is the
"average of the daily trading price of that security, determined as
of the close of the market each day during the 90-day period." For
plaintiffs who sell their stock during the 90-day window, the mean
trading price is calculated based on that shorter period between
the corrective disclosure and the sale date.

Enacted in 1995, the PSLRA contained various provisions designed to
curb frivolous securities litigation. With respect to the damages
cap, the legislative history indicates that Congress sought to
avoid "substantially overestimat[ing] plaintiff's actual damages"
by calculating damages "based on the date corrective information is
disclosed," and instead to limit damages "to those losses caused by
the fraud and not by other market conditions."

Where a company's stock price recovers during the 90-day look-back
period, the bounce-back provision's bright-line cap can sharply
limit--and, in some cases, altogether eliminate--available
damages.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained in In
re: Mego Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, "if the mean
trading price of a security during the 90-day period following the
correction is greater than the price at which the plaintiff
purchased his stock then that plaintiff would recover nothing under
the PSLRA's limitation on damages."

Given how few securities class actions proceed to trial, the
PSLRA's bounce-back provision has had only limited application
since it was enacted. But the current COVID-19-churned markets may
provide an opportunity for securities defendants to rely on the
absolute damages cap reflected in the bounce-back provision to ward
off class actions, potentially even as early as the motion to
dismiss stage, when a court can take judicial notice of the
movement of the defendant company's stock price.

This defense, which should be considered by all defendants caught
in the crosshairs of a securities fraud complaint, will be
particularly effective in cases in which it is evident from the
company's post-corrective disclosure stock price movement that no
putative class member could conceivably recover any damages.

A quick look at the post-corrective disclosure stock price
performance of certain companies recently named as defendants in
stock-drop cases is instructive in showing how the PSLRA's
bounce-back provision could play a significant, and potentially
dispositive, role.

                   In Re: Zoom Litigation

On April 7, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Zoom Video Communications Inc., alleging that it had
significantly overstated its security infrastructure and
capabilities, and that the discovery of these misstatements and
subsequent corrective disclosures led to a drop in its stock
price.

Zoom had gone public less than a year earlier, on April 18, 2019,
at an initial public offering price of $36 per share, before
closing on the first day of trading at $62 per share. On March 27,
the date of the first alleged corrective disclosure, Zoom's stock
was trading at $151.70 per share.

By April 7, 2020, the date the first securities complaint against
Zoom was filed, the stock price had dropped to $113.75 per share.
But it then immediately began to rise again. By June 24, which was
90 days after the first corrective disclosure, the stock had
dramatically rebounded to $255.90 per share--its all-time high at
the time.

The Zoom plaintiffs allege a class period commencing as of the IPO
on April 18, 2019, and running through April 6, 2020. The stock
price remained in double digits until mid-February, and then slowly
climbed, reaching its highest point during the class period on
March 23 at $159.56 per share.

Assuming for illustrative purposes that the 90-day bounce-back
period started to run after the first alleged corrective disclosure
on March 27, the mean trading price during that 90-day period was
$173.65 per share.

Because this bounce-back period mean trading price is greater than
the purchase price--even for those plaintiffs who purchased the
stock at its highest level of $159.56 per share during the class
period--plaintiffs who held the stock through the 90 days "would
recover nothing under the PSLRA's limitation on damages," as per In
re: Mego.

To the extent the 90-day period is found to start running after one
of the later alleged corrective disclosures, given the trajectory
of Zoom's stock price, the average trading price would be even
higher, making for a higher hurdle for the plaintiffs to have to
clear.

As such, while plaintiffs who bought and sold their stock within a
relatively narrow period may be entitled to some damages--assuming
they could establish the other elements of their claims--the vast
majority of plaintiffs who did not sell their stock in the
immediate aftermath of the corrective disclosure likely will not,
and Zoom should have a complete defense for any plaintiff who held
the stock through the 90-day bounce-back period.

                         McDermid v. Inovio

In one of the first COVID-19-related stock drop cases that was
filed, shareholder plaintiffs allege in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that during a class period of
Feb. 14 through March 9, Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. "capitalized
on widespread COVID-19 fears by falsely claiming that Inovio had
developed a vaccine for COVID-19."

The plaintiffs allege that, in the wake of these repeated public
claims, Inovio's stock price rose significantly, only to plummet
after a research firm's March 9 report cast serious doubt on the
vaccine claims, referring to them as "ludicrous and dangerous."

During the class period, Inovio's stock averaged $5.62 per share,
with a high of $14.09 per share on the penultimate day. After the
research firm report was publicized on March 9, the stock fell and
stayed around $6-$8 per share until later in April when it returned
to double digits, briefly surpassed $15 per share, and then hovered
between $11-$14 per share toward the end of the 90-day bounce-back
period.

The mean trading price during that period was $10.41 per share. As
such, for plaintiffs who bought below that average price during the
class period, there are no available damages.

And, even for those who bought at the high point during the class
period of $14.09 per share, the PSLRA will serve to limit their
damages to the difference between their purchase price and the
$10.41 per share average trading price during the bounce-back
period. This fact pattern should serve to reduce any realistic
settlement demand and/or any ultimate judgment.

                       Wandel v. Gao

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
shareholders alleged that, in pushing forward with its IPO earlier
this year, China-based co-living platform Phoenix Tree Holdings
Ltd. misled investors about the risks posed by the pandemic,
specifically with respect to the rental market in China.

The proposed class in Wandel v. Gao includes those shareholders of
Phoenix Tree who bought their shares in the Jan. 17 IPO at $13.50
per share. The only corrective disclosure the plaintiffs identify
is Phoenix Tree's March 25 unaudited financial results in which "it
told investors that it expected the coronavirus to adversely affect
its financial performance for the nearly completed first quarter of
2020."

Over the subsequent 90 days, Phoenix Tree's stock price fluctuated
between $5.85 to $10.25 per share, trading at an average of $7.80
per share during that time. As such, while the plaintiffs may still
have recoverable damages, assuming they could establish the other
elements of their claims, the PSLRA's bounce-back rule will serve
to lessen them.

                            Conclusion

The PSLRA's bounce-back rule--which has had limited application in
the 25 years since its enactment--is likely to become a key factor
in recently filed securities litigation. For some defendants, it
may serve to significantly limit available damages, thereby
minimizing settlement amounts, while for others it may provide a
complete defense. Plaintiffs and defendants alike should take heed.
[GN]

[*] Objectors to Class-Action Settlements Must Return Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Businessinsurance.com reports that objectors to class-action
lawsuit settlements should not be allowed to engage in "blackmail"
for their own financial benefit, said a federal appeals court in
reversing a lower court ruling.

"We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation
known colloquially as 'objector blackmail'," says the ruling by the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in Nick Pearson, et
al. v. Target Corp. et al. v. Randy Nunez. et al., Appeal of:
Theodore H. Frank.

The ruling is the latest development in litigation first filed in
2011 alleging that defendants had made false claims about certain
dietary supplements they manufactured and distributed, according to
the ruling.

After a first settlement was rejected, a second, $7.5 million
settlement in the case was reached. After that settlement was
approved, three objectors to the settlement removed their
objections after they were paid a total of $130,000, according to
the ruling.

A class member in the case, Mr. Frank, filed suit in U.S. District
Court in in Chicago over the payments, moving to disgorge any side
settlements reached by the three objectors. His motion was rejected
by the district court, but in 2018, the 7th Circuit reinstated Mr.
Frank's lawsuit.

In its latest ruling, the district court held the objectors had not
committed an illegal act, nor taken any money out of the common
fund.

The ruling was overturned by a unanimous three-judge appeals court
panel. "The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators both
offense and defense," said the ruling.

"A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for
approval by the district court.  A few class members object to the
settlement but the court approves it as fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure," the ruling said.

"The objectors then file appeals. As it turns out though, they are
willing to abandon their appeals for sizable size payments that do
not benefit the plaintiff class: a figurative 'blackmail' by
selfish holdouts threatening to disrupt collective action unless
they are paid off.

"That's what happened here," the ruling said.  "Three objectors
appealed the denial of their objections to a class action
settlement and then dismissed their appeals in exchange for side
payments."

"Falsely flying the class's colors, these three objectors extracted
$130,000 in what economists would call rents for the litigation
process simply by showing up and objecting to consummation of the
settlement to slow things down until they were paid," the ruling
said.

"The objectors' settlement proceeds here belong in equity and good
conscience . . . to the class and ought to be distorted," it said.

It states, however, that the remedy in this case "pose a practical
challenge." Return of the $130,000 to the class "is no longer
possible or would be self-defeating because the administration
costs would swallow the benefits." The ruling said the funds should
be paid to a foundation.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Attorney M. Frank Bednarz, of the Hamilton Lincoln Law
Institute-Center for Class Action in Chicago, said the "7th Circuit
made life harder for bad faith objectors and the court should not
allow corporate defendants or plaintiff attorneys to buy out
appeals with cynical side deals." He said, "When objectors must
benefit the class in order to get paid the class is going to
benefit."

Other attorneys in the case had no comment or could not be
reached.[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 ***