/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200907.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 179

                            Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Class Action Seeks Full Membership Fee Refund
AIRBUS SE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Deal
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Tria WS Sues Over Denied Coverage and Payments

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Meijer Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
ARCH INSURANCE: Denies COVID-Linked Travel Claims, McMenamin Says
ARKEMA INC: 5th Cir. Asked to Reject Class Status in Chemical Suit
AUSTRALIA: Trial on Robo-Debt Class Action Set for Sept. 21

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Pappas Suit Over Unjust Enrichment Dismissed
B BRAUN MEDICAL: Breaches Duties to Plan Members, Nunez Alleges
BAIDU INC: Faces Alagappan Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Precious Metals Futures, RCA Says
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline

BILL'S ELECTRIC: Misclassifies Employees, Barker FLSA Suit Claims
BITFINEX: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
BJC HEALTHCARE: Faces Data Breach Class Action
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Sanchez Wage & Hour Class Suit

BLOOM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Roberts Class Suit
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Rice Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
CABOT OIL: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
CABOT OIL: Schall Law Alerts of Securities Class Action Filed
CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN: Montalvo Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID

CAMPBELLSVILLE UNIVERSITY: Web Site Not Accessible, Hedges Claims
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK: Court Again Rules for Employees in OT Suit
CAREFIRST PHARMACY: Faces De La Cotera TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CARLINGVIEW MANOR: Thomas Rogers Files $25MM Class Action Lawsuit
CARLINGVIEW MANOR: Thomson Rogers Commences $25MM Class Action

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Thomas-Lawson Files FDCPA Suit in California
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abramsky Says Collection Letter Is Misleading
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Averts $$29.2 Million Class Action
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces Thames Employment Suit in California
CENTRUS ENERGY: Matthews Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Circuit

CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Amend Lawsuit
CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Certification of Class in Gonzalez Affirmed
CLP RESOURCES: Payment of Settlement in Sherman Suit Due Sept. 8
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Fights ERISA Class Action Summary Judgment

COLWILL ENGINEERING: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay & Dismissal
CONGRESS COLLECTION: Echols Says Collection Letter Is Deceptive
CONSILIO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cohen Alleges
CREDIT UNION: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Thompson Alleges
D HOUSTON INC: Violates FLSA's Minimum Wage Rules, De Miguel Says

DAIMLER AG: To Pay $2BB++ to Settle Emissions Claims, Class Action
DEUTSCHE BANK: Reminds Shareholders of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
DISCOUNT POOLS: Hurley Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Pay
DMI GC HOLDINGS: McBride Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
EB ELITE: Leon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Electrical Workers

EMERSON ELECTRIC: Faces Carlisle Suit Over Mislabeled Vacuums
ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
EVERISE INC: Rodriguez Seeks Proper Pay for Call Center Employees
EVERSOURCE: Connecticut Homeowners File Class Action

EVERSOURCE: Customers Launch Class Action Over Storm Response
EVERSOURCE: Faces $1.5 Billion Breach of Contract Class Action
EXTERIOR CONTRACT: Faces Smiley Suit Over Defective Roofing Work
FACEBOOK INC: Douez Class Action Progresses to Next Phase
FINISH LINE: Murphy Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Owens Files Securities Fraud Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline

FIS OPERATIONS: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Blackwell Sues Over Planned Advent Merger
FOREVER COLLECTIBLES: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says
GENIUS BRANDS: Faces Garg Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline

GOLDMAN SACHS: Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Staff Challenges Arbitration Order
GRACO: Bursor & Fisher Voluntarily Dismisses Sleepers Class Action
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Bid Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Kuhen Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
HEADWAY CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
HENNER TANK: Faces Scott Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Throws Out Class Action Suit
HOSPITALITY INVESTORS: Court Dismisses Wollman Shareholders Suit

HOSTESS BRANDS: Lauchung-Nacarino Sues Over Donettes' False Label
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Zakikhani Sues in Calif. Over Defective Vehicles
INNERWORKINGS INC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to HH Global
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Williams Chosen Lead Litigant in McDermid
INSTAGRAM: Whalen Files Facial Recognition Class Action

J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
JUMIA: Settles Fraud Class Actions for $5 Million
KENDO HOLDINGS: OLEHENRIKSEN Eye Creme Is Defective, Key Alleges
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Averts Shareholder Class Action

L'OREAL USA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Critcher Suit Dismissal
LAST RESORT GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Mills Claims
LEBANON COUNTY, PA: Gass Wins Relief on Use of Medical Marijuana
LIBERTY POWER: Faces Pepper Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LOMBARDI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Morales Says

LUXER CORP: Turner Sues in California Over Employment Issues
MAJESCO: Curtis Securities Suit Challenges Merger With Magic
MARIO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Barrios Claims
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzon Challenges Illegal Work Practices
MEI PHARMA: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Announces Class Action

MERCEDES-BENZ: P. McAdams Can't Sue, Supreme Court Rules
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in Miller Class Suit Pending
MICHIGAN: Castillo Appeals W.D. Mich. Ruling to Sixth Circuit
MICHIGAN: Women File Class Action Over Tampon Tax
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Files Class Action Against Police

MR. HAPPY'S: Smith Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Exotic Dancers
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 20
MYLAN NV: Court Compels Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation in KPH Suit
NATIONAL CREDIT: Morales Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Cries Race Discrimination on MDL Payment

NEONODE INC: Files False Proxy for Purchase Accord, Garfield Says
NETFLIX: New Boston Files Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN: Counsel Disqualification in Cortina Suit Reversed
PATRIOT ERECTORS: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Chavez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Ex-Workers Fight Class Decertification Bid
PROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces Webb Employment Suit in California
QUALFON DATA: Livingston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RANDSTAD NORTH: Diaz Seeks Wage and Hour Remedies for Laborers
RCN TELECOM: Sued by Reid for Charging Unlawful Late Payment Fees

RECKITT BENCKISER: Falsely Markets Neuriva Pills, Williams Claims
RENN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Perry Employment Suit in California
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Vicknair Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Hogan Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employment Discrimination Class Suit Narrowed

STARBUCKS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STARBUCKS: Could Face $50 Million Employees Class Action
STATE FARM: Page Seeks to Recoup Excess Charges of Insurance Cost
TESLA INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Nguyen Fraud Suit
TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims

THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Clark Says
TRANS UNION: 7th Cir. Affirms Denan FCRA Suit Dismissal
TRANS UNION: Court Dismisses Grunfeld Class Action
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Securities Class Action

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX: Class Certification Denied in T.S. Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: USMS & DHS Appeal Ruling in Index Suit to 9th Cir.
US WELL SERVICES: Faces Easom WARN Suit Over Abrupt Mass Layoff
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VERA WANG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims

VXI GLOBAL: Wage Class Action Pending in California
YODLEE INC: Wesch Sues Over Covert Data Collection, Poor Security
[*] $600MM Crypto Ad Ban Class Action Filed in Australian Courts
[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Developments
[*] Multiple Retailers Sued Under CCPA for Sharing Data Used


                            *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: Class Action Seeks Full Membership Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaikaran Singh, Esq. -- jsingh@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, reports that as
businesses around the country slowly start to reopen after COVID-19
closures caused by state and local government-mandated operation
restrictions, plaintiffs have flocked to the courts filing class
actions against membership clubs that did not fully refund fees
charged while access to facilities and amenities were limited or
unavailable.  The most frequent targets of these suits are fitness,
health, and social clubs who face consumer class claims for breach
of contract, business torts and violations of state consumer
protection laws.

Three such recently filed cases are Labib v. 24 Hour Fitness USA
Inc., Civ. No. 3:20-cv-02134-JD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020),
Delvecchio v. Town Sports International LLC, Civ. No.
1:20-cv-10666-MLW (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2020), and Cuenco v. ClubCorp
USA, Inc. et al, Civ. No. 3:20-cv-0074-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23,
2020). Each arises from government-imposed business operations
restrictions that temporarily shut down physical access to a
membership club facilities and provides early insights into how
similar cases might unfold.

The Labib and Delvecchio cases both involve state statutes that
specifically address gym and health club closures.  In Labib,Cal.
Civ. Code § 1812.85 requires that "[e]very contract for health
studio services shall provide that performance of the agreed-upon
services will begin within six months after the date the contract
is entered into.  The consumer may cancel the contract and received
a pro rata fund if the health studio fails to provide the specific
facilities advertised or offered in writing by the time indicated."
Likewise, Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93 Sec. 82 at issue in
Delvecchio provides consumers a statutory right to cancel gym
memberships when a seller "substantially changes the operation of a
health club or location."  In addition, "[a]ll monies paid by the
buyer pursuant to a contract for health club services which had
been cancelled for one of the reasons contained in this section
shall be refunded to the buyer or his estate within fifteen days of
the seller's receipt of such notice of cancellation. . . ."

In the Delvecchio case in Massachusetts, the plaintiffs alleged
that Town Sports International's("TSI") gyms engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices by initiating and accepting automatic payments
in April 2020 for services that they knew they would not provide
due to the government-imposed shutdowns and that the gyms made it
impossible for members to cancel their memberships.  TSI sought
dismissal arguing that because some plaintiffs failed to provide 30
days' written notice before terminating their membership, as
required by their agreements, the gyms had a contractual right to
collect monthly membership dues without being in breach.    

TSI also argued that M.G.L. c. 93 Sec. 82 did not apply because the
gyms did not "substantially change" their operations.  Instead, TSI
asserted that its gyms merely temporarily suspended operating its
fitness clubs in compliance with Massachusetts law, which was not a
"change in operations" as defined within the provision.  TSI
further argued that M.G.L. c. 93 § 82 relates to cancellation of
contracts which did not apply because the plaintiffs were suing
over the collected dues, not a cancelled contract, and it appeared
that the majority of the proposed class intended to remain with gym
members once TSI reopened its fitness centers.  Furthermore, TSI
contended that at least three of the plaintiffs had their
challenged membership dues already refunded and therefore lacked
Article III and statutory standing for not having sustained any
legal injury.

Similarly, the Labib plaintiffs in California alleged that 24 Hour
Fitness "misrepresented and/or omitted the trust content and nature
of [its] services" by closing all of its gyms nationwide
indefinitely on March 16, 2020, yet continuing to charge members
monthly fees for its advertised 24-hour access.  The plaintiffs
cited Cal. Civ. Code § 1812.85 and argued "[h]ere, Defendant
advertises that its gyms are open and accessible 24 hours per day,
when, in fact, it charges customers full price of monthly members
when 100 percent of its gyms are closed.  Accordingly, Plaintiff
and Class members are entitled to refunds for all fees paid while
Defendant's gyms were and remain closed."

24 Hour Fitness argued in its motion to dismiss that when the gym
notified members of the closures, it assured members that their
memberships would "be extended for the same period that [its] clubs
will be temporarily closed." In addition, it asserted that the
membership agreement specifically indicates that the company's name
is not a representation of access anytime, anywhere.  In making
these arguments, 24 Hour Fitness relied on the provision in its
membership agreement that further provides that memberships would
be extended "for the same period [a] Club of Enrollment was closed
or completely unavailable" if closed or unavailable "for more than
30 consecutive days."

Finally, in Cuenco, plaintiffs bring a class action against
ClubCorp for continuing to charge monthly fees while its members
did not have access to any of its private social clubs during the
shutdown.  Relying on contractual rights, ClubCorp filed a motion
to dismiss primarily arguing that the membership agreements
explicitly state that the clubs were entitled to collect membership
dues even if their facilities are temporarily closed.  ClubCorp
also pointed to the fact that it mitigated any injury by issuing
members club usage credit along with offering online services and
virtual offerings for the time the club facilities were closed.
Alternatively, based on the arbitration agreement with a class
action waiver set forth in the membership bylaws, ClubCorp moved to
compel the case to arbitration.

The motions to dismiss in the Delvecchio, Labib and Cuenco cases,
as well as the motion to compel arbitration in Cuenco, are all
currently pending.  Given that health, fitness and social clubs
around the country face the prospect of another round of closures
in the midst of what appears to be a resurgence of
government-imposed operations restrictions, it will be worth
monitoring how these three cases, along with other similar COVID-19
related class actions across the country, are litigated and
resolved. [GN]


AIRBUS SE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
October 5, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of Airbus SE ("Airbus" or the
"Company") (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) securities between February 24,
2016, and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Airbus investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/airbus-se/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On March 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, according
to internal documents related to the Company's $4 billion bribery
settlement, Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about
fees paid to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter
division, which was led at the time by the now-Chief Executive
Officer, that may have violated global bribery and corruption
rules.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or nearly 16%, to
close at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or about 9%, to close at $77.75
per share on March 16, 2020.

Then, on July 30, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.K. Serious Fraud Office had charged an Airbus subsidiary and
three individuals with corruption in connection with a defense
contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi Arabia.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or about 3%, to
close at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.85 per share, or about 4%, to close at $72.10
per share on July 31, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Airbus's policies and protocols were
insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (2) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (3) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (4) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (5) that resolution of government investigations of
Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in
settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant
continuing government investigation and oversight; and (6) that, as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Airbus securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 5, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Airbus SE (OTC: EADSY, EADSF)
between February 24, 2016 and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Airbus investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Airbus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1773.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Airbus's policies and protocols were insufficient to
ensure the Company's compliance with relevant anti-corruption laws
and regulations; (2) consequently, Airbus engaged in bribery,
corruption, and fraud in order to enhance its business with respect
to its commercial aircraft, helicopter, and defense deals; (3) as a
result, Airbus's earnings were derived in part from unlawful
conduct and therefore unsustainable; (4) the full scope and
severity of Airbus's misconduct; (5) resolution of government
investigations of Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of
dollars in settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to
significant continuing government investigation and oversight; and
(6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1773.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the parties in the class action case
styled, Martin v. Safeway, will seek court approval of a
settlement.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.

The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the
Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA.

The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending
the matter.

On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.

The parties will seek court approval of the settlement.

The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.

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

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.


ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Tria WS Sues Over Denied Coverage and Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tria WS LLC, Tria TR, LLC, and Alaska Cafe LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US
INSURANCE COMPANY, AGCS MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP.,
CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
NATIONAL SURETY CORP., and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-04159 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants have wrongfully, capriciously and arbitrarily denied
coverage and payments to the Plaintiffs and other small
businesses.

On April 27, 2019, Tria Alaska Cafe purchased a commercial policy
of insurance issued by Defendant American Automobile Insurance
Company ("AAIC") bearing policy number SAM 2003033-19. On July 2,
2019, Tria WS Cafe purchased a commercial policy of insurance
issued by AAIC bearing policy number SAM 2003660-19. On November 1,
2019, Tria Taproom purchased a commercial policy of insurance
issued by AAIC bearing policy number SAM 2003331-19. The Policies
are each bilateral contracts: the Plaintiffs agreed to pay monthly
premiums to AAIC in exchange for AAIC's promises of coverage for
all risks of loss except those specifically and unambiguously
excluded.

The Plaintiffs say they reasonably expected that claims for loss of
business income and extra expenses arising from the inability to
use their physical locations would be paid unless specifically and
unambiguously excluded. The Plaintiffs complied with their
obligations under their respective Policies by timely paying all
premiums required. Effective March 17, 2020, at 12:01 a.m.,
pursuant to the Order of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the
Plaintiffs were forced to close their restaurants and wine and beer
bars located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Order was based on the presence of "Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19)" in Pennsylvania and acknowledged that COVID-19's
presence jeopardized health in public places within Pennsylvania.
As a result of the Orders of the various civil authorities, the
Plaintiffs assert they suffered, and/or continue to suffer,
significant and injurious losses and expenses directly related to
the physical inability to use the premises covered by their
respective Policies. The Policies obligated AAIC to provide
coverage for, and to pay, business income losses and extra expense
losses resulting from the suspension of the Plaintiffs' respective
operations, including suspensions resulting from the actions of
civil authorities. The Plaintiffs each reported notice of their
losses to AAIC on March 17, 2020.

In response, on July 9, 2020, AAIC reneged on its promises and
wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide
coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiffs' business income losses and
extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of their
operations, including suspensions resulting from the actions of
civil authorities, according to the complaint. AAIC's actions in
improperly denying the Plaintiffs' claims were a blatant disregard
for the Plaintiffs' contractual rights and resulted in a material
breach of AAIC's duties and obligation owed under the Policies thus
depriving the Plaintiffs of the benefit of their bargain and
causing serious financial damages to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are Pennsylvania limited liability companies that
operate restaurants and wine and beer bars in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company is nationally authorized
to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and
business income coverage through its domestic subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Gomez, Esq.
          Tudor I. Farcas, Esq.
          M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 6th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Email: agomez@gelaw.com
                 tfarcas@gelaw.com
                 egraham@gelaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Meijer Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALAMON MEIJER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-06902-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers in New York, alleges that the Defendant sent him
a written communication of debt collection with confusing amount of
total balance owed. Under the FDCPA, a collection letter must
clearly display the balance owed for consumers to know the exact
amount to be paid.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff says he has been damaged.

Alltran Financial, LP, is a debt collection services company with a
business location in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501


AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities
Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, remains pending.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against the Company, Stephen Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs. On July 20, 2018, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ("Amended
Complaint"), on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's securities between May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017,
against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Selwyn
Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's lead recycling
operations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks to hold the individual defendants as control persons
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") based on alleged false
and misleading statements concerning the company's lead recycling
operations contained in, or incorporated by reference in, the
company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection
with the Company’s November 2016 public offering.

That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that
Registration Statement. The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act.

The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion. In an Order dated August 14,
2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section
11 claim and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
based on alleged false and misleading statements and gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend to address the deficiencies. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits.

On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but
otherwise alleges the same claims as were alleged previously.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second
Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements,
but not the claims regarding site visits.

The motion is under consideration by the Court.

The Company denies that the claims in the Second Amended Complaint
have any merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action.

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

Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.


ARCH INSURANCE: Denies COVID-Linked Travel Claims, McMenamin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MCMENAMIN, JR., and JESSICA MCMENAMIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
and ARCH INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:05-mc-02025 (W.D.
Pa., Aug. 26, 2020), alleges breach of contract arising from the
Defendants' denial of travel insurance claims filed by the
Plaintiffs and other policyholders, who seek reimbursement for
unused non-refundable prepaid payments or deposits after their
trips were cancelled.

On January 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs applied for and purchased an
Individual Travel Protection Policy administered by Arch Insurance
Solutions and underwritten by Arch Insurance Company to insure
their trip. The policy provides coverage for trip cancellations and
other covered events. The Plaintiffs' trips were cancelled in
accordance to the proclamation, orders, and stay at home guidance
of the government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a result of such cancellation, the Plaintiffs incurred losses in
the form of unused non-refundable prepaid payments or deposits.

Arch Insurance Company is an insurance provider with its principal
place of business located in Jersey City, New Jersey. Arch
Insurance Solutions, Inc. is a provider of third-party
administrative services with its principal place of business
located in Hunt Valley, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
         Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                 jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                 ncolella@carlsonlynch.com


ARKEMA INC: 5th Cir. Asked to Reject Class Status in Chemical Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that arguing before a Fifth Circuit panel,
an attorney for a chemical manufacturer challenged the approval of
class certification for 20,000 landowners within a 7-mile radius of
the company's Houston-area plant, which caught fire and exploded in
the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

Arkema Inc. attorney Evan Mark Tager, who argued via teleconference
before the three-judge panel, said that because the 2017 hurricane
was a "2,000-year storm," the company could not have possibly
anticipated its facility would experience a chemical spill and
explode. He also said the plaintiffs should not have been granted
class-action status because their damages are too varied one
plaintiff to the next.

According to the landowners' lawsuit filed in Houston federal
court, officials from Arkema called Harris County Emergency
Services in the early morning hours of Aug. 29, 2017, to request
that Highway 90 be shut down due to a chemical release into
floodwaters across the highway, after Hurricane Harvey made
landfall and soaked Houston with a record amount of rain.

Arkema's plant in the Houston suburb of Crosby produces liquid
organic peroxides that are used primarily in the production of
resins, PVC, polyester-reinforced fiberglass and other products,
according to its website.

By midday that day, National Guard troops were evacuating residents
from a 1.5-mile exclusion zone around Arkema's facility, according
to the lawsuit. Residents were not told there had been a chemical
spill, only that the chemical plant would likely explode.

Between Aug. 31 and Sept. 3, 2017, a series of explosions did
occur, culminating with "the allegedly controlled ignition of six
refrigerated trucks reportedly containing plastic containers filled
with organic peroxide," which is highly flammable, the complaint
states.

The explosions resulted in thick, rolling plumes of toxic smoke
that mixed in the wind to form rain ash, dust and particulate
matter that fell throughout the area, according to the lawsuit.  

Testing revealed four families of toxins in ash, soil and dust
samples taken from the plaintiffs' properties, all of which
correlate to the toxins present in Arkema's Luperox product line,
the landowners claim.  

U.S District Judge Keith Ellison noted in his June 2019 order
granting class certification that "the costs of bringing an action
like this are truly monumental."

"This case involves huge expert fees, complicated organization and
planning, and numerous attorney hours. The court finds that class
resolution is a superior method of resolving this case," the Bill
Clinton appointee wrote.

On Aug. 6, the plaintiffs' attorney Samuel Issacharoff pushed back
on Arkema's argument that it could not have foreseen the disaster.

"Incidentally, there have been three 2,000-year flood events in
Houston in the last three years," Issacharoff told the Fifth
Circuit panel.  

"So the question is, did [Arkema] do the right thing?" the attorney
asked.

Issacharoff later reiterated his point, saying "every other
chemical plant in east Texas shut down in anticipation of this
storm."

Tager, arguing for Arkema, said the "vast majority of samples
taken" from the plaintiffs' properties did not contain
contaminants. He also said the contaminants that were found on some
properties are those that are "ubiquitous in the area," and argued
the district court ignored this point.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by George W.
Bush, asked Tager, "Is your position only that this biased sampling
method, as you called it, is that this case is fatally flawed? Or
is it that any case is fatally flawed?"

Tager's reply seemed to imply part of the flaw is the invisibility
of the chemicals spilled from Arkema's plant. He contrasted the
situation with an oil spill litigated in the Fifth Circuit, from
Murphy Oil in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina, "where you
have a visible substance like oil and it washes up on peoples'
properties and you can see it."

"Classic pollution cases," said U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina
Haynes, also an appointee of George W. Bush.

"Isn't there a fear that Arkema can get away with anything if they
can get away without class certification?" Haynes asked later.

"Arkema has been here a long time, and they pride themselves on
being a good neighbor," Tager replied, adding the company is quick
to inspect when someone calls and says their property has been
damaged.

Arkema, a subsidiary of a French chemical manufacturer, did not
respond Thursday to an email request for comment.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, an appointee of
Ronald Reagan, also sat on the panel. The judges did not indicate
when or how they will decide on the matter. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Trial on Robo-Debt Class Action Set for Sept. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
Asha Barbaschow, writing for ZDNet, reports that the Federal Court
of Australia on Aug. 13 held a case management hearing for a case
brought on by Gordon Legal against the Commonwealth of Australia
relating to the Centrelink Online Compliance Intervention (OCI)
scheme, colloquially known as robo-debt.

In November, Gordon Legal launched the robo-debt class action on
behalf of five representative applicants and hundreds of thousands
of people who are included in the case as group members.

The essence of the applicants' case is that debts raised by
robo-debt are unlawful, and all recipients should be compensated by
the federal government.

Previous discussions before Justice Michael Lee were centred on the
applicant's request to determine if the Commonwealth had knowledge
that the OCI scheme, in its many forms, could potentially
miscalculate a debt owed.

Before Justice Bernard Murphy on Aug. 13, the Commonwealth,
represented by Michael Hodge QC, questioned the semantics within
the applicant's claim. Specifically, Hodge debated the period of
time the applicants are basing their claim on. He also claimed
there was ambiguity around who exactly is alleged to have known
that robo-debt was "unlawful".

"The conventional way to allege knowledge would be to identify the
people who it is said knew certain things," Hodge said. "There's no
attempt to identify who it is that is said to have known certain
things. There's a strange ambiguity about this"

Justice Murphy said it was clear the allegation is that the
Commonwealth knew because the Commonwealth Ombudsman had made
enquiries about officers of the Commonwealth and the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal had also made decisions on certain debts being
invalid.  

"The Commonwealth must have known that," Justice Murphy added.

Hodge also took issue with the allegation that Commonwealth is
aware of the status of specific medical conditions, disabilities,
or other claimed vulnerable circumstances of the particular group
members involved in the class action.

Additionally, Hodge said it is difficult to understand the opposing
side's pleadings regarding damages.

"It's not clear what the loss is that is sought to be compensated;
that is distinct from the loss that is already claimed as part of
the negligence claim," he said.

The applicants are required to reply to the questions raised by the
defence.

The applicant's legal team is based in Melbourne, which is
currently under stage four COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Stage
four places a curfew on individuals and limits the reasons they can
leave their home. Counsel for the applicants Bernard Quinn QC said
preparing an amended statement of claim in response to Hodge's
remarks under stage four, and potentially stricter restrictions,
has given him "grave concerns over the trial date".

"It is becoming apparent within our team that stage four
restrictions are creating some difficulties . . . in the
preparation for trial," he said. "The realities of working remotely
. . . those logistical issues are one thing, but simply getting a
team together is also difficult.

"Frankly If stage four restrictions are extended . . . I will not
be able to run the trial.

"We are a little apprehensive of going to a trial of this
magnitude, of this importance, without the confidence that we've
got a situation where we can prepare adequately when we know our
counterparts are not in quite the same position."

In response, Hodge said he understands that restrictions could
potentially create an issue to the case as currently pleaded, but
he said it seems impossible that the case would take three weeks to
prepare and that a more realistic timeframe was no longer than 1.5
weeks.

He said that this may change substantially if the case is
substantially varied, but if it sticks to as currently pleaded,
Hodge said the defence could make adjustments to accommodate
working arrangements so as to avoid either creating difficulty for
the applicants' legal team or pushing the trial back.

"If they're kept to their pleaded case, the reality is likely to be
that we're able to run the trial sensibly," Hodge said.

"It is looking like the case will not be ready," Justice Murphy
declared. "We're getting perilously close to the trial . . . for
the moment, let's push forward."

The Department of Human Services, now Services Australia, kicked
off the data-matching program of work in 2016, which saw the
automatic issuing of debt notices to those in receipt of welfare
payments through the Centrelink scheme. Centrelink's OCI program,
from 1 July 2016 through 31 August 2019, saw 1,159,662 assessments
be initiated using the automated data-matching technique.

"The strangest thing about this case is that at its heart, it looks
simple . . . there was a process in place to raising debts which is
now admitted to being invalid," Justice Murphy said.

"In so far as monies having received or unjust enrichment, one will
think on first principles the Commonwealth would be obliged repay
those monies and repay any amount that could be attributed [such as
interest]."

Justice Murphy said however, when the case is delved into, it
becomes a lot more complex.

Hodge said among the complexities is that some of those debts were,
in fact, valid. Quinn argued that the debt validity was not
relevant but rather, it was the way it was retrieved that is in
question.

"The juristic reason is that, in fact, they owe . . . there's a new
decision that has been made that determines they owe an amount,"
Hodge claimed.

Quinn said the money needs to be obtained by legitimate means.

"You've got to give it back and start again . . . it's important
for the Commonwealth to do it by lawful means," Quinn said.

The class action trial is currently scheduled to commence on
September 21, 2020 and is expected to run for approximately three
weeks.

The interlocutory hearing will continue, where Justice Lee's team
will wade through 'two lever arch folders'-worth of legal and
professional privilege claims made by the Commonwealth.

4,000 complainants in robo-debt class action

Only avenue of recourse for robo-debt victims is legal action,
Shadow Minister for Government Services Bill Shorten has said.
[GN]


AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Pappas Suit Over Unjust Enrichment Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued an Order granting without prejudice the Defendant' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned GEORGE PAPPAS, et al. v. AUTO CLUB
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 20 CV 983 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff George Pappas purchased a car insurance policy for his
Jeep from Defendant Auto Club Insurance Association. After the Jeep
was involved in a collision that rendered it a total loss, the
Association sent Mr. Pappas a sum of money representing what it
said was the actual cash value of the Jeep at the time of the
collision, plus sales tax, and a $120 "title fee."

Mr. Pappas purchased a replacement vehicle and, in order to bring
his new vehicle into compliance with Illinois law, paid a total of
$251 in title, registration, and license plate fees. He says the
Association owes him the $131 difference. He originally filed this
breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment action in Illinois state
court on behalf of himself and a class of other Association
customers.

The Association removed the case to federal court, and the Court
denied Mr. Pappas's motion to remand because jurisdiction exists
under the Class Action Fairness Act. He is domiciled in Illinois,
and the Association is both organized under the laws of Michigan
and has its principal place of business there. The Court says it is
not legally impossible that Mr. Pappas's claim on behalf of a class
places more than $5 million in controversy, citing Back Doctors
Ltd. v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827, 829-30 (7th
Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d)(2), 1453(b).

In allowing the dismissal of the lawsuit, District Judge Manish S.
Shah notes that the policy caps the Association's liability at the
actual cash value of Mr. Pappas's vehicle at the time of the
collision. Just because other contracts promise make-whole remedies
that include sales tax does not mean that the Association is on the
hook for registration, title, and license plate fees when its
policy dictates a different limit (actual cash value) that is
exclusive of those fees.

The policy in question does not require that the Association pay
the registration fees or license plate fees, the Association never
indicated that it would pay Mr. Pappas back for those fees in its
post-collision communications, Illinois's Administrative Code at
most requires reimbursement of "sales tax and transfer and title
fees," and the Association already reimbursed Pappas for those
expenses, Judge Shah opines. Hence, the unjust enrichment claim is
dismissed without prejudice, too.

Mr. Pappas has leave to file an amended complaint, but if he
clarifies his claim to exclude unpaid taxes and injunctive relief
from the case, there would likely be no federal jurisdiction over
the dispute, according to the Order. Mr. Pappas shall file either
an amended complaint or a status report notifying the Court that he
intends to refile in state court. If no amended complaint or status
report is filed by the deadline, this dismissal will convert to a
dismissal with prejudice and the Clerk of Court will enter a final
judgment. If Mr. Pappas refiles in state court, this case will be
closed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y84a5uzl from Leagle.com.


B BRAUN MEDICAL: Breaches Duties to Plan Members, Nunez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TANIA NUNEZ, JOHNNY CHU, ASHOK D. PANDYA and DAVID E. STERN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B.
BRAUN MEDICAL INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC.,
THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC. and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-04195 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 26, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the fiduciary
duties they owed to the B. Braun Medical Inc. Savings Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and other participants of the Plan by, among other
things, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.

In many instances, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost
share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the
Class Period, August 26, 2014, through the date of judgment, as
alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower
fees and materially similar investment objectives, the Plaintiffs
contend. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants also breached their
fiduciary monitoring duties by failing to monitor and evaluate the
performance of the Committee Defendants or have a system in place
for doing so, failing to monitor the processes by which Plan
investments were evaluated, and failing to remove Committee members
whose performance was inadequate.

As a result of the breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered
millions of dollars of losses due to excessive costs and lower net
investment returns. Had the Defendants complied with their
fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these
losses, and Plan participants, including the Plaintiffs, would have
had more money available to them for their retirement, the
Plaintiffs assert.

B. Braun Medical Inc. is a manufacturer of medical devices, with a
principal place of business at 824 12th Avenue, in Bethlehem,
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.[BN]

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

                - and –

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


BAIDU INC: Faces Alagappan Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
GANESAN ALAGAPPAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BAIDU, INC., ROBIN YANHONG LI, HERMAN CHENG-CHUN YU,
and JENNIFER XINZHE LI, Case No. 1:20-cv-03794 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 19,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff has acquired Defendant Baidu's publicly traded
securities at allegedly artificially inflated prices between April
8, 2016, and August 13, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Baidu misrepresented material
facts about the financial condition, business, operations and
management of the Company when it filed its Registration Statements
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This was verified by
the Wolfpack Research's report that was released during market
hours on April 7, 2020, detailing how Defendant Baidu's iQIYI had
misled investors and failed to disclose pertinent information
generally.

As a result, the market value of the Company's securities declined,
thereby, inflicting the Plaintiff and other Class members
significant losses and damages.

Baidu, Inc., provides internet search services in China and
internationally.

Robin Yanhong Li is a co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company. Herman Cheng-Chun Yu is the Chief Financial Officer since
2017. Jennifer Xinzhe Li is the Chief Financial Officer during the
Class Period until September 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Precious Metals Futures, RCA Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA)
INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST
COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY FLAUM; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-06862 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged manipulation of precious metals futures
contracts from January 1, 2008, through July 31, 2016, in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, these futures contracts include COMEX
Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and
NYMEX Palladium Futures, and options on those futures contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the
Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX"). The Defendants manipulated the
prices of precious metals futures contracts using a classic
manipulative device called "spoofing," whereby the Defendants
placed orders for precious metals futures contracts that they never
intended to execute--and, in fact, canceled before execution--in
order to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to
the market. In this manner, the Defendants manipulated the prices
of precious metals futures contracts throughout the Class Period to
financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other
investors, like the Plaintiff and members of the Class.

The unlawful conduct and manipulation is the subject of both
criminal and regulatory investigations. On August 19, 2020, Bank of
Nova Scotia entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the
U.S. Department of Justice and a settlement with the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, agreeing to pay a combined $60.4
million in criminal fines, restitution, and forfeiture of trading
profits. In the Statement of Facts incorporated into the agreement,
Defendant Bank of Nova Scotia admitted that its traders spoofed the
markets for precious metals futures contracts thousands of times
throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff Robert Charles Class A, L.P., transacted in COMEX Gold
Futures and COMEX Silver Futures, and options on those futures
contracts throughout the Class Period at allegedly artificial
prices proximately caused by the Defendants' unlawful
manipulation.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian banking company with its
headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. is a
New York corporation and a registered broker and dealer in
securities with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Scotia
Holdings (US) Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BNS Investments
Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York is a trust
company regulated by the New York State Department of Financial
Services and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
                  msrodoski@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Louis F. Burke, Esq.
          LOUIS F. BURKE PC
          460 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 682-1700
          E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com


BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

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


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


FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/    

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

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

                           About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


BILL'S ELECTRIC: Misclassifies Employees, Barker FLSA Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BILL'S ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-05153-PKH (W.D.
Ark., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
misclassifying the Plaintiff and other employees, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Master Electrician from December 2017 to December 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other hourly-paid employees as non-exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and the AMWA. As a result, despite
regularly working over 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to
pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees a lawful overtime
premium for all hours worked over forty each week.

Bill's Electric, Inc., offers electrical design, installation and
maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (800) 615-4946
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BITFINEX: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Arnab Shome, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that a New York
district court has been requested to scrap the appeal of Bitfinex
and Tether for dropping the consolidated class-action lawsuit
against them.

The arguments in question were made in the court by the legal
representatives of Phillip G. Potter, the former chief strategy
officer of Bitfinex and Tether.

In a plaintiffs' letter reviewed by Finance Magnates, the judge
stated that "Potter's argument in support of his proposed motion
are meritless. His legal arguments against Plaintiffs' claims are
based on inappropriate or inapplicable legal standards."

In multiple class-action action lawsuits against the two sister
companies, the plaintiffs alleged that Potter was involved in
"extensive fraudulent and unlawful conduct."

According to the lawsuit, Potter, along with business partner and
another defendant in the case Giancarlo Devasini, formed Tether in
2014 after rebranding another stablecoin issuer Realcoin. The
plaintiffs alleged that Potter concealed his controlling role in
both Bitfinex and Tether, two major firms in the cryptocurrency
industry.

The class-action lawsuits also blamed the two companies for
manipulating Bitcoin prices during the 2017 bull run.

The allegations were largely based on the revelations made by the
Paradise Papers in 2017, and a research report by two American
academics - John Griffin, a professor at the University of Texas,
and Amin Shams, an assistant professor at the Ohio State
University.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Potter made repeated public
statements specifying the company's intent to evade banking laws
and anti-money laundering regulations.

"This is more than sufficient to state fraud claims against
Potter," the plaintiffs' letter added.

". . . his arguments that Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege his
role in Defendants' manipulative scheme are contradicted by
allegations that show he was a key member of that scheme, as Chief
Strategy Officer for Bitfinex and Tether," the letter noted. [GN]


BJC HEALTHCARE: Faces Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Annika Merrilees, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
a data breach at BJC HealthCare compromised patients' information
and caused them financial and emotional harm, a suit filed in St.
Louis Circuit Court alleges.

The complaint filed on Aug. 10 argues that BJC did not make
sufficient efforts to protect patients' data. It seeks to establish
a class-action case on behalf of patients whose information may
have been accessed.

BJC did not respond to questions on Aug. 12 about the complaint,
and referred the Post-Dispatch to a May 5 news release about the
event.

The complaint alleges that the breach allowed hackers access to
information such as patients' names, dates of birth and treatment
information. It argues that the incident "is taking a significant
emotional and physical toll" on those affected.

The complaint says the number of patients whose information was
accessed is unknown, but estimated to be more than 287,000 people.

The case claims patients have "incurred significant out-of-pocket
costs associated with the prevention, detection, recovery and
remediation from identity theft or fraud."

It characterizes BJC's approach to maintaining patient privacy as
negligent, and seeks damages, including court costs and attorneys'
fees.

BJC said in its news release that on March 6 it identified
suspicious activity within three employees' email accounts. It said
it secured the accounts, and hired a computer forensic firm to
investigate.

The investigation found that "an unauthorized person" accessed the
email accounts on March 6, but could not determine whether that
person viewed any of the emails or attachments, according to the
release. BJC said it reviewed all of the emails and attachments in
the accounts that were accessed, and found some that contained
patient information.

BJC said it mailed letters to patients whose information was found
in the email accounts, established a toll-free number to answer
patient questions, and offered complimentary credit monitoring and
identity protection services to some.

The suit was initiated by Brian Lee Bauer, a St. Louis County
resident and BJC patient. An attorney representing Bauer, Jack
Garvey, said Bauer declined to comment on the case. [GN]


BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a trial court has stayed the consolidated
Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action.

In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its initial public offering alleging violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act") for alleged misleading statements or omissions in its
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection
with its July 25, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019. These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending a
federal district court action.

On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation
initiated by Elissa Roberts.

Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Sanchez Wage & Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Francisco Sanchez.

In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging
certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company
engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to
add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

Bloom Energy said, "We are still investigating the Plaintiff's
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the complaint,
but any range of potential loss is not currently estimable."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLOOM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Roberts Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Elissa Roberts.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11
and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in its Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in connection with the company's initial public offering IPO.

On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.

The Company said, "On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding the underwriters in our initial public offering,
claims under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act") and extending the class period to
September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint adding claims under the Securities Act. The
second amended complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the
Restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends the
class period through February 12, 2020. We believe the complaint to
be without merit and we intend to vigorously defend. On July 1,
2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Rice Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALLY E. RICE, as trustee for the Winston Lawrence Rice Trust, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BURLINGTON
RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00431-GKF-FHM
(N.D. Okla., Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's ongoing
violations of North Dakota law related to the interest owed on
untimely payments of oil-and-gas royalties.

The North Dakota statute requires operators like the Defendant to
pay royalties to mineral owners, both leased and unleased, within
150 days of marketing the oil or gas. The statute further requires
operators to pay mineral owners statutory interest when they fail
to meet that deadline.

According to the complaint, the Defendant does not automatically
pay mineral owners the interest it owes on untimely royalty
payments. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory
interest when mineral owners demand it, despite the fact that the
statute expressly disclaims a demand requirement. The Defendant
failed to pay the Trust royalties to which it is entitled within
150 days of marketing the Trust's mineral interests from the Haydon
44-22TFH-ULW well.

When the Defendant finally did pay those royalties owed to the
Trust in February 2016, the Defendant did not include the 18%
interest required by North Dakota statute, the Plaintiff alleges.

Plaintiff serves as trustee for the Winston Lawrence Rice Trust.
The Trust owns an interest in oil and gas produced from the Haydon
44-22TFH-ULW well, which is located in Section 22-151N-97W in
McKenzie County, North Dakota.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP is an Oklahoma-based
company that owns and operates oil and gas wells.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
          E-mail: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
                  ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com


CABOT OIL: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot" or the "Company")
(NYSE: COG) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, and docketed under 20-cv-02827, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise acquired Cabot securities between October 23, 2015,
and June 12, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cabot securities during the
class period, you have until October 13, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Cabot is an independent oil and gas company that explores,
exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas properties in
the U.S.

Cabot primarily focuses its oil and gas efforts on the Marcellus
Shale located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.  Cabot's gas
procuring activities in Pennsylvania have been the subject of
controversy for over a decade, with the Company repeatedly denying
any responsibility for environmental damage observed in the state.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly
mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures;
(ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty
gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement,
as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot
continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal
liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 26, 2019, during intraday trading hours, Cabot filed a
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the "2Q19 10-Q").  The 2Q19
10-Q disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent
Order and Agreements ("CO&As") related to two Notices of Violation
("NOVs") it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PaDEP") back in June and November 2017,
respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas into
fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania.

Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q, Cabot's stock price fell
$2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at $19.16 per share on July
26, 2019.

Then, on June 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, following a grand
jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office
charged Cabot with fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration.

On this news, Cabot's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%,
to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

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

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CABOT OIL: Schall Law Alerts of Securities Class Action Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Cabot Oil &
Gas Corporation ("Cabot" or "the Company") (NYSE: COG) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
23, 2015 and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 13, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Cabot failed to maintain appropriate
environmental controls and also failed to mitigate known problems
with controls and procedures. The Company failed to fix
malfunctioning gas wells, polluting the water supply of
Pennsylvania. The Company downplayed its civil and criminal
liability for this and other environmental problems. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Cabot, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN: Montalvo Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID
----------------------------------------------------------------
PERLA MONTALVO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-07698
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees
paid for academic semesters at the University, which moved to
online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons,
who paid tuition and/or fees to attend California Lutheran
University for an in person, hands-on educational services and
experiences for the semesters or terms affected by Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), including the Spring 2020, Summer 2020,
and Fall 2020 semesters, and had their course work moved to online
only learning.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has not refunded any
amount of the tuition or any of the Mandatory Fees, even though it
has implemented online only distance learning starting on March 13,
2020, and confirmed their first case on March 13, 2020. The
Plaintiff and the members of the Class have paid for tuition for a
first-rate education and an on-campus, in person educational
experiences, including those benefits offered by a first-rate
university. Instead, the Plaintiffs were provided a materially
deficient and insufficient alternative, which constitutes a breach
of the contracts entered into by the Plaintiff with the Defendant.

The Defendant has elected to place the financial burden of COVID-19
entirely upon its students, rather than offering discounts,
rebates, or refunds, since the Defendant was unable to provide
students, like her, with the educational experiences and services
that she paid for, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks for herself and Class members protections,
including injunctive and declaratory relief protecting Class
Members from paying the full cost of tuition and fees during the
pendency of the pandemic in light of the educational services,
opportunities, and experiences the Defendants can actually safely
provide.

California Lutheran is a private university in Thousand Oaks,
California, that was founded in 1959. The University offers
numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a
number of graduate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Perry L. Segal, Esq.
          CHARON LAW, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
          303 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600
          Redwood City, CA 94065-1422
          Telephone: (650) 542-7935
          E-mail: perry.segal@charonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


CAMPBELLSVILLE UNIVERSITY: Web Site Not Accessible, Hedges Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. CAMPBELLSVILLE UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-06088-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020), alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.campbellsville.edu/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Campbellsville University is a private Christian university in
Campbellsville, Kentucky, United States. The University was founded
as Russell Creek Academy, a Baptist institution. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK: Court Again Rules for Employees in OT Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued additional reasons
for judgment in the long-running unpaid overtime class action
lawsuit against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).  The
Court followed up on its March 30, 2020 summary judgment decision,
ruling that CIBC's current overtime policy is illegal and
unenforceable and that front-line employees who are members of the
Class are entitled to monetary damages for CIBC's failure to pay
overtime. The reasons for judgment can be found here.

In this most recent decision released on August 10, 2020, Justice
Belobaba issued a declaration stating that CIBC's overtime policy
is illegal, that CIBC breached employment contracts and breached
the Federal Labour Code. He concluded that Class Members are
entitled to damages arising out the Bank's breaches of the Class
Members' employment contracts.

In rejecting the arguments of CIBC's lawyers, Justice Edward
Belobaba noted that CIBC "in violation of federal law, failed to
make and keep records of the 'hours worked'" and that having
"failed to keep the required records, the defendant bank now says
that every aggrieved class member should be required to prove their
case, and if it takes some 30,000 or more individual trials, so be
it."

The Court will now give CIBC the time to extract time-stamped
computer data so that the plaintiff's expert can complete his
aggregate damages report, which will summarize the compensation to
be awarded.

The Court will then decide whether to make an aggregate damages
award.

The law firms of Roy O'Connor LLP, Sotos LLP and Goldblatt Partners
LLP represent the Class Members in this action.

According to lead class counsel David O'Connor, Louis Sokolov and
Steven Barrett:

"This is another important step towards finally getting the Class
Members fair and meaningful compensation for their years of unpaid
work performed for the benefit of the Bank."

Lead Plaintiff Dara Fresco, who is no longer employed by CIBC
added:

"My wish, for my former colleagues, is that CIBC will respect the
ruling of the Court and finally comply with its legal obligations.
It's been 13 years. Enough is enough. However, if it does not, we
intend to keep fighting until every class member is paid every cent
they are owed, with interest." [GN]


CAREFIRST PHARMACY: Faces De La Cotera TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carefirst Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Fred J. De La Cotera, D.D.S.
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Carefirst Pharmacy, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and Health Mart Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04764 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.

Carefirst Pharmacy, Inc., is an Illinois-based pharmaceutical
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CARLINGVIEW MANOR: Thomas Rogers Files $25MM Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Pringle at Ottawa News reports that a class-action lawsuit has
been launched against the long-term care home in Ottawa hardest hit
by COVID-19.

Thomson Rogers has issued a class-action proceeding claiming $25
million on behalf of residents of Carlingview Manor and their
families.

There have been two COVID-19 outbreaks at Carlingview Manor. During
an outbreak between April 7 and June 18, 170 residents and 89 staff
members tested positive for COVID-19. A total of 60 residents died
due to COVID-19. A resident tested positive for COVID-19 during a
second COVID-19 outbreak at the long-term care home between July 16
and 23.

Thomson Rogers says one of the representative plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit is Stephen Hannon, whose father Roy died after
testing positive for COVID-19. Hannon's father contracted COVID-19
while residing in a shared bedroom.

Thomson Rogers says Hannon and his family, as well as other
families of the victims and survivors of Carlingview Manor, seek
compensation for their losses.

In a statement, Thomson Rogers says, "Stephen Hannon hopes that the
independent commission into Ontario's long-term care system and the
proposed class action will result in meaningful change to ensure
that a tragedy like this is never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable
long-term care population."

Last week, Councillor Theresa Kavanagh called for Carlingview Manor
to be "specifically examined" by Ontario's long-term care
commission.

In a letter to Premier Doug Ford, Kavanagh wrote that since the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, "I have received
correspondence from family members and concerned citizens pleading
with me to keep pushing for immediate change in the management of
Carlingview Manor."

"I have heard about non-infected people being left in ward rooms
beside patients infected with COVID-19 and patients left for hours
in soiled clothing because of severe staffing shortages. Requests
for information to management here about the health of loved ones
have been met with a wall of silence."

Carlingview Manor is owned and operated by Revera Living.

In a statement to CTV News Ottawa, Revera Living said:  "Revera
will review the matter and respond in an appropriate way at the
proper time. Right now, we are focusing our efforts on caring for
our residents, protecting our residents and employees from the
ongoing pandemic, and preparing for possible future waves of
COVID-19. We offer our most sincere condolences to the families and
friends of the people at Carlingview Manor who were lost to the
pandemic." [GN]


CARLINGVIEW MANOR: Thomson Rogers Commences $25MM Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Rogers has issued a class action proceeding claiming $25
million on behalf of residents of Carlingview Manor and their
families.

Carlingview Manor is a long-term care home owned by Revera Long
Term Care Inc., located in Ottawa, Ontario. At least 61 residents
at Carlingview Manor have died as a result of contracting COVID-19
and related illnesses.

One of the representative plaintiffs is Stephen Hannon. Stephen's
father, Roy, was a resident at Carlingview Manor. Roy contracted
COVID-19 while residing in a shared bedroom with three other
residents at Carlingview Manor and died on May 15, 2020.

Stephen Hannon represents family members of the victims who have
lost loved ones, without given the opportunity to say good-bye, as
a result of the COVID-19 outbreak at Carlingview Manor.

Carlingview Manor is one of many long-term care homes in Ontario
that requires four residents to share a single bedroom. On June 10,
2020, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health introduced a
Directive that prohibits further placement of residents in three or
four bed ward rooms at long-term care homes.

A CBC Marketplace investigation found that a majority of deadly
COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in older long-term care homes with
four-bed wards that were operating at the outdated 1972 structural
safety standard. The investigation included Carlingview Manor
(https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-coronavirus-long-term-care-homes-ontario-1.5604009).

It is alleged that Carlingview Manor's failure to upgrade and/or
renovate its building design, including eliminating four-resident
bedrooms, caused and/or contributed to the mass spread of COVID-19
at the home.

It is further alleged that following Ontario's declaration of a
State of Emergency on March 17, 2020, Carlingview Manor failed to
implement screening measures of its staff and basic social
distancing practices, including the separation of infected and
non-infected residents. It is alleged that during this period,
there was severe under-staffing at Carlingview Manor and a failure
to provide basic personal protective equipment to Carlingview
Manor's staff.

"This is the fourth action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of
residents of a long-term care home in Ontario. It is shocking to
see that many of these facilities, including Carlingview Manor,
have not updated their structural design for decades and continued
to allow four residents to share a room during the pandemic," said
Stephen Birman, a partner involved in the class actions.

Stephen Hannon and his family, as well as other families of the
victims and survivors of Carlingview Manor, seek compensation for
their tragic losses. Stephen Hannon hopes that the independent
commission into Ontario's long-term care system and the proposed
class action will result in meaningful change to ensure that a
tragedy like this is never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable
long-term care population.

For further information regarding this claim, please contact
Stephen Birman at Thomson Rogers at sbirman@thomsonrogers.com
(416-868-3137) or Lucy Jackson at ljackson@thomsonrogers.com
(416-868-3154). [GN]


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Thomas-Lawson Files FDCPA Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrington Mortgage
Services LLC. The case is styled as Amy Thomas-Lawson, Brenda
Boley, Miguel Padilla, and William Green, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carrington Mortgage Services
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-07301-ODW-E (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Other. The lawsuit
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC is a subsidiary of Carrington
Holding Company, LLC, a privately managed investment management
company based in California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cary L. Joshi, Esq.
          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: cjoshi@baileyglasser.com
                  jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Victor S. Woods, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  vwoods@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 417-3667
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Alexander Nader, Esq.
          Alfred Dumetz Carry, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC
          1275 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 420
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 802-9999
          Facsimile: (202) 318-1084
          E-mail: jnader@mcglinchey.com
                  acarry@mcglinchey.com
               
               - and -

          John Bell Williams, III, Esq.
          Valerie L. Hletko, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          2001 M Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 349-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 349-8080
          E-mail: jwilliams@buckleyfrim.com
                  vhletko@buckleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey L. Warner, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 424-3900
          Facsimile: (310) 424-3960
          E-mail: gwarner@buckleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott T. Sakiyama, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          353 North Clark Street, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 924-9893
          Facsimile: (312) 924-9899
          E-mail: ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abramsky Says Collection Letter Is Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHOSHANAH ABRAMSKY v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, and CAVALRY
SPV I, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-06619 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020), is
brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to Citibank,
N.A.

According to the complaint, Defendant Cavalry SPV bought the
alleged debt from Citibank, N.A. and contracted with Defendant CPS
to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the Plaintiff received a
collection letter from Defendant CPS on February 26, 2020,
regarding the alleged debt, which validity was disputed by the
Plaintiff by asserting her "g notice" rights and requesting a
validation in writing from Defendant CPS.

The Defendant, however, attempted to validate the Plaintiff's
dispute with incorrect information by providing a deceptive and
misleading breakdown of her debt that did not coincide with the
credit card statements, Ms. Abramsky alleges.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, are debt
collectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Averts $$29.2 Million Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jason Aycock, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that Cellcom
Israel announced the dismissal of a purported class action suit
against the company.

The lawsuit alleged that Cellcom misled customers by failing to
disclose certain service information, and was claiming about 100M
shekels (about US$29.2 million). [GN]


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces Thames Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Transport
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Steven Thames, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Central Transport LLC, and
Does 1 through 50, Case No. 34-2020-00283179-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 12, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Central Transport LLC is an American trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: roman@yeremianlaw.com


CENTRUS ENERGY: Matthews Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to 6th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Matthews, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled James Matthews, et al. v.
Centrus Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00040, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 21,
2020, Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court has granted
the Company, Enrichment Corp. and the other defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action complaint over off-site contamination.

On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other
DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth,
Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (GDP) site were named as
defendants in a class action complaint filed by James Matthews,
Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate of A.R., and
others similarly situated (the "Matthews Plaintiffs"), in the
Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio.

On January 3, 2020, the complaint was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio for adjudication. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged off-site
contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth
GDP site.

The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contended that the ongoing and
continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members
were not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the
Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims
concerning traditional-style state regulation."

On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp.
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because
the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the
Price-Anderson Act which preempts state law. The Company and
Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE required to
invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other
contractual provisions.

The appellate case is captioned as James Matthews, et al. v.
Centrus Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 20-3885, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES MATTHEWS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; JENNIFER BROWNFIELD CLARK,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
JOANNE ROSS, Parent and natural guardian of Estate of A.R., a
deceased minor, and individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kelsey Reno, Esq.
          VILLARREAL LAW FIRM
          2 W. Main Street
          Chillicothe, OH 45601
          Telephone: (740) 772-4466

Defendants-Appellees CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT
CORPORATION, URANIUM DISPOSITION SERVICES, LLC, BWXT CONVERSION
SERVICES, LLC, MID-AMERICA CONVERSION SERVICES, BECHTEL JACOBS
COMPANY, LLC, LATA/PARALLAX PORTSMOUTH, LLC, and FLUOR-BWXT
PORTSMOUTH, LLC are represented by:

          Richard Donovan Schuster, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
          P.O. Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          E-mail: rdschuster@vorys.com


CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE INCORPORATED, Case No.
1:20-cv-06079-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020), alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.champlain.edu/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Champlain College, Inc., operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in business,
technology, and healthcare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Amend Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs in a
nearly $1 billion securities class action stemming from
food-borne-illness outbreaks at Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants
will not get another chance to amend their lawsuit, a
Manhattan-based appeals court ruled on Aug. 12, ending a series of
price-drop suits against the California-based food chain.

The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, upheld
a trial court's decision denying investors' motion to file a third
amended complaint against Chipotle over the outbreaks that sickened
more than 600 people in 2014 and 2015. [GN]


CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Certification of Class in Gonzalez Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana issued an Opinion affirming the
Trial Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC,
Appellant-Defendant v. Ricky Gonzalez, Yvonne Gonzalez, Robert
Scoles, and Tamara Scoles, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs, Case No. 19A-CT-2680
(Ind. App.).

In August 2016, Ricky Gonzalez, Yvonne Gonzales, Robert Scoles, and
Tamara Scoles ("the Homeowners") filed a putative class-action
complaint against Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC ("CFL") based on
noxious odors emanating from a landfill operated by CFL. The
Homeowners alleged that they were appropriate representatives of a
class of plaintiffs consisting of "[a]ll persons who have been
owner/occupants and/or renters of residential property within three
miles of the property boundary of the . . . landfill at any time
between August 12, 2010[,] and the present," which they believed
captured "thousands of residents."

On interlocutory appeal from the Trial Court's certification of the
complaint as a class action, CFL raises four issues for the
Appellate Court's review, which is restated as the following five
issues:

   1. Whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard
      in determining whether to certify the class action;

   2. Whether the trial court's adoption of the Homeowners' class
      definition is supported by substantial evidence;

   3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found
      that the class members would have common questions of law
      or fact;

   4. Whether the court erred when it found that the class's
      common questions of law or fact would predominate over any
      questions affecting only individual members; and

   5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
      denied CFL's motion to strike the Homeowners' designated
     evidence.

The Appellate Court affirms the class certification order.

The Appellate Court rejects CFL's argument that the Trial Court
applied an erroneous legal standard when it certified the class.
The Appellate Court also concludes, among other things, that CFL
has not met its burden on appeal to show that the Trial Court erred
in adopting the Homeowners' definition of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmwtadb from Leagle.com.

Amy E. Romig, Jonathan P. Emenhiser, Christopher E. Kozak, Plews
Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for
Appellant.

Richard A. Cook, Yosha, Cook & Tisch, in Indianapolis, Indiana;
Steven D. Liddle, Nicholas A. Coulson, Liddle & Dubin, P.C., in
Detroit, Michigan, Attorneys for Appellees.


CLP RESOURCES: Payment of Settlement in Sherman Suit Due Sept. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERIN SHERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLP RESOURCES,
INC., FIRST SOLAR, INC., and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants. ZACHARY
CHRISTENSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLP RESOURCES, INC., FIRST
SOLAR, INC., TRUE BLUE, INC. AND DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. CV
12-8080-GW-PLAx, Consolidated with Case No. CV 12-11037-GW-PLAx
(C.D. Cal.), Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California ordered the Defendants to make the
payment required by the Settlement Agreement to the Claims
Administrator by Sept. 8, 2020.

On June 16, 2020, the Court entered an Order and Judgment granting
Final Approval of the class action settlement which resolves the
actions.  The Court's Aug. 6, 2020 Order clarified the amounts to
be paid by the Defendants in satisfaction of the Settlement with
the exception of the estimated employer-side payroll taxes.

The Defendants' payments required by the Settlement Agreement and
as clarified, will be made to the Claims Administrator by Sept. 8,
2020, as the time for any party to file an appeal of the Order and
Judgment granting Final Approval of the class action settlement
will have expired.

If the Parties file a Status Report with the Court by Sept. 10,
2020 confirming that the required payments were made, the Status
Conference scheduled for Sept. 14, 2020 will be off calendar.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxqzvlgx from Leagle.com.

Alan Harris -- law@harrisandruble.com -- Priya Mohan --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- HARRIS & RUBLE, Glendale, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Fights ERISA Class Action Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Colgate-Palmolive Co. urged a New York federal
judge to deny its retirees' bid for partial summary judgment in an
ERISA class action accusing the company of shortchanging them,
saying the class' request amounts to more than asking the court to
"formalize what it has already decided. [GN]


COLWILL ENGINEERING: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay & Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX A. GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COLWILL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL, INC., a/k/a
COLWILL ENGINEERING DESIGN BUILD, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01986-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family &
Medical Leave Act, and the Family First Coronavirus Response Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other workers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendant is also accused of failing to inform the Plaintiff
about his eligibility to take leave after he tested positive for
COVID-19, and terminating his employment despite the completion of
his quarantine period and after he was tested negative for
COVID-19.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a full-time electrician
mechanic in Belle Isle, Florida, from March 15, 2019, to August 13,
2020.

Colwill Engineering Electrical, Inc., a/k/a Colwill Engineering
Design Build, Inc., is a construction company headquartered at 4750
E. Adamo Drive, in Tampa, Florida.[BN]

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


CONGRESS COLLECTION: Echols Says Collection Letter Is Deceptive
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELINE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONGRESS COLLECTION, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
2:20-cv-12254-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to a creditor, whom
Defendant CC contracted with to collect the alleged debt.

According to the complaint, Defendant CC sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on June 16, 2020. However, the collection letter
is false and deceptive because it overshadows the "G-Notice" rights
of the Plaintiff by threatening the Plaintiff into making payment
immediately to avoid negative credit reporting.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e by creating a false and misleading representation of the
character, amount or legal status of the debt.

Congress Collection, LLC, is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic St.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: 201-282-6500
          Fax: 201-282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


CONSILIO SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cohen Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE C. COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONSILIO LLC; and CONSILIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-01689 (D. Minn., Aug. 4, 2020), arises from the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Cohen was employed by the Defendants as document
reviewer.

Consilio provides e-discovery and other legal services. The Company
offers data collection, computer forensics, expert testimony, data
processing, hosting, and document review. Consilio serves firms and
corporations around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl John Singh, Esq.
          SINGH ADVISORS, LLC
          842 Raymond Avenue, Suite 200
          St. Paul, MN 55114
          Telephone: (651) 647-6250
          Facsimile: (651) 251-1183
          E-mail: earl.singh@singhadvisors.com


CREDIT UNION: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Thompson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREDIT UNION ONE, Case No. 2:20-cv-12318-PDB-EAS (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 26, 2020), asserts claims for breach of contract,
conversion, and violation of Electronic Fund Transfers Act relating
to improperly collected overdraft fees.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated customers, alleges that the Defendant improperly collected
overdraft fees on its customers' accounts. Under the checking
account contract documents, the Defendant will only charge
overdraft fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds
to cover them, however, the Defendant charged overdraft fees to the
Plaintiff even when there are sufficient funds to cover a debit
card or other point of sale transaction, according to the
complaint. The money taken out of the accounts of the Plaintiff and
Class members were converted to the Defendant's ledgers.

As a result of the Defendant's improper billing practices, the
Plaintiff and Class members have been injured and suffered losses.

Credit Union One is a member-owned financial cooperative providing
banking services, with its headquarters located in Ferndale,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
         KALIEL PLLC
         1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 sgold@kalielplllc.com

                - and –

         Taras Kick, Esq.
         THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
         815 Moraga Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90049
         Telephone: (310) 395-2988
         Facsimile: (310) 395-2088


D HOUSTON INC: Violates FLSA's Minimum Wage Rules, De Miguel Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE DE MIGUEL and BIANCA MONTALVO, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. D. HOUSTON, INC., ALI
DAVARI and HASSAN DAVARI, Case No. 4:20-cv-02966 (S.D. Tex., Aug.
24, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their violations
of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. De Miguel worked for the Defendants as a waitress from 1997
until March 2020 while Ms. Montalvo worked for the Defendants as a
waitress from 2007 or 2008 to March of 2020.

The Defendants pay their Waitresses less than the minimum wage of
$7.25 per hour. Instead of paying the required minimum wage, the
Defendants purport to take advantage of the tip credit allowed by
the FLSA.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other waitresses
were retaliated against if they did not share their tips with
managers and busboys. This retaliation generally took the form of
reduced hours and a hostile work environment. The Plaintiffs' and
other waitresses' tips were also taxed before they were distributed
pursuant to the tip pool arrangement, so waitresses unfairly paid
the taxes of the people, who received a portion of waitresses'
tips. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
Waitresses for time worked resulted in off-the-clock hours for
which they were not compensated.

D Houston, Inc., is a combined strip club and restaurant based in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DAIMLER AG: To Pay $2BB++ to Settle Emissions Claims, Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pietro Lombardi at The Morning Star reports that Daimler AG will
pay around $1.5 billion as part of agreements it reached with U.S.
authorities to settle proceedings related to diesel emissions.

The German car maker said it has reached an agreement with various
U.S. authorities to settle civil and environmental claims related
to emission control systems of roughly 250,000 diesel passenger
cars and vans in the U.S.

Moreover, the company has reached an agreement to settle a class
action over the same issue.

Daimler expects the costs of the settlement to be around $1.5
billion. On top of that, around $700 million will be earmarked to
settle the class action.

"Daimler estimates further expenses of a mid three-digit-million
euros amount to fulfill requirements of the settlements," it said.

The car maker said it has enough provisions to cover these costs.

"The company has cooperated fully with the U.S. authorities and
continues to do so," it said.

The U.S. authorities involved in the agreement are the
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources
Board, the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the California Attorney General's Office,
and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The agreements, which are subject to approval by the relevant
authorities, will have an impact on cash flow in the next three
years, with the main hit expected in the next 12 months, Daimler
said. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Reminds Shareholders of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Bank") (NYSE: DB) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between November 7,
2017, and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/db.      

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate
deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, procedures,
and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S.
operations' troubled condition; (2) as a result, the Bank failed to
properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high
risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein ("Epstein") and two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and
FBME Bank, which were both the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's
financial results and reputation; and (4) as a result, the Bank's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the Federal Reserve
had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in an
internal audit.  The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had
failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the Bank's AML and other control
procedures. Following this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's
ordinary shares fell $0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60
per share on May 13, 2020.

Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
Bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with Epstein and with two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which
were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct.
Following this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares
fell $0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July
7, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/db or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Deutsche
Bank you have until September 14, 2020 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


DISCOUNT POOLS: Hurley Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD HURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISCOUNT POOLS AND SPAS INC., NO LIMITS POOL CARE, LLC
and GREGORY CHAMPAGNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00270-JRG (E.D. Tex., Aug.
20, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendants in March
2020 as a Service Technician. He alleges that he was not paid on an
hourly basis, but a fixed payment per service call. Despite
regularly working between 60 to 80 hours per work week, he did not
receive overtime pay at one and one-half times his regular hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain records of the
Plaintiff's hours worked.

Discount Pools and Spas, Inc. and No Limits Pool Care, LLC are pool
and spa builders in East Texas. Gregory Champagne is a manager of
Discount Pools and Spas, Inc. and No Limits Pool Care, LLC with
"substantial control over the terms and conditions of the work" of
the Plaintiff and the putative class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: 903-596-7100
          Fax: 469-533-1618
          Website: http://www.hommelfirm.com/


DMI GC HOLDINGS: McBride Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA McBRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DMI GC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a/ DIALOG DIRECT, Case No.
2:20-cv-12305-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 26, 2020), asserts claims
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other hourly call-center employees appropriate
minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek and during off-the-clock work hours.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a call-center employee in
Highland Park, Michigan from August 26, 2017 until July 2020. The
Plaintiff also asserts claims for the Defendant's failure to
compensate the employees for work done during their meal and rest
period breaks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

DMI GC Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Dialog Direct, is a company that
operates customer engagement and contact centers with its principal
place of business located in Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
  
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

                - and –

         Jennifer McManus, Esq.
         FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
         25892 Woodward Avenue
         Royal Oak, MI
         Telephone: (248) 658-8951
         Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
         E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


EB ELITE: Leon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Electrical Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EB ELITE POWER, LLC, D/B/A ELITE POWER, and BRANDON M.
MARTIN, Case No. 4:20-cv-02976 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2020), seeks to
recover damages for the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other electrical workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an electrical
worker in Texas since 2017. The Plaintiff contends that the workers
were denied overtime pay due to the Defendants misclassifying them
as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EB Elite Power, LLC, d/b/a Elite Power, is a full-service
electrical company headquartered at 15326 Knotty Chestnut St. in
Cypress, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         5612 Chaucer Drive
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 885-8844
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Faces Carlisle Suit Over Mislabeled Vacuums
-------------------------------------------------------------
OCIE CARLISLE; MICHAEL MILLER; DOUGLAS HARRIS; DAN BEILMAN; DANIEL
GULIANO; RICHARD HILL; ANTHONY WATERS; BILLY FOUNTAIN; BILLY
JOHNSON; JOHN MOBERG; JENNIFER MURRAY-JENKINS; DREW VICTOR; DAVID
AXELRAD; ALISON HESTER; WILLIAM RODWAY; RANDY NIELSON; JENNIFER
MCGONAGILL; ROBERT RIENDEAU; LEEOR SHAPIRA; DONALD WINKLEBLECH;
KEITH GREN; JOSEPH PICKETT; DAVID DOWNING; CHRISTOPHER MILLER;
STEVEN TAYLOR; SYRONDA GAMBLE; STEVE TOTH; and KARRI BELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Case No. 4:20-cv-01023 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 4,
2020), alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the horsepower of
its RIDGID brand wet/dry vacuums.

According to the complaint, RIDGID is marketed, advertised, and
sold by the Defendant with material misrepresentations regarding
RIDGID's horsepower. The most important misrepresentations at
issue, and which appear noticeably in the Defendant's marketing of
RIDGID and on the RIDGID product itself, are horsepower and price.
The Defendant's representations regarding RIDGID's horsepower are
false, deceptive and/or misleading because Defendant significantly
overstates them.

The Plaintiffs say they conducted independent tests on several
RIDGID models and these findings conclusively show the Defendant's
horsepower representations are false, deceptive and/or misleading.

Emerson Electric Co. designs and manufactures electronic and
electrical equipment, software, systems, and services. The Company
offers its products for industrial, commercial, and consumer
markets worldwide through its network power, process management,
industrial automation, climate technologies, and commercial and
residential solutions divisions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@hollandtriallawyers.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB), Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), Energy
Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII), and Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WINS).  Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB)

Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020

On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal
Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in
an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank
had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the bank's anti-money laundering
("AML") and other control procedures.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13,
2020.

Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey
Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME
Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7,
2020

The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the bank's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its
disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers
that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as
a result, the bank's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/DB

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)

Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

On July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019
financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and
meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing
third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019
guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter
2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim
costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not
impact projected cost benefit trends.

On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25
percent.

On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019
financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates
and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity
materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants
attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs,
which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage
investor concern.

On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34
percent.

Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading,
Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial
results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third
quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the
Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its
contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial
responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity
also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter
and full-year 2020.

On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20
percent.

The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to
omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i) the Company had failed
to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee
benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large
medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an
adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating
measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its
employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced
customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably
likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial
results.

For more information on the Insperity securities class action case
go to: https://bespc.com/NSP

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII)

Class Period: August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

On October 19, 2015, the Company announced that it has signed a
fifteen-year deal with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger"), which gave Schlumberger the exclusive right to
the use of the Company's VorTeq technology (the "Schlumberger
Licensing Agreement"). Under the terms of the Schlumberger
Licensing Agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million exclusivity fee
and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone payments in
2016. The terms also dictated that Schlumberger would pay
continuing annual royalties for the duration of the license
agreement, subject to the satisfaction of certain key performance
indicators.

On June 29, 2020 -- not even five years into the Schlumberger
License Agreement -- the Company issued a press release, announcing
the termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger,
citing to "different strategic perspectives as to the path to
VorTeq commercialization." The Company further announced that
following the termination, "no further payments will be made by
either party" and that "Energy Recovery will now be fully
responsible for commercialization of the VorTeq technology
globally."

This news caused a sharp decline in the price of Energy Recovery
shares, which fell 15.8%, to close at $7.59 on June 30, 2020.
Several securities analysts downgraded Energy Recovery's rating and
significantly lowered the Company's price target. As one analyst
commented, "[the Company] should have been able to perceive in
advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely
rising, odds of this outcome."

The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and financial health. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had
different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of
VorTeq; (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of
the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger;
(iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.

For more information on the Energy Recovery class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ERII

Wins Finance Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS)

Class Period: October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

Wins, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide financing
solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic
of China.  The Company purports to offer financial guarantees, as
well as financial leasing, advisory, consultancy, and agency
services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing.

In 2014, Wins entered into a RMB 580 million credit agreement with
Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (the "Guohong Loan"), pursuant
to which Guohong's repayment was due to Wins in October 2019.

In September 2017, Wins engaged Centurion ZD CPA & Co. ("CZD") as
its independent registered public accounting firm after dismissing
its previous accounting firm.

On October 31, 2019, Wins filed a notification of inability to
timely file Form 20-F on Form NT 20-F with the Securities and
Exchange Commission("SEC") (the "2019 NT 20-F").   

The following trading day, the Company's stock price declined from
$11.90 to $11.20, or 5.8%.

On November 19, 2019, Wins issued a press release announcing its
receipt of a notification letter from the NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications and its intent to submit a plan of compliance,
adding that the filing of the 2019 20-F was untimely due to the
uncertainty over recovery of the Guohong Loan but assuring
investors that failure to collect on the loan would "not impact the
Company's ongoing operations."

Then, on May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing that
the Company received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq.
The press release stated, in relevant part, "[a]s disclosed
previously, the Company is working assiduously to complete its
delinquent filing with SEC and to regain compliance with the Nasdaq
listing rule as soon as possible."

On this news, Wins's stock price closed at $7.81 per share on May
26, 2020, in contrast to its previous close of $10.06, a decline of
22.3%.

The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial
difficulties—including non-repayment of the Guohong Loan—and
material control weaknesses came to a head on June 30, 2020, when
CZD resigned as the Company's independent auditor after less than
three years in that role.  On July 6, 2020, Wins issued a press
release announcing CZD's resignation.

On this news, Wins's stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 per share on July 7, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on July 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
ultimate repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly
uncertain; (ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a
significant impact on the Company's financial and operating
condition; (iii) weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its
financial reporting persisted despite the Company's repeated
assurances to investors that it was taking steps to remediate these
weaknesses; (iv) the foregoing issues, among others, made the
resignation of Wins's independent auditor foreseeably likely; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Wins Finance class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WINS-2

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
Class Period: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

According to the complaint, Energy Recovery, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
Learn about your recoverable losses in ERII:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8550&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]


EVERISE INC: Rodriguez Seeks Proper Pay for Call Center Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EVERISE, INC., TRUESOURCE LABS, LLC, and
C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00220 (S.D.
Tex., Aug. 26, 2020), seeks to recover for call center employees
unpaid wages, overtime wages and penalties pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons, who worked for the Defendants either in call
centers or remotely from home, anywhere in the United States, at
any time from August 26, 2017, through the final disposition of
this matter and have not been paid for all hours worked nor the
proper amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' illegal corporate-wide
policy has caused the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to
have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a
miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of
calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. Although the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least
one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek.

Everise, Inc., Truesource Labs, LLC, and
C3/CustomerContactChannels, Inc., are Texas-based business process
outsourcing services providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          John D. Garcia, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  john@a2xlaw.com


EVERSOURCE: Connecticut Homeowners File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Teresa Pellicano, writing for WTNH, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Eversource on behalf of Connecticut
homeowners and a business owner who lost power during the massive,
long-term power outage caused by Tropical Storm Isaias.

Two Connecticut homeowners and an acupuncture business filed the
lawsuit on Aug. 7 on behalf of other businesses and homeowners who
are Eversource customers and lost power for an extended period of
time due to the storm.

The homeowners -- from Farmington and New Britain -- say the slow
response of Eversource to the power outage, (that lasted four days
for them), caused food to go bad in their refrigerators and
rendered their homes uninhabitable.

Acupuncture of Greater Hartford claims in the suit that it had to
shut down all business during the four-day outage and that
Eversource's slow response caused the business lost revenue, lost
profits, and economic damages.

The suit claims Eversource did not adequately prepare for the storm
and did not restore power quickly to their customers due to the
company's "negligence" and "recklessness."

The suit also claims Eversource was in breach of contract in the
aftermath of the storm when they failed to provide their customers
with power, and that the company violated the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary and punitive damages, as well
as "other relief." According to the lawsuit documents, "The amount
in demand is more than $1.5 billion, exclusive of interests and
costs."

When asked for comment by News 8 regarding the lawsuit, an
Eversource spokesperson issued the following statement:

We recently learned of the lawsuit and are reviewing it, but we
believe it has no merit. We recognize the tremendous impact the
storm and resulting outages have had on customers across the state.
We remain focused on getting the power back for the rest of our
customers still without power. This has been an incredible team
effort by our employees and the thousands of outside crews who
continue working tirelessly on this massive restoration. [GN]


EVERSOURCE: Customers Launch Class Action Over Storm Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Singer at Hartford Courant News reports that the first
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Eversource over its
response to Tropical Storm Isaias, demanding unspecified
compensation and an admission of culpability in widespread
outages.

Krysztof Kosieradzki, a Farmington resident; Stan Baker, a West
Hartford acupuncturist; and Michael O'Neill, a New Britain
resident, filed a lawsuit in Hartford Superior Court on Aug. 7,
three days after the storm tore through Connecticut.

Kosieradzki and O'Neill said their homes were uninhabitable. Baker
said his acupuncture business was forced to close, resulting in
lost revenue and profit.

Spokesman Mitch Gross said Eversource believes the lawsuit has no
merit.

"We recognize the tremendous impact the storm and resulting outages
have had on customers across the state. We remain focused on
getting the power back for those customers still without power," he
said.

The lawsuit accuses Eversource of negligence by failing to prevent
interruption of service, not adequately trimming trees and taking
other actions to protect transmission lines and equipment and not
having enough workers and other resources in place after the storm
to restore power more quickly.

About 800,000 business and residential customers were without power
for several days, with 99% getting their power back Tuesday, a week
after the storm. Eversource has been strongly criticized by elected
officials who question whether it fully anticipated the destructive
path of Isaias and if it has spent enough money to strengthen its
systems against storms.

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority has promised an
investigation, but has not yet scheduled a public hearing.

Attorney Edward Jazlowiecki of Bristol said he has been approached
by many angry Eversource customers. He said he's certain the
lawsuit will be certified as a class, potentially expanding the
number of plaintiffs suing Eversource into the thousands.
He said he's not waiting for PURA to complete an investigation into
the response by Eversource and United Illuminating.

Jazlowiecki said he sued the utility, then known as Connecticut
Light & Power, after a destructive nor'easter in October 2011. A
settlement yielded "some money," and he said he won $700 or $800 in
a personal lawsuit against the utility. [GN]


EVERSOURCE: Faces $1.5 Billion Breach of Contract Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Connecticut reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Eversource in response to the company's response to
Tropical Storm Isaias and the suit is seeking $1.5 billion.

The complaint was filed in Superior Court in Hartford and accuses
the company of negligence, recklessness and a breach of contract.

Tropical Storm Isaias struck Connecticut and caused widespread
damage.

At the peak number of outages, at least 715,000 households were
without power. That was the day after the storm and more than a
week later, there were still several outages.

The lawsuit has three plaintiffs -- a Farmington homeowner, a New
Britain homeowner and a West Hartford business owner -- but says
the potential class number could exceed 1,000 businesses based on
the Eversource coverage area.

The complaint alleges negligence, saying that Eversource did not
take effective measures to keep customers' service on, that the
company did not trim trees  ahead of the storm to prevent outages
and it didn't keep its equipment in proper condition.

It also alleges that the company did not have adequate personnel
and equipment and failed to take timely and effective action to
restore power.

Eversource said it does not believe the lawsuit has merit.

"We recently learned of the lawsuit and are reviewing it, but we
believe it has no merit. We recognize the tremendous impact the
storm and resulting outages have had on customers across the state.
We remain focused on getting the power back for those customers
still without power.  This has been an incredible team effort by
our employees and the thousands of outside crews who have worked
tirelessly on this massive restoration," Mitch Gross, of
Eversource, said in a statement. [GN]


EXTERIOR CONTRACT: Faces Smiley Suit Over Defective Roofing Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE SMILEY, NICOLE FLOYD, and TIMOTHY O'BRIEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXTERIOR CONTRACT
SERVICES, LLC; SOUTHCOAST EXTERIORS, INC.; and ALPHA OMEGA
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Case No. 2020-CP-10-03786 (S.C. Com.
Pleas, Charleston Cty., Aug. 26, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for negligence and breach of implied warranties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are liable to the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated property owners for
their failure to properly perform their roofing construction work
at the Plaintiffs' residences and other residences constructed in
the Ryder's Landing, Retreat at Beresford, Sophia Landing, Oakley
Pointe, and Wynfield Forest residential developments. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants improperly installed shingle
underlayment, roof drip edges, asphalt roof shingle fasteners,
asphalt roof shingles using the racking method rather than the
offset method at their properties. Moreover, the Defendants
installed defective ridge vents at the properties.

As a result of the improper and defective work by the Defendants
and their employees, agents, servants, and/or subcontractors, the
Plaintiffs spent and/or will be required to spend substantial sums
of money to repair the properties.

Exterior Contract Services, Inc., is a roofing construction
services firm located in Charleston, South Carolina. Southcoast
Exteriors, Inc., is a construction company located in Charleston,
South Carolina.

Alpha Omega Construction Group, Inc. is a residential and
commercial general contracting company that conducts business in
Charleston, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         F. Elliotte Quinn IV, Esq.
         THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
         P.O. Box 2670
         Summerville, SC 29485
         Telephone: (843) 871-6522
         Facsimile: (843) 871-8565
         E-mail: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Douez Class Action Progresses to Next Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
Rob Gibson, writing for Richmond News, reports that a lawsuit
launched against Facebook by a British Columbia woman is
progressing to the next phase according to one of the lawyers
representing the class action lawsuit.

Deborah Douez claims the social media giant used her image and
those of others without their knowledge in a "sponsored stories"
advertising campaign that ran between January 2011 and May 2014,
but has now been discontinued.

The program worked along the lines of an 'influencer campaign,' and
if someone liked a product under the program, Facebook generated a
news feed endorsement using the person's name, profile and photo.
But they neglected to tell the person their image was being used.

The case has already been expanded to include residents of
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador who claim
their images were used without their knowledge during the
campaign.

"The case has been certified, but now we have to get the actual
hearing of the case on merit. At this point there have not been any
decisions on the merit of the claim," Christopher Rhone, partner at
Branch MacMaster LLP, tells Castanet.

A new round of notification emails were sent. If you or someone you
know received one it means there is a possibility that your account
may have been used in the program.

"The purpose of the latest round of emails is to give people
notified the opportunity to 'opt-out' of the class action
lawsuit."

Rhone says people don't need to do anything if they receive and
email notification unless they want to op-out of the lawsuit. "If
somebody feels they have suffered some massive damage, they may
want to commence their own lawsuit."

The lawsuit has been a long time in the making but has been
approved for trial in 2021.

"In our view Facebook has breached the privacy act of those noted
provinces . . . by using the names and portraits of the class
members of their own users in a sponsored story marketing tool
without seeking and receiving the appropriate consent," Rhone
added.

"The idea I guess behind it was, if your friends are endorsing a
product or service, that's actually better than some celebrity or
some unknown person on TV." [GN]


FINISH LINE: Murphy Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ZACHARY MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE FINISH LINE, INC., WHICH WILL DO
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS THE INDIANA FINISH LINE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG20061596, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on August 13, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-05663-JSC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Finish Line, Inc., is an American retail chain that sells athletic
shoes and related apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brooke Purcell, Esq.
          Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq.
          Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com
                  abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com
                  aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or the "Company") (NYSE: FE)
between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants touted FirstEnergy's legislative
"solutions" to problems with its nuclear facilities, but failed to
disclose that these "solutions" centered on an illicit campaign to
corrupt high-profile state legislators in order to secure
legislation favoring the Company. Over a nearly three-year period,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled more than $60 million to
prominent state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker
Larry Householder, in order to secure the passage of Ohio House
Bill 6 ("HB6"), which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded
bailout to keep the Company's failing nuclear facilities in
operation. In addition, Defendants falsely represented that they
were complying with state and federal laws and regulations
regarding regulatory matters throughout the Class Period, exposing
the Company and its investors to the extreme undisclosed risks of
reputational, legal and financial harm. As a result of Defendants'
false statements and omissions, the price of FirstEnergy stock was
artificially inflated to a high of more than $50 per share during
the Class Period, and Company insiders were able to sell more than
$17 million worth of their FirstEnergy shares at these artificially
inflated prices.

Then, on July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of
Householder and four other persons, including a prominent
FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million racketeering
and bribery scheme. The 82-page criminal complaint and affidavit
detailed an alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy
corrupted every facet of the legislative process in order to ensure
the passage of HB6, including defending the bill against a citizens
ballot initiative. Prosecutors described the case as involving the
"'largest bribery, money-laundering scheme'" in Ohio history.

On this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock plummeted, trading as
low as $22.85 per share on July 22, 2020, down 45% from its closing
price of $41.26 per share on July 20, 2020.

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

If you purchased FE securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/firstenergycorp-fe-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-286/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome
with respect to any future matter.

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


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Guidewire Software, Inc.
(NYSE: GWRE), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Velocity Financial,
Inc. (NYSE: VEL), and FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE).  Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE: FE)

Class Period: February 21, 2017 to July 21, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Ohio
Speaker Larry Householder and four other persons, including a
prominent FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million
racketeering and bribery scheme.

On this news, the Company's share price fell by $7.01, or 17%, to
close at $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020.

On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article entitled
"FirstEnergy was relentless in quest to have Ohio legislature bail
out the utility's nuclear plants," which provided further details
regarding FirstEnergy's illicit activities.

On this news, the Company's share price fell by $7.16, or 21%, to
close at $27.09 per share on July 22, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had orchestrated
a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political process in order to
secure the passage of legislation favoring the Company and its
affiliates; (2) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure
votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) that FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign
in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to
repeal HB6 by passing millions of dollars through an intricate web
of "dark money" entities and front companies in order to conceal
the Company's involvement; (4) that FirstEnergy and its
representatives and affiliates had subverted a citizens' ballot
initiative to repeal HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics,
hiring more than 15 signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting
them out of supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot
initiative insiders and signature collectors; (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding
FirstEnergy's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially
false and misleading; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing,
FirstEnergy was subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of
reputational, legal and financial harm.

For more information on the FirstEnergy class action go to:
https://bespc.com/FE

                   About Bragar Eagel & Squire

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/firstenergy-corp-loss-submission-form?id=8573&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that FirstEnergy Corp. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the legislative "solutions" that defendants claimed would
resolve problems with the Company's nuclear facilities were
centered on an illicit campaign to corrupt high-profile state
legislators and thus secure legislation favoring the FirstEnergy;
(2) over roughly three years, FirstEnergy and its affiliates
funneled more than $60 million to prominent state politicians and
lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry Householder, in order to
secure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6, which provided a $1.3
billion ratepayer-funded bailout to keep the Company's failing
nuclear facilities in operation; (3) defendants falsely represented
that they were complying with state and federal laws and
regulations regarding regulatory matters throughout the Class
Period, exposing the Company and its investors to the extreme risks
of reputational, legal, and financial harm; (4) as a result of
defendants' false statements and omissions, FirstEnergy insiders
were able to sell more than $17 million worth of their FirstEnergy
shares at artificially inflated prices.

Shareholders have until September 28, 2020 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the FE lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Owens Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Highland County Press reports that a securities fraud
class-action lawsuit has been filed against FirstEnergy Corp. on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 21,
2017 and July 21, 2020.

Akron attorney Neil Rothstein encourages investors who purchased
FirstEnergy common stock during this period to contact Barbuto &
Johansson, P.A. before Sept. 28.

The case, Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-03785, has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.

The case is related to Ohio House Bill 6 and the July 21 arrest of
former Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder, R-Glenford.
Householder is charged in a federal racketeering conspiracy
involving approximately $60 million paid to a 501(c)(4) entity to
pass and uphold a billion-dollar nuclear plant bailout.

It is alleged that Householder, 61, and the "enterprise" conspired
to violate the racketeering statute through honest services wire
fraud, receipt of millions of dollars in bribes and money
laundering.

Four allies of Householder also were arrested. Lobbyists Matthew
Borges, Juan Cespedes and Neil Clark and political campaign
associate Jeff Longstreth pleaded not guilty to racketeering
charges laid out in an 80-page complaint released in late July.
They entered not guilty pleas before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen
Litkovitz on Aug. 6.

Householder was scheduled to appear in court on Aug. 20.

According to the federal complaint, investigators allege that
Householder, Borges, Cespedes, Clark and Longstreth used $60
million from "Company A" with a primary objective of passing House
Bill 6, which would raise $1.3 billion for the Davis-Bessie and
Perry nuclear plants. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
FirstEnergy investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the FirstEnergy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had
orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political
process in order to secure the passage of legislation favoring the
Company and its affiliates; (2) FirstEnergy and its representatives
and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure
votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates
had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support
of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by
passing millions of dollars through an intricate web of 'dark
money' entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had subverted a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15
signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting them out of
supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot initiative insiders
and signature collectors; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' Class Period statements regarding FirstEnergy's
regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and
misleading; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was
subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


FIS OPERATIONS: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
KODY CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIS OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A FRONTIER INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00215 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other inspectors overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to their
misclassification as exempt workers.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector in the
Corpus Christi and Crane, Texas areas from January 2018 to November
2019.

FIS Operations, LLC, doing business as Frontier Integrity
Solutions, is a company that provides inspection staffing services
in the oil and gas industry. The Company conducts its business
across Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         5612 Chaucer Drive
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 885-8844
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

                - and –

         John Neuman, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         5612 Chaucer Drive
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 885-8630
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Blackwell Sues Over Planned Advent Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD BLACKWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES INC.; MICHAEL
DECESARE; THERESIA GOUW; JAMES BEER; DAVID DEWALT; ELIZABETH
HACKENSON; MARK JENSEN; KATHY MCELLIGOTT; ENRIQUE SALEM; and HEZY
YESHURUN, Case No. 5:20-cv-05365 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2020), alleges
violation of the Securities Exchange Act relating to a proposed
tender offer by affiliates of Advent International Corporation to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Forescout.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed the class action
against Forescout Technologies, Inc. ("Forescout" or the "Company")
and the members of the Company's board of directors (collectively
referred to as the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants" and,
together with Forescout, the "Defendants") for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff
also asserts a claim against the Individual Defendants for
breaching their fiduciary duties under state law.

The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the proposed tender
offer ("Tender Offer") by Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P. ("Parent")
and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), affiliates of Advent
International Corporation (together with Parent and Merger Sub
"Advent"), to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of
Forescout (the "Proposed Transaction").

On July 20, 2020, in order to convince Forescout shareholders to
tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"),
the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the Recommendation Statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the Company's financial projections; (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"); (iii) the conflicts of
interest facing Morgan Stanley; (iv) the conflicts of interest
facing the Company's officers and directors; and (v) the background
of the offer.

The Plaintiff contends that these material misstatements and
omissions represent violations of the Exchange Act and breaches of
the Individual Defendants' duty of candor/disclosure.

Forescout Technologies, Inc., provides automated security control
solutions. The Company develops proprietary agentless technology
that discovers and classifies IP-based devices in real time as they
connect to the network and monitors their security posture.
Forescout Technologies serves industries and organizations
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


FOREVER COLLECTIBLES: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FOREVER COLLECTIBLES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06786
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2020), arises from Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
http://www.foco.com/,to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Forever Collectibles, Inc., is an American sports memorabilia and
collectibles company that owns and operates the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


GENIUS BRANDS: Faces Garg Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMIT GARG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENIUS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and ANDY HEYWARD,
Case No. 2:20-cv-07764 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities and Exchange Act by issuing
false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about Genius's business, operations, and
prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to
artificially inflate Genius's stock price from March 17, 2020,
through July 5, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose the following information to investors: (1) Nickelodeon's
purported broadcast expansion of Genius's Hit Preschool Series,
Rainbow Rangers, was temporary and/or overstated; (2) the Kartoon
Channel! would be subject to subscription fees through Amazon
Prime; and (3) the Kartoon Channel! had little viability for future
growth for Genius.

When the truth about the Company's operations and performance was
disclosed to investors, the price of Genius stock dropped
significantly from a close of $3.55 per share on the previous
trading day to a closing price of $2.66 per share on July 6, 2020.
The Company has lost nearly 80% of its value.

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

Genius Brands International, Inc., is a multimedia company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

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


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

To join the GEO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) GEO maintained ineffective COVID-19 response procedures;
(2) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the
Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3)
accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial
and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit related to the secondary market for
odd-lot corporate bonds.

The company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action
relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed
on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidated complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, asserts claims
under federal antitrust law in connection with alleged
anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary market
for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble and punitive damages and restitution.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Staff Challenges Arbitration Order
-------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the class action
suit alleging employee discrimination have submitted objections to
a Magistrate Judge's order granting in part a motion to compel
arbitration.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees
in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.


The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.

The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On
September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court
granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members
who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co.
in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes.

On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the
Magistrate Judge' order and defendants submitted conditional
objections in the event that the district judge overturns any
portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GRACO: Bursor & Fisher Voluntarily Dismisses Sleepers Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that rather than try again, class action
lawyers suing Graco over the recall of its children's sleepers have
given up on their case.

No one was hurt in the company's "Little Lounger" sleepers but the
company recalled the products and offered refunds anyway after it
was deemed there was a threat of asphyxiation. On July 20, Los
Angeles federal judge Stephen Wilson dismissed the complaint but
allowed lawyers 21 days to fix its deficiencies.

Bursor & Fisher filed its notice of voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, on Aug. 10 instead of filing a new complaint.

Graco noted in its motion to dismiss that there were no reported
incidents of asphyxiation actually happening and that it offered
refunds to customers, which left the company wondering why
plaintiffs attorneys filed suit instead.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged that the use of the contested products
caused any injury, or even that Plaintiffs have ever used the
products at all," Judge Wilson's decision says.

"Plaintiffs claim they were deprived the benefit of the product
they purchased, but Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual
allegation that the product did not or cannot perform the function
for which it was sold."

Wilson cited a previous Los Angeles case in declaring that the
presence of a recall does not establish harm.

"A product recall does not imply an admission of false or
misleading advertising, and Plaintiffs have yet to provide any
factual allegation that the products did not or could not perform
as advertised," Wilson wrote.

"More importantly for fraud pleading, Plaintiffs have not shown how
any of Defendants' statements or advertising were false or
misleading." [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Guidewire Software, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE)

Class Period: March 6, 2019 to March 4, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

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

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

On this news, Guidewire's stock price plummeted by 17% in a single
day, falling from $112.48 on March 3, 2020 to $93.56 on March 4,
2020, a decline of $18.92 per share.

The complaint, filed on July 24, 2020, alleges that the demand for
Guidewire's cloud products was weak and the Company's transition to
the cloud was not going well because Guidewire's cloud-based
products needed to be significantly improved to meet customer needs
and catch-up with rival systems.  Further, Guidewire's failed
transition to the cloud was damaging the Company's traditional
on-premise business, as customers delayed purchasing decisions or
declined to renew existing licenses.  As a result, Guidewire's
revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on
significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based
products, was baseless and unattainable.

For more information on the Guidewire class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GWRE

                       About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire Software, Inc. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
Class Period: March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

The GWRE lawsuit alleges that Guidewire Software, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) that the Company's transition to the cloud was
not going well; (2) that Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to
be improved to meet customer needs and catch up with rival systems;
(3) that the Company's failed transition to the cloud was also
hurting Guidewire's traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a
result, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including guidance
principally based on significantly increasing demand for the
Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and unattainable.

Learn about your recoverable losses in GWRE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8550&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Kuhen Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH KUHEN, CPA d/b/a/ R. KUHEN & CO INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC.; and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No.
3:20-cv-01669-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020), asserts claims for
breach of contract arising from the Plaintiff's contract of
insurance with the Defendants, which they refuse to honor.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was forced to temporarily
close its business beginning on March 20, 2020, causing an
interruption to and loss of its business income, at the direction
of local, state, and/or federal authorities, and/or due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency.

The Plaintiff and the Class purchased and paid for an "all-risk"
Commercial Property Coverage insurance policy from the Defendants,
which provides broad property insurance coverage for all
non-excluded, lost business income, including the losses asserted
in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff says it submitted timely notice of its claim to
Defendants, but they have refused to provide the purchased coverage
to their insured, and have denied the Plaintiff's claim for
benefits under the policy. The Defendants have similarly refused
to, or will refuse to, honor their obligations under the "all-risk"
policy(ies) purchased by the Plaintiff and the other members of the
putative Class of insureds.

Plaintiff, Ralph Kuhen, CPA d/b/a/ R. Kuhen & Co Inc., is an
accounting firm incorporated under the laws of the State of
California.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The
Hartford, is a U.S.-based investment and insurance company.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc. and a member of The Hartford Group
of Insurance Companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com


HEADWAY CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEADWAY CAPITAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
2:20-cv-07769 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Company contacted the cellular
telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in
an attempt to promote and market its services. The alleged
solicitation calls were made without prior express written consent
from the Plaintiff and Class members.

Headway Capital, LLC, is a small business lending company that
provides business loans, lines of credit and other financial
products, with a principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


HENNER TANK: Faces Scott Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henner Tank Lines
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Walter Scott, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Henner Tank Lines Inc.,
Deborah Henner, Douglas Erwin Henner, and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 34-2020-00283120-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug.
10, 2020).

The case type is stated as Other employment.

A case management conference will be held on February 11, 2021.

Henner Tank Lines Inc. is a California-based trucking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE
          113 West G Street, Suite 231
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 886-7224
          Email: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com


HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Throws Out Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Santa Ana, California, recently dismissed a
lawsuit against a manufacturer of dietary supplements whose
ingredients were flagged by FDA in warning letters.

The March 3 suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of three individuals who
purchased products containing three ingredients allegedly not safe
for human consumption: 1-3-dimethylamylamine (DMAA), DMHA
(1,5-Dimethylhexylamine)  and methylsynephrine. In the complaint
against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc., the plaintiffs alleged
negligent and intentional misrepresentations, as well as violations
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law
and Unfair Competition Law.

U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the complaint after
agreeing with Norcross, Georgia-based Hi-Tech that warning letters
do not constitute final agency action. The judge warned if he moved
forward with an analysis of whether the ingredients constitute
dietary supplements, another court considering the legal status of
DMHA, for example, could reach a different conclusion than him.

Carter found FDA was in the best position to determine whether the
ingredients constituted dietary supplements under the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the determination of DMAA, DMHA
and methylsynephrine as dietary supplements under DSHEA requires
both the expertise of the FDA and uniformity in administration,"
Carter concluded in his July 29 order, which granted Hi-Tech's
motion to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine known as
primary jurisdiction.

Jack Wenik, an attorney in Newark, New Jersey, defending Hi-Tech,
had no comment about the decision. Abbas Kazerounian, a lawyer in
Costa Mesa, California, representing the plaintiffs, said, "We have
deep respect for Judge Carter and [are] studying his order in
detail while discussing all options with our client."

All three ingredients highlighted in the complaint have garnered
the attention of FDA in warning letters, and two of them have been
the subject of litigation in recent years between Hi-Tech and FDA.

DMAA

FDA has described DMAA as an "amphetamine derivative" that can
raise blood pressure and lead to cardiovascular problems such as
shortness of breath, tightening in the chest and heart attack.

Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 2017 district
court summary judgment order, which held DMAA is not a dietary
ingredient under DSHEA.

"DMAA is not an 'herb or other botanical,'" District Judge Robert
Hinkle wrote in the 11th Circuit's decision. "It is not a
'constituent' of an herb or other botanical. And it is not
generally recognized by qualified experts, as adequately shown
through scientific procedures, to be safe under the conditions of
its intended use."

The appeals court on April 8 denied Hi-Tech's request for a
rehearing before the entire panel. Jared Wheat, CEO of Norcross,
Georgia-based Hi-Tech, said the company "absolutely" plans to file
a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. According to
Wenik, a member of the law firm Epstein Becker & Green P.C., the
petition is not due until Sept. 8.

DMHA

On April 10, 2019, FDA sent a warning letter to Hi-Tech and several
others over the sale of DMHA. On a webpage linking to the warning
letters, FDA alleged DMHA is "adulterated" because it's a new
dietary ingredient (NDI) that has not met requirements to be
lawfully marketed in supplements.

DMHA may also be an unapproved food additive if it does not qualify
as a dietary ingredient, according to the warning letters.

"DMHA it is not generally recognized as safe [GRAS] under its
conditions of use in your dietary supplement products," an FDA
official, William Correll, wrote to Wheat in the letter. "If DMHA
is not a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the
[Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic] Act, dietary supplements
containing DMHA would be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i)
of the Act because they would contain an unsafe food additive."

In a May 1, 2019 letter to Correll, Wheat attached a copy of a
lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., that same day against FDA, which
alleged the agency was responsible for an "arbitrary and
capricious" enforcement action against DMHA.

Referencing an expert report he enclosed, Wheat stated in his
letter, "DMHA is a dietary ingredient as defined by DSHEA because
it is a constituent of several plants, each of which have long been
part of the human diet."

The expert's report further concluded "DMHA is safe as its effects
have been studied and are well-known, and it does not have a
history of AERs [adverse event reports] resulting from its use,"
Wheat wrote.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the lawsuit
against FDA. In a June 29 order, he found he lacked "subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims" since FDA's "warning
letter is not a final agency action subject to judicial review."

In an interview, Wheat said he hasn't heard from FDA regarding DMHA
since the warning letter was sent to him.

Methylsynephrine

FDA in 2016 wrote seven warning letters regarding methylsynephrine,
also known as oxilofrine. According to FDA, methylsynephrine does
not qualify as a dietary ingredient, and labeling it as such causes
products marketed as dietary supplements to be misbranded.

"Additionally, methylsynephrine is not approved as a food additive
or prior sanctioned for use in dietary supplements," Correll wrote
in the letters. "Further, FDA's review of this substance does not
identify a basis to conclude that the substance is GRAS for use in
food. If you contend that this substance is GRAS for use in food,
please provide your basis for concluding that methylsynephrine is
GRAS for use in dietary supplements, including supporting data or
other documentation."

FDA verified in an email that its positions have not changed
regarding DMAA, DMHA and methylsynephrine.

Hi-Tech did not receive a warning letter regarding
methylsynephrine. Wheat said in an email he "strongly disagree[s]
with FDA's position" because the ingredient "is in various plants."
[GN]


HOSPITALITY INVESTORS: Court Dismisses Wollman Shareholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned STUART WOLLMAN, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated stockholders of Hospitality Investors
Trust, Inc. v. HOSPITALITY INVESTORS TRUST, INC.; AR GLOBAL
INVESTMENTS, LLC; AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES,
LLC; AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HOSPITALITY ADVISORS, LLC; NICHOLAS S.
SCHORSCH; WILLIAM M. KAHANE; EDWARD M. WEIL, JR.; PETER M. BUDKO;
BRIAN S. BLOCK; JONATHAN P. MEHLMAN; STANLEY R. PERLA; ABBY M.
WENZEL; and ROBERT H. BURNS, Case No. 20-CV-798 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

District Judge Valerie Caproni ruled that the Defendants' Motion is
granted, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk
of Court is directed to close all open motions and close the case.

According to the Opinion and Order, the lawsuit is a direct
shareholder action against Hospitality Investors Trust, Inc.
("HIT"), HIT's external managers (the "AR Companies"), and several
officers and directors. Plaintiff Stuart Wollman, an HIT
shareholder, previously flirted with bringing a derivative action,
but he progressed no further than a demand on the Board of
Directors. Nevertheless, he has objected to the settlement of a
related derivative lawsuit captioned Milliken v. American Realty
Capital Hospitality Advisors LLC, No. 18-CV-1757 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).
In this case, the Plaintiff alleges a single count of common-law
fraud against the Defendants. The Complaint incorporates by
reference the Report of the Special Litigation Committee of the
Board of Directors of HIT, dated October 11, 2019 ("SLC Report").

The lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge
Caproni opines that although at least two of the Complaint's three
claims are direct, none is well pled. Judge Caproni explains that
Mr. Wollman's "fraudulent inducement" claim makes only conclusory
assertions that fail heightened pleading standards of Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Judge Caproni adds, among other things, that Mr. Wollman could
identify no factual allegations--in the Complaint or the SLC
Report--at oral argument to support his bare assertions of fraud
and the Court has found no support in the SLC Report for his
claims. Hence, the Court has no reason to believe that Mr. Wollman
can pull new allegations from the SLC Report now, and that giving
him leave to amend would be futile.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybje5wye from
Leagle.com.


HOSTESS BRANDS: Lauchung-Nacarino Sues Over Donettes' False Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA LAUCHUNG-NACARINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOSTESS BRANDS, INC. and HOSTESS BRANDS, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05971 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2020), is a class
action against the Defendants for common law fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation, and violations of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's
False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in
false and deceptive labeling, advertising, marketing, and sale of
the Hostess Carrot Cake Donettes. Contrary to Hostess's packaging
and advertising, and representation, the product contains no
"carrot cake." Indeed, carrots are not listed among the ingredients
at all, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Defendants deceive consumers, including the Plaintiff, into
believing that the product is healthier than other desserts because
of its carrot cake front label, according to the complaint. The
Defendants do not disclose that the product contains no real carrot
cake, or that the carrot-like color and flavor of the product is
manufactured through an artificial process to create a chemical
substance that tastes like real carrot.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and deceptive acts, the
Plaintiff contends she and Class members were misled into
purchasing the product that failed to meet their reasonable
expectations.

Hostess Brands, Inc., is an American bakery company, with its
principal place of business located in Kansas City, Missouri.
Hostess Brands, LLC is a manufacturer of bakery products, with its
principal place of business located in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Todd Kennedy, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 271-6469
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Zakikhani Sues in Calif. Over Defective Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramtin Zakikhani, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01584 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought to redress
Defendants' misconduct of unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent
business practices, which result to ascertainable loss of money,
property and loss in value, with regard to certain defective
vehicles.

The defective Class Vehicles include: 2007-2010 Hyundai Elantra;
2009-2011 Hyundai Elantra Touring; 2007-2008 Hyundai Entourage;
2007 Hyundai Santa Fe; 2006-2011 Hyundai Azera; 2006 Hyundai
Sonata; 2006 2010 Kia Sedona; 2007-2009 Kia Sorento; and 2008-2009
Kia Sportage.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly failed to
recall hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles containing a
potentially deadly defect--putting countless lives at risk from
approximately 2006 to this day. In April 2011, a public complaint
was filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") by an owner of a 2010 Hyundai Elantra. The owner reported
that his or her "6-month old Hyundai Elantra Touring caught fire
after sitting in his or her driveway for nine hours." Unable to
identify a cause for why a brand-new vehicle would spontaneously
erupt in flames, a forensic engineer was retained to determine the
cause of the vehicle-fire.

Upon completion of the investigation, public complaint states that
the engineer "concluded that the fire was electrical and originated
in the engine compartment." At that time, the Defendants had yet to
issue any recalls or publicly acknowledge any defect in the Class
Vehicles that may result in spontaneous engine compartment fires.
The forensic engineer's conclusion was spot-on. The 2010 Hyundai
Elantra, and each Class Vehicle, contains potentially deadly
defects in components installed in the vehicle's engine
compartment: the Anti-Lock Brake System ("ABS") modules or
Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit ("HECU"). Specifically, the ABS
modules and HECUs installed in the Class Vehicles allow moisture to
accumulate within the parts which also maintain an electrical
charge even when the vehicle is off. Due to the moisture entering
the electrified ABS module or HECU, a short circuit is formed,
which creates a high likelihood that a fire will erupt in the
vehicle's engine compartment, (the "Defect").

The Defendants were aware of the Defect long before they ever
acknowledged its existence, according to the complaint. The
Defendants are experienced (and tout themselves as such) in the
design and manufacture of consumer vehicles and conduct durability
tests on all of its components, including ABS modules and HECUs, to
verify the parts are free from defects and comply with their
specifications. Moreover, the Defendants have access to numerous
sources of reports of Class Vehicle failures caused by the Defect,
including their own records of customer complaints, dealership
repair records, warranty claims, and NHTSA complaints.

The Defendants' abhorrent disregard for the safety of their
consumers came at a total surprise to the Plaintiff and other Class
Members, who were repeatedly told by the Defendants that their
"cars undergo thousands of hours of examination and it's not just
engine performance that is under scrutiny" and that the
manufacturers place an emphasis on "quality and durability."
Moreover, the Plaintiff and other Class Members were outraged to
learn that despite advertisements that the Defendants offered
"industry leading" warranty programs and "America's Best Warranty,"
the Defendants would do all they could to conceal the Defect and
skirt their obligations. Had the Plaintiff and other Class Members
known of the Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would
not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid
substantially less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Sarasota, Florida, who purchased a
2007 Hyundai Entourage minivan.

Hyundai America is a subsidiary of HMC and is actively engaged in
manufacturing, assembling, marketing, and distributing Hyundai
vehicles sold in California and the rest of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Lenze, Esq.
          Amanda D. McGee, Esq.
          LENZE LAWYERS, PLC
          1300 Highland Avenue, Suite 207
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 322-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 322-8811
          Email: jlenze@lenzelawyers.com
                 mcgee@lenzelawyers.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 741-1019
          Fax: (312) 264-0100
          Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 332.216.2101
          Facsimile: 917.725.9346
          Email: jonathan@feganscott.com


INNERWORKINGS INC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to HH Global
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INNERWORKINGS, INC., JACK M. GREENBERG, CHARLES K.
BOBRINSKOY, LINDSAY Y. CORBY, DAVID FISHER, ADAM J. GUTSTEIN, JULIE
M. HOWARD, KIRT P. KARROS, RICHARD STODDART, and MARC ZENNER, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01114-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 relating to the proposed sale of the Company to HH Global
Group Limited, et al.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission with regards to the proposed acquisition of
InnerWorkings, Inc. by HH Global Group Limited, HH Global Finance
Limited, and Project Idaho Merger Sub, Inc. Specifically, the proxy
statement fails to disclose: (1) InnerWorkings' financial
projections; (2) the analyses performed by the company's financial
advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in connection with the
proposed transaction; and (3) the timing and nature of the past
services Citigroup provided to the company and its affiliates, as
well as the amount of compensation Citigroup received for providing
such services.

The Plaintiff contends that the omissions of the information on the
proxy statement are material for the Company's stockholders,
including the Plaintiff, for them to make an informed decision on
the proposed merger.

InnerWorkings, Inc. is a provider of global print management and
promotional solutions, with its principal executive offices located
at 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 295-5310
         Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
         E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

                - and –

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (484) 324-6800
         Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Williams Chosen Lead Litigant in McDermid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
issued a Memorandum granting Manuel Williams' motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PATRICK
McDERMID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 20-01402
(E.D. Pa.).

In this securities class action, six individuals and groups move
the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff and approve their
choice of lead counsel. After further briefing and oral argument,
only two movants--the Inovio Group and Manuel Williams--still
actively seek appointment. The Inovio Group is comprised of Dr.
Stephen Brockway, Dwayne Lerma, Joseph Stefko, Scott E. Dahlstrom
and Kenneth C. Ness.

The Court denies the Inovio Group's Motion and grants Mr. Williams'
competing Motion.

Background

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a "biotechnology company focused on
rapidly bringing to market precisely designed DNA medicines" to
combat infectious diseases. In February 2020, Inovio's CEO, J.
Joseph Kim, claimed on national television "that Inovio had
developed a COVID-19 vaccine" and planned to begin testing the
vaccine on humans by early summer. After Mr. Kim's announcement,
Inovio's stock price shot up by over ten percent. A few weeks
later, he had a televised meeting with President Donald Trump to
discuss the COVID-19 pandemic; during that meeting, Mr. Kim
repeated his claim that Inovio had "construct[ed] [its COVID-19]
vaccine within three hours" and would start testing in April. This
news sent Inovio's stock soaring.

Inovio's ascent stalled on March 9 when Citron Research, a
well-known securities trader, publicly ridiculed the company's
"ludicrous and dangerous claim that [it] designed a vaccine in 3
hours." Citron Research also called on the Securities and Exchange
Commission to "immediately HALT" trading of Inovio's stock. Within
a day, the stock tumbled from $19.36 per share to just $5.70 per
share.

On March 12, Patrick McDermid filed a class action complaint
against Inovio and Mr. Kim. Comprising those who acquired Inovio
stock between February 14 and March 9, 2020, the putative class
accused Kim and Inovio of committing securities fraud by making
false and misleading statements regarding the company's potential
COVID-19 vaccine. By the deadline, ten individuals and groups moved
to serve as lead plaintiff.

Conclusion

Though the Inovio Group enjoys the presumption as the most adequate
plaintiff, Mr. Williams successfully rebuts that presumption,
according to the Court's Memorandum. Of the remaining active
movants, Mr. Williams has the next largest financial interest, and
no class member has impugned his ability to adequately represent
the class. The Court, therefore, appoints Mr. Williams as lead
plaintiff and approves his chosen lawyers, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfdhqqj from Leagle.com.


INSTAGRAM: Whalen Files Facial Recognition Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Holmes, writing for Business Insider, reports that Instagram
is accused of illegally harvesting people's biometric data without
their knowledge or consent in a new class action lawsuit filed
against Facebook, Instagram's parent company.

The lawsuit, Whalen v. Facebook, claims that Instagram has a
face-tagging tool that uses facial recognition to identify people
and create a "face template" that is stored in its database. While
Instagram discloses this practice in its terms of service, the
lawsuit alleges that the tool automatically scans the faces of
people pictured in other users' posts, even if they don't use
Instagram and didn't agree to the terms of service.

That practice violates an Illinois state law that bans companies
from collecting people's biometric data -- like a facial
recognition scan -- without their knowledge or consent, the lawsuit
alleges.

"Once Facebook captures its Instagram users' protected biometrics,
it uses them to bolster its facial recognition abilities across all
of its products, including the Facebook application, and shares
this information among various entities. Facebook does all of this
without providing any of the required notices or disclosures
required by Illinois law," the plaintiffs wrote in their
complaint.

In a statement to Business Insider, Facebook spokesperson Stephanie
Otway said Instagram does not use facial recognition in the way the
Facebook app does.

"This suit is baseless. Instagram doesn't use Face Recognition
technology," Otway said.

Facebook has already faced litigation stemming from the Illinois
law. Last month, the company offered to pay $650 million to settle
a lawsuit that claimed a similar face-tagging tool was being
deployed on Facebook users without their consent.

The new class action Instagram lawsuit seeks damages for as many as
100 million Instagram users. Under the Illinois law, Facebook could
be forced to pay $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, meaning the full
damages could reach $500 billion if Facebook is found responsible.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[GN]


J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) to
submit their losses now. The September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in a securities fraud class action against J2 Global is
fast approaching.

Class Period: Oct. 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 8, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JCOM

Contact An Attorney Now: JCOM@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

J2 Global (JCOM) Securities Fraud Class Action:

J2 Global is a digital media roll-up that has acquired 186
businesses since its inception. Its CEO describes the Company's
"acquisition system" as its "single great competitive advantage."

The complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; and (3) several so-called
independent members of the Company board of directors and audit
committee were not disinterested.

The complaint alleges that investors began to learn the truth on
June 30, 2020, when research firm Hindenburg released a scathing
report about J2 accusing the Company of engaging in undisclosed
related party transactions and accounting manipulation. Hindenburg
stated "[w]e … believe J2's opaque acquisition approach has
opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we
believe approximates $117 million to $172 million" and concluded
"We Believe J2 Global's Equity Is Uninvestable."

In response, the price of J2 Global shares traded sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving J2 Global
intentionally misrepresented the success of its roll-up strategy,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you purchased shares of J2 Global and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding J2
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email JCOM@hbsslaw.com. [GN]


J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM)
between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for J2 Global investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the J2 Global class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


JUMIA: Settles Fraud Class Actions for $5 Million
-------------------------------------------------
Yomi Kazeem, writing for Quartz Africa, reports that Jumia's second
quarter earnings results show the company is looking to draw an end
to a spate of legal wrangles.

Months after a high-profile successful IPO on the New York Stock
Exchange last year, the company faced allegations of fraud and was
the subject of class-action lawsuits over "alleged misstatements
and omissions" in its IPO filing documents.

But Jumia's management say the company has now reached an agreement
"to fully resolve all of the actions," subject to court approval.
The agreement will see Jumia make a settlement payment of $5
million ($1 million of which will be funded by insurance coverage)
while the company does not admit any liability or wrongdoing.

The agreement partly resolves what has been a tumultuous full year
of being publicly listed but investors will also note that the
company's earning results for the second quarter of the year
reflected a EUR37.6 million ($44.3 million) operating loss, a 44%
year on year reduction but revenues fell 10% in the same period.
Its gross merchandise volume (GMV) dropped 13% year on year to
EUR228 million ($269.7 million) even though orders for the quarter
reached 6.8 million, a year-over-year increase of 8%.

Shares fell more than 20% to $12.80 by afternoon on Wednesday (Aug.
12). Jumia's shares had been floundering since the start of the
year plunging to below $3 in March as economic uncertainty spread
around the world. But some US analysts and investors decided to
group Jumia with giant Amazon perhaps believing as a pan-African
e-commerce leader it would also see a similar growth trajectory
across the continent as more people turned to shopping online. This
renewed interest in Jumia sent its shares to a 2020 high of $21 on
Aug. 3.

Changing focus

Jumia continues to change the focus of its inventory in pursuit of
turning profitable. After de-emphasizing focus on phones and
electronics, the e-tailer is now reporting "smaller-sized, more
profitable orders" as average order value fell to EUR33.8 (down 19%
from last quarter) while gross profit per order after fulfillment
expense is up to 90 cents, up from a loss of 10 cents per order
last quarter.

"Our strategy to increase the focus on what we call the everyday
categories…while driving cost savings is yielding good results,"
chief executive Sacha Poignonnec said on the earnings call. "We are
shifting more business to beauty, fashion or fast-moving consumer
goods which have higher commission rates and are less promotionally
intensive like phones and electronics." Mobile phone and
electronics now account for 43% of Jumia's GMV, down 37% year on
year, while beauty and personal care is the company's fastest
growing category in GMV and volume terms.

Growth in the "everyday categories" segment is also linked to the
underlying effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the continent as
more local users turn to online shopping for essentials and
groceries out of necessity and safety. As that trend holds, the
continued interest from large brands and small sellers in
partnering with Jumia's marketplace also shows they are
increasingly "turning to e-commerce as an important route to
market," Poignonnec said.

Alongside changing the focus of its inventory, Jumia is also
attempting to change how its users pay for these orders through
Jumia Pay—its in-house fintech solution.

Total payments volume on Jumia Pay more than doubled year on year
to reach an all-time high of EUR53.6 million ($63.1 million) as
transactions topped 2.4 million. While the growing conversion of
more users within the Jumia marketplace represents good news for
the company, its long-term focus involves positioning its Jumia Pay
payments service as a standalone product and possible driver of
revenues and, eventually, profits. After launching Jumia Pay in
seven of its African markets, Jumia is aiming to spin off the
service and target a share of local electronic payments markets.
[GN]


KENDO HOLDINGS: OLEHENRIKSEN Eye Creme Is Defective, Key Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA J. KEY, ANNE SPOLLEN and ANNE F. S. TALBOT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KENDO HOLDINGS INC.
and OLE HENRIKSEN OF DENMARK, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05992 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for claims
of unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and violations of the California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's
False Advertising Law, New York General Business Law, and New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, allege that the Defendants have manufactured
and sold OLEHENRIKSEN Banana Bright Eye Creme without disclosing
any of the side effects that may occur when using the product.
Several consumers, who used the product, including the Plaintiffs,
have experienced allergic reactions, including itching, hives,
redness, and swelling. Despite numerous consumer complaints, the
Defendants continued to market the product and concealed its
harmful side effects in pursuit of profit.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and deceptive acts, the
Plaintiffs assert that they and Class members have been injured and
harmed because they would not have purchased the Product if they
knew the truth about its harmful effects.

Kendo Holdings, Inc., and Ole Henrisken of Denmark, Inc., are
manufacturers and distributors of cosmetic products headquartered
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 bscott@bursor.com

                - and –

         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: scott@bursor.com


KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Averts Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that New York insurer
Kingstone Companies Inc has won dismissal of a proposed shareholder
class action accusing it of concealing risky underwriting practices
and failing to maintain adequate loss reserves from 2018 to 2019.

The lawsuit, filed last year by investor Phillip Woolgar in
Manhattan federal court, cited information from six confidential
sources in the company. It said the company's risky practices came
to light April 2019, when it announced a $5 million loss reserve
charge, resulting in a stock drop of about 15% and losses to
investors. [GN]


L'OREAL USA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Critcher Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARY TULLIE
CRITCHER, TWOANA CLARK-SHEPPARD, VICTORIA MARYNOVSKY, PATRICIA
BELBOT, JESSICA PETRIE, LINDA FEIGES, SARAH McQUEARY, GEORGETTE C.
FOURNIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. L'OREAL USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, ATC ASSOCIATES, INC., ATC GROUP SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant. No. 19-2474-cv. (2nd Cir.).

Defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a major producer of beauty products.
Plaintiffs are former consumers of some of those products,
specifically a few "liquid cosmetics" like L'Oreal Visible Lift
Serum Absolute and L'Oreal Age Perfect Eye Renewal Eye Cream.

Plaintiffs did not bring this suit because they take issue with the
effectiveness of such products. Rather, they bring this suit for
another reason: because the creams are not fully accessible.

Try as they may, Plaintiffs state that a portion of each of the
creams cannot be extracted from their respective containers. Unable
to retrieve the full product--and believing that they were deceived
into buying more of the cosmetics than they could use--they sought
relief in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. They brought several common-law claims
against L'Oreal--for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability--in addition to claims under eight
state consumer-protection statutes.

In a memorandum and order from July 11, 2019, the District Court
agreed. It concluded, in the first place, that the federal Food
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which comprehensively regulates
cosmetics and contains a broad preemption provision, preempts all
of Plaintiffs' state-law claims. The District Court concluded in
the alternative that the Fair Packaging Labeling Act (FPLA),
preempts the state-law claims as well, and that, even if neither
preemption provision applied, the claims could not survive because
no reasonable consumer could have been deceived by L'Oreal's
products.

Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
complaint.

The question presented is whether the state-law claims at issue in
this action are completely preempted by federal law, in particular,
the FDCA.

The Second Circuit holds that the FDCA's broad preemption clause,
21 U.S.C. Section 379s, bars Plaintiffs from seeking to impose
additional or different labeling requirements through their
state-law claims, especially when Congress and the FDA already have
provided for specific labeling requirements.

"Because we conclude that the first basis on which the District
Court dismissed the complaint is correct (i.e., FDCA preemption),
we need not reach either of the alternative grounds for dismissal
(i.e., FPLA preemption or application of the "reasonable consumer"
standard)," rules the Second Circuit.

"We hold that each of these claims is preempted by the FDCA.
Accordingly, we conclude, on that ground alone, that the claims
were correctly dismissed by the District Court and thus AFFIRM its
judgment of July 12, 2019," it added.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxozqxg from Leagle.com

Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Matthew B. George --
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, San
Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Peter George Siachos -- psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon, Rees, Scully,
Mansukhani, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

LAST RESORT GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Mills Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL MILLS, KEELA SINGLETON, and MADISON McDEARIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAST RESORT
GRILL, INC., MELISSA CLEGG, and JAMSHAD ZARNEGAR, Case No.
3:20-cv-00093-CDL (M.D. Ga., Aug. 24, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages equal to or
exceeding the amount required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek, both for themselves and all other similarly
situated employees, their unpaid wages for three years preceding
the filing of this complaint, liquidated damages, and their
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation under the FLSA. The
Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA by,
among other things, not accurately tracking and recording all hours
worked due to a faulty timekeeping system.

Rachel Mills, et al., were employed by the Defendants as
host/server assistant, server, and bartender. Mills was employed by
Defendants from May 2017 to March 2020. Singleton was employed by
Defendants from January 2018 to June 2020. McDearis was employed by
Defendants from March 2012 to January 2018.

Last Resort Grill, Inc., is a restaurant located in Athens,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter H. Steckel, Esq.
          STECKEL LAW, L.L.C.
          54 South Main Street
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (404) 717-6220
          E-mail: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com


LEBANON COUNTY, PA: Gass Wins Relief on Use of Medical Marijuana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, issued an
Opinion granting the Plaintiffs-Petitioner's Petition for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the case captioned MELISSA
GASS, ASHLEY BENNETT, AND ANDREW KOCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners v. 52nd JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, LEBANON COUNTY, Respondent, Case No. 118 MM 2019 (Pa.).

This matter concerns a challenge to a local judicial district's
policy prohibiting the use of medical marijuana by individuals
under court supervision, such as probationers.

In September 2019, the 52nd Judicial District--comprised of the
Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas (the "District")--announced a
"Medical Marijuana Policy" under the issuing authority of the
president judge. Centrally, the Policy prohibits "the active use of
medical marijuana, regardless of whether the defendant has a
medical marijuana card, while the defendant is under supervision by
the Lebanon County Probation Services Department." The District
says that an October 7, 2019 revision to the Policy dissipates any
concern of harm to the affected individuals, since per the
amendment individuals aggrieved by the Policy may benefit from an
exemption in the event they prove, at a hearing, the "medical
necessity" for their ongoing use of medical marijuana.

The Petitioners are individuals under the supervision of the
probation agency in Lebanon County. Represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union, they filed a petition in the Commonwealth
Court's original jurisdiction challenging the validity of the
Policy, particularly in light of the Medical Marijuana Act's facial
applicability to persons under court supervision, as well as on
account of the enactment's immunity provision. The Petitioners
included class-action allegations and sought declaratory and
injunctive relief confirming that the Act prohibits the District
from penalizing medical marijuana patients, who comply with state
law--including those under court supervision--and restraining
enforcement or implementation of the Policy.

The Petitioners alleged that each suffers from serious and
debilitating medical conditions. After unsuccessful treatments with
other therapies, the Petitioners averred, they secured lawful
authorization, per the MMA, to use medical marijuana. Separately,
the Petitioners filed an application for special relief in the
nature of a preliminary injunction.

Soon thereafter, the Commonwealth Court proceeded, sua sponte, to
transfer the case to this Court, concluding that it lacked
jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The District then filed
its response in this Court opposing preliminary injunctive relief.
The District claimed, among other things, that the Petitioners were
unlikely to prevail on the merits, arguing, inter alia, that the
Pennsylvania General Assembly didn't intend the MMA to override the
courts' ability to supervise probationers and parolees.

The Supreme Court says this case does not merely concern an effort
on the part of the District (or its judges or probation officials)
to reasonably inquire into the lawfulness of a probationer's use of
medical marijuana. Rather, both the original and amended Policies
are constructed upon a presumption that any and all use is
impermissible. In terms of the amended Policy, the Court deems the
affordance of a hearing--in which probationers bear the burden of
overcoming this presumption by proving medical necessity and
lawfulness of use--to be an insufficient countermeasure to the
Policy's foundationally inappropriate presumption.

According to the Opinion, judges and probation officials may make
reasonable inquiries into the lawfulness of a probationer's use of
medical marijuana. In this regard, the District's repeated
assertions that it is rendered powerless to do so in absence of the
Policy are not well taken. For example, the Act itself establishes
a system whereby the validity of a medical marijuana card can be
verified through the Department of Health.

Consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the MMA,
however, judges and/or probation officers should have some
substantial reason to believe that a particular use is unlawful
under the Act before haling a probationer into court. Although
ensuring strict adherence to the MMA by those possessing a valid
medical marijuana card may be difficult, the alternative selected
by the District of diluting the immunity afforded to
probationer-patients by the Act is simply not a viable option.

Accordingly, the petition for declaratory and injunctive relief is
GRANTED. The Policy as stated in its original and amended forms is
deemed to be contrary to the immunity accorded by Pennsylvania's
Medical Marijuana Act, and as such, the Policy shall not be
enforced.

Nothing in this Opinion restrains judges and probation officials
supervising probationers and others from making reasonable
inquiries into whether the use of marijuana by a person under court
supervision is lawful under the Act, and nothing impedes a
revocation hearing or other lawful form of redress, where there is
reasonable cause to believe that a probationer or other person
under court supervision has possessed or used marijuana in a manner
that has not been made lawful by the enactment.

The request for class-action treatment is dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qa3mk6 from Leagle.com.


LIBERTY POWER: Faces Pepper Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI PEPPER, ANN BENITEZ, DENISE ARNOLD, and SAMUEL ROGERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LIBERTY POWER CORP., LLC Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02964 (S.D.
Tex., Aug. 24, 2020), challenges the Defendant's practice of
initiating autodialed and prerecorded telemarketing calls to
cellular telephones of the Plaintiffs without the prior express
written consent of the called party as required by the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made automated
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiffs using equipment prohibited by
the TCPA, even though it did not have their prior express written
consent to do so. The Defendant's practice caused actual harm to
the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in several ways,
including temporarily using their cellular phones and tying up
their phone lines, invading their privacy, causing wear and tear on
their cellular phones, consuming battery life, and causing some of
them to be charged for calls they did not want to receive.
Moreover, these calls injured the Plaintiffs and the Class because
the calls were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, and a nuisance,
and disturbed their solitude.

Liberty Power Corp., LLC, is an American company that offers
electricity to residential, large commercial, and business
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main Street, Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean C. Wagner, Esq.
          Derek M. Bast, Esq.
          WAGNER HICKS PLLC
          831 E. Morehead Street, Suite 860
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 705-7358
          E-mail: sean.wagner@wagnerhicks.law
                  derek.bast@wagnerhicks.law


LOMBARDI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Morales Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO SANTIAGO MORALES, HECTOR JAVIER SANTIAGO LOPEZ, RAFAEL LUIS
HERNANDEZ, RAFAEL SANTIAGO GOMEZ, and ROLANDO SANTIAGO GOMEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LOMBARDI'S PIZZA INC. (D/B/A LOMBARDI'S PIZZA), JOHN BRESCIO, MIKE
BRESCIO, ISRAEL PEREZ, and GILBERTO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06873
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants
for their failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and other employees
appropriate minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread of hours
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants is also accused of failing to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their total worked hours, and to comply with tip
credit requirements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, busboys, and a
food preparer at the Lombardi's Pizza restaurant located at 32
Spring Street, in New York City.

Lombardi's Pizza Inc., d/b/a Lombardi's Pizza, is an operator and
owner of pizzerias under the name Lombardi's Pizza located in New
York.[BN]

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


LUXER CORP: Turner Sues in California Over Employment Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxer Corporation, et
al. The case is captioned as Amber Turner, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Luxer Corporation, and Does 1
through 20, Case No. 34-2020-00283263-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 13, 2020).

The case type is stated as Other employment.

Luxer Corporation is a Sacramento, California-based dry cleaning
locker company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Astanehe, Esq.
          ASTANEHE LAW
          71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 226-7170
          Facsimile: (415) 462-1732
          E-mail: mastanehe@astanehelaw.com


MAJESCO: Curtis Securities Suit Challenges Merger With Magic
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAJESCO, KETAN MEHTA, EARL GALLEGOS, ADAM ELSTER,
RAJESH HUKKU, CAROLYN JOHNSON, ARUN K. MAHESHARI, SUDHAKAR RAM,
ROBERT P. RESTREPO, JR., MAGIC INTERMEDIATE, LLC, and MAGIC MERGER
SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 20, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Company's proposed merger with Magic.

The Plaintiff owns Majesco common stock.

According to the complaint, Defendant Majesco's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Magic Intermediate, LLC and Magic Merger Sub, Inc. on August
8, 2020, in which stockholders will receive $16.00 in cash for each
share of Majesco common stock they own. However, the Plaintiff
alleges, the Proxy Statement filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2020, was false
and misleading because there were omitted material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction. The information includes the
Company's financial projections, and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Nomura Securities International, Inc.

Majesco provides technology, expertise, and leadership that helps
insurers modernize, innovate, and connect to build the future of
their businesses. Keyan Mehta is Chairman of the Board of the
Company. Earl Gallegos is Vice Chairman of the Board of the
Company. Adam Elster is Chief Executive Officer and a director of
the Company. Rajesh Hukku, Carolyn Johnson, Arun K. Maheshwari,
Sudhakar Ram, and Robert P. Restrepo are directors of the Company.

Magic Intermediate, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
a party to the Merger Agreement. Magic Merger Sub, Inc. is
wholly-owned subsidiary of Magic Intermediate and a party to the
Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 295-5310
          Fax: (302) 654-7530
          Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

                - and –

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Tel: (484) 324-6800
          Fax: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


MARIO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Barrios Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. "ABC CORPORATION" D/B/A MARIO'S PIZZA CHICKEN & GRILL,
name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff,
AHMADI MOHIDDIN, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-03798
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by "ABC Corporation," doing business as
Mario's Pizza Chicken & Grill, from August 2003 June 2020, wherein
his primary duties were cooking, cleaning, setting up tables and
performing other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 63
hours or more hours per week, but he was not paid by the Defendants
at one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants also failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA & NYLL, failed to
post notices of the minimum and overtime wages requirements; and
failed to keep accurate payroll records.

"ABC Corporation" d/b/a Mario's Pizza Chicken & Grill is a pizza &
grill restaurant. Ahmadi Mohiddin owns and operates "ABC
Corporation" d/b/a Mario's Pizza Chicken & Grill and has the power
over personnel decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598
          Email: HelenDaltonPC@HelenDalton.com


MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzon Challenges Illegal Work Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENNIFER MANZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNNIA INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-01175-NONE-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices that
violate the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt shift manager at the
Defendant's restaurant in Clovis, California, from August 2014.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements every time wages are paid to
their employees by failing to identify the overtime rate as 1.5
times the regular rate of pay, and the correct rates of pay and
applicable number of hours for such wages. Moreover, the Plaintiff
sent her written notice of the Defendants' violations to the Labor
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and to the Defendants via
certified mail. However, the LWDA has not responded yet whether it
intends to investigate the violations.

McDonald's Restaurants of California Inc. operates McDonald's
restaurants throughout the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

                - and –

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


MEI PHARMA: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MEI Pharma, Inc. ("MEI Pharma" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MEIP) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of MEI Pharma between August 2, 2017 and July 1,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal securities
laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MEI Pharma
overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an acute myeloid
leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target population; (2)
consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet
its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for
Pracinostat; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MEI Pharma
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 9, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ: P. McAdams Can't Sue, Supreme Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Highland Country Press reports that a vehicle owner who did not
follow a federal court's required procedure for opting out of a
class-action lawsuit is barred from personally suing Mercedes-Benz
over a faulty balance-shaft gear, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled
recently.

A Supreme Court majority rejected Pattiann McAdams' claim that she
did not need to follow the federal court's process for opting out
of a 2015 proposed settlement regarding faulty balance-shaft gears
in various Mercedes-Benz vehicles because she had filed and
maintained her own lawsuit against the automaker.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer stated
the federal court only allowed those who qualified to be part of
the class action to opt out if they "validly and timely excluded
themselves." McAdams did not take the proper steps to exclude
herself, Justice Fischer wrote, and her use of an "informal"
process to opt out would "demean the class-action process."

The Court's decision reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, R.
Patrick DeWine, and Melody J. Stewart joined the opinion as did
Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Michelle J. Sheehan, sitting
for Justice Judith L. French, who did not participate in the case.

Justice Michael P. Donnelly concurred in judgment only.

McAdams bought a used 2006 Mercedes SUV with the company's M272
engine from a New York Mercedes-Benz dealership in 2008. While
living in the Columbus area, she took her vehicle to Mercedes-Benz
of Easton complaining of mechanical problems. The Easton dealership
told her that the balance-shaft gear needed to be replaced. Crown
Eurocars, another Mercedes-Benz dealership, completed the repair,
and later determined the transmission conductor plate needed to be
replaced.

Prior to McAdams seeking repairs of her SUV, a federal class-action
lawsuit was filed against Mercedes-Benz in 2012 on behalf of a
proposed class of vehicle owners, including those with the 2006
Mercedes-Benz vehicles with M272 engines. The suit alleged the
defective balance-shaft gears caused engine malfunctions resulting
in costly repairs.

In February 2015, McAdams filed a lawsuit in Franklin County
against Mercedes-Benz USA, the Easton dealership, and the New York
dealership that sold her the car.

In April 2015, a federal court issued a notice of a proposed
settlement and certification of a nationwide class. McAdams'
vehicle fell within the certified class. The federal court's order
required those who wanted to be excluded from the class action to
submit a written request to KCC Class Action Services. The notice
warned that anyone who fell within the class definition and did not
submit a request for exclusion by the required deadline would be
bound by "all proceedings, orders and judgments" regarding the
settlement. In August 2015, the federal court approved the
settlement and concluded all class members had been given a fair
opportunity to opt out.

A year after the judgment, Mercedes Benz USA and the Easton
dealership deposed McAdams as part of her state lawsuit and learned
that she was aware of the Seifi class action and she had spoken
with the attorney representing the vehicle owners. McAdams said she
was asked to join the class and knew the case had settled. She
explained that joining the class was not in her best interest
because of the additional issue with the transmission conductor
plate.

Two months later, Mercedes and the Easton dealership sought summary
judgment based on res judicata, because McAdams did not opt out of
the Seifi settlement and the issues regarding her balance-shaft
gear had been addressed though the class-action settlement. McAdams
maintained she effectively opted out of the settlement by filing
and maintaining her own lawsuit.

The trial court sided with Mercedes-Benz and the Easton dealership,
granting them summary judgment, and dismissed the New York
dealership from the case.
McAdams appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in
Columbus, which reversed the trial court, finding that McAdams'
actions -- maintaining her lawsuit and speaking to class counsel --
were a reasonable expression of her intent to opt out of the class
action.

Mercedes-Benz USA, but not the Easton dealership, appealed to the
Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Justice Fischer explained the Court had to determine if McAdams'
claims were barred by res judicata. Under res judicata, if a court
that is empowered to decide a case issues a final judgment on the
merits, then that ruling prevents any subsequent legal actions on
the same issues between the same parties. A judicially ordered
settlement, such as the one in the Seifi case, is a final judgment
and res judicata will apply, he wrote.

The majority opinion found that by the time the Tenth District
considered McAdams' appeal, the federal court already had
determined that McAdams was a member of the class. The federal
court had determined several issues regarding the composition of
the class and expressly identified the people who had successfully
opted out of the settlement. McAdams was not among those the
federal court excluded. The Court found the appeals court was
barred from considering McAdams' claim because the issue already
had been settled by the federal court.

The Court noted that the Tenth District's error affected the
judgment against the Easton dealership, but since the dealership
did not appeal, the portions of the Tenth District decision
pertaining to the dealership stands. [GN]


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in Miller Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal in the class action
suit entitled, Miller, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y., filed January 4, 2019), is pending.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in this putative class
action, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company allegedly charged smoker rates
for certain non-smokers. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as other relief.

On September 17, 2019, the court granted Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


MICHIGAN: Castillo Appeals W.D. Mich. Ruling to Sixth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Susana Castillo, et al., filed an appeal from a district
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Susana Castillo, et
al. v. Gretchen Whitmer, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00751, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

Gretchen Whitmer is sued in her official capacity as Governor of
the State of Michigan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises when Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
Director Robert Gordon has singled out the Latino community, and in
particular, Latino agricultural workers, for mandatory COVID-19
testing, alleging violation of rights and privileges under the
United States Constitution.

Director Gordon asserts that Latinos disproportionately carry the
COVID-19 virus, and consequently pose a disproportionate risk for
spreading the disease. On this rationale, Director Gordon issued an
emergency order targeting Latinos for mandatory COVID-19 testing;
something unheard of during this pandemic. In short,
migrant/seasonal workers and workers in the meat, poultry and egg
processing industries (who are predominantly Latino) must submit to
COVID-19 testing, or lose their jobs and housing.

According to the complaint, pandemic or not, the State cannot
subject one racial class of people to a different set of rules than
it applies to others. The Equal Protection Clause is at the heart
of our Constitution and it remains in force notwithstanding any
declared state of emergency. Governor Whitmer and Director Gordon
are free to battle COVID-19, but they must do so in a racially
neutral manner. If mandatory testing must be done, then it must be
done for everyone; not based on racial classifications and
stereotypes.

The appellate case is captioned as Susana Castillo, et al. v.
Gretchen Whitmer, et al., Case No. 20-1815, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on October 5, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on November 2, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SUSANA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; CLARISSA VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; VERONICA BOTELLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; DULCE
SOSTENES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; DORAELIA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; MANUEL NUNEZ MORALES, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; TRUE BLUE BERRY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and SMELTZER
ORCHARDS COMPANY, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Ronald Grant DeWaard, Esq.
          Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
          VARNUM
          P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          E-mail: rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com
                  amphelps@varnumlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official capacity as
Governor of the State of Michigan; ROBERT GORDON, in his official
capacity as the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services; and GARY MCDOWELL, in his official capacity as the
Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development;

          Mark G. Sands, Esq.
          Danielle Rae Allison Yokom, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30217
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-4875

               - and -

          Katherine Jean Bennett, Esq.
          MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 335-7632


MICHIGAN: Women File Class Action Over Tampon Tax
-------------------------------------------------
WOODTV.com reports that three Michigan women have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the state of Michigan, saying it is
unconstitutionally collecting taxes on tampons.

The lawsuit filed on Aug. 11 asks the Michigan Court of Claims to
tell the Michigan Department of Treasury to stop collecting taxes
on menstrual products and require the Treasury to offer tax refunds
for those items.

The plaintiffs argue the tax is a violation of equal protection
clauses in both the U.S. and state constitutions because it
discriminates against women on the basis of sex. They also call the
tax "irrational and arbitrary."

The suit goes on to say that menstrual products are medical
necessities and that other such necessities used by men are not
subject to sales tax. It also cites economic disadvantages women
historically face, which it says the coronavirus pandemic has
worsened.

It estimates that in the last four years, the maximum period for
which refunds are allowed, some 2.4 million Michigan women have
paid about $27.6 million in state sales tax on menstrual products.

Taxes collected on menstrual products work out to less than .01% of
total state revenue annually, the suit says.

Two of the plaintiffs work with a nonprofit called "I Support the
Girls," which distributes items including menstrual products to
low-income women. One of them lives in Grand Rapids and the other
in Grosse Pointe. The third is a University of Michigan professor.

"I've been saying for years, this does have a real impact on
people's lives and it's an important issue," state Sen. Winnie
Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, told News 8 on Aug. 11. "So I'm glad to
have that reinforcement from other folks who also see it that
way."

Brinks is among legislators who previously introduced bills to
exempt menstrual products from taxation, both last year and in 2017
when she was serving as a state representative. The legislation has
gone nowhere.

"My guess is that if we were to pass these bills to correct this
injustice, we'd be able to talk with the folks bringing the lawsuit
and, hopefully, we would put Michigan in a much better financial
position in regards to that, too," Brinks added.

News 8's Lynsey Mukomel contributed to this report. [GN]


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Files Class Action Against Police
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Mayerle, writing for WCCO, reports that in the days
following George Floyd's death, protests and riots erupted as law
enforcement struggled to regain order.

Now, the city of Minneapolis, its police chief and other state
leaders face a number of lawsuits connected to the unrest.
Protesters allege police targeted them. And one journalist covering
the chaos lost her eyesight.

The streets of Minneapolis were fraught with emotion in the days
after the death of George Floyd. Thousands made their voices heard,
protesting police violence. While crowds gathered, marched and
mourned, they were sometimes met with pepper spray, tear gas and
non-lethal munitions.

It intensified with looting and rioting. The Minneapolis Police
Department's 3rd Precinct was taken over and burned. A curfew went
into place, exempting the media, among others.

In the midst of chaos, journalists like Linda Tirado responded to
cover.

"I'm a photojournalist and a writer and one of my beats has been
civil unrest, urban unrest," Tirado said.

She traveled from Tennessee to report on what was unfolding in
Minneapolis, and experienced what she calls unprecedented levels of
violence.

"I was hit in the face, my goggles came off. I had a laceration on
my eye so it was a lot of blood, a lot of tear gas. I closed my
eyes. I started yelling, 'I'm press! I'm press!'" Tirado said.

Protesters drove her to the hospital where she underwent surgery.
Tirado was left permanently blind on her left side. She filed a
federal lawsuit against the city, police chief, union president,
DPS commissioner and state patrol colonel.

"It was egregious. It was unnecessary. That's the reason I brought
the lawsuit. I have medical bills I do need to cover, but more
importantly, I wanted to make sure this didn't happen again,"
Tirado said.

Jared Goyette signed on with an ACLU class action lawsuit.

"Journalists were being, evidence would suggest, directly targeted,
or at least recklessly put in danger by police in a way that
prevented us from doing our job," Goyette said.

He took video of a person on the ground just before he says he too
was shot in the face.

"I got hit right here, by whatever the police were firing," Goyette
said, pointing to his face. "I had weeks of, my eye was swollen
shut. I was lucky that I did get treatment because that could have
had permanent damage," Goyette said.

His lawsuit alleges the police actions violated the 1st, 4th and
14th Amendments. And it lays out other journalists the ACLU says
were tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, shot in the face with rubber
bullets, threatened at gunpoint, and arrested without cause.
Goyette seeks accountability.

"I'm hoping both the mayor and the police chief take real concrete
actions as opposed to just apologies that aren't really worth much
to be honest," Goyette said.

Terri Nelson is an attorney with the ACLU, the nonprofit that
fights for civil liberties, which filed lawsuits on behalf of
journalists and protesters.

"People should not have to fear going out to protest police
violence," Nelson said. "We hope for systems change. We hope that
police will change their practices, they will get more training and
approach protests with more respect for people's 1st Amendment
rights."

Protester Nekima Levy Armstrong says she watched as conditions
deteriorated and adds there were no warnings to disperse.

"They were exaggerated, militarized responses to what were largely
non-violent peaceful protesters and I just found it to be
unacceptable," Levy Armstrong said.

She said her voice hasn't returned to normal after being tear
gassed, but that this protester class action lawsuit is about
something larger.

"I urge people to stand in solidarity with those of us who are
filing this lawsuit to protect all of our rights to freedom of
speech," Levy Armstrong said.

Another lawsuit recently filed also names Mayor Jacob Frey. The
city attorney declined to comment.

Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Minneapolis Police Officers
Federation, gave this statement to WCCO:

I have no involvement whatsoever in any of these. These are
frivolous lawsuits including me purely out of spite. The city is
also spiteful in refusing to indemnify me. I just reached
retirement age, and was planning on retiring. Ironically the same
people that want me gone so bad are now forcing me to stay.

WCCO also received a statement from the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety and State Patrol, saying it "will not comment on the
specifics of pending litigation. That said, DPS defends and
supports citizens' constitutional right to first amendment
expression when exercised in a lawful and nonviolent manner. DPS
also recognizes the importance of the media in covering the civil
unrest that occurred in our communities." [GN]


MR. HAPPY'S: Smith Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMARI SMITH and NAYASIA BAKER, On Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. MR. HAPPY'S,
INC., D/B/A MR. HAPPY'S CAFE, FREDRICK TOUPIN, Case No.
3:20-cv-01242 (D. Conn., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and all other members of
the proposed class collective minimum wage and overtime
compensation, which they were entitled to under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiffs
to work as exotic dancers at the Defendants' adult entertainment
club but refused to compensate the dancers at the applicable
minimum wage. Specifically, the Defendants misclassified the
dancers, including the Plaintiffs, as independent contractors. The
Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons, the club paid no wages. The Plaintiffs were also required
to share their tips with the Defendants and employees, who do not
customarily receive tips outside of a valid tip pool. Additionally,
the Plaintiffs were required to pay a "house fee" in order to work
in the club.

Plaintiff Smith worked at the Club from January 2017 until March
2019 while Plaintiff Baker worked at the Club from February 2017
until 2019.

Mr. Happy's, Inc., d/b/a Mr. Happy's Cafe, is an adult
entertainment club located in Waterbury, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart M. Katz, Esq.
          COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
          1115 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0211
          Facsimile: (203) 337-5505
          E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com

               - and -

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          Tej Singh, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
                  tsingh@hftrialfirm.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN RE MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:
ALL ACTIONS

Lead Case No. BC669601

Assigned For All Purposes To The
Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos

Date Action Filed: July 21, 2017

Department 9

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL HOLDERS OF MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMMON STOCK WHO
RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR SHARES IN THE SALE OF MRV
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ("MRV") TO ADVA NA HOLDINGS, INC. ("ADVA") AT
THE PRICE OF $10.00 PER SHARE ("THE MERGER"), AS FIRST ANNOUNCED ON
JULY 2, 2017 (THE "CLASS").  A SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CONCERNING THE MERGER SETTLED.  YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION
AS A RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT IN THE ACTION CAPTIONED:

IN RE MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Lead Case
No. BC669601

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 and an Order of the Court, that a Settlement
for $1,900,000 has been proposed in the above-captioned action.
Under the proposed Settlement, the Settlement amount, minus any
Court-approved attorneys' fees, service awards, expenses, and
administrative costs, will be distributed on a per share basis to
Class Members (as certified by the Court on March 7, 2019 and
defined in the Third Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated March
16, 2020 ("Stipulation"))[1] who owned shares of MRV common stock
immediately prior to the time the Merger became effective (or who
tendered their shares in the tender offer that expired on August
11, 2017) and who received consideration for their shares in the
sale of MRV to ADVA at the price of $10.00 per share.  A hearing
will be held before the Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos at the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street
Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Dept. 9, Los Angeles, CA
90012, at 10:00 a.m. on November 20, 2020 to determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of
Plaintiff's Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses and a service award for the Lead Plaintiff.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED.  IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU
WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS.  You may
obtain copies of the Stipulation, a detailed Notice of Proposed
Settlement (the "Notice"), and instructions concerning your right
to seek payment from the Settlement Fund, to appear and object to
the proposed settlement or award of attorneys' fees or to exclude
yourself from the Class by visiting the website
www.rg2claims.com/mrv.html or contacting Plaintiff's Counsel:

WeissLaw LLP
Attn:    Richard A. Acocelli
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor,
New York, NY 10036
(212) 682-3025

Monteverde & Associates PC
Attn:    Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
(212) 971-1341

As described more fully in the Notice, you need not file a written
objection in order to object and may appear personally or remotely
to make an oral objection.  In the event there is a written
objection it shall be filed with the Court and served upon
Plaintiff's Counsel above such that they are received no later than
ninety (90) calendar days from when Notice is first mailed out, or
no later than November 10, 2020.  To appear remotely you must sign
up using the following link: https://www.lacourt.org/lacc/

If you want to seek a payment from the Settlement Fund, you must
complete and submit a timely Proof of Claim, which may be
downloaded at www.rg2claims.com/mrv.html.  Read the instructions
carefully, fill out the Proof of Claim, include all the documents
the form asks for, sign it, and mail or submit it online so that it
is postmarked (if mailed) or received (if filed electronically) no
later than November 10, 2020.   

If you want to seek exclusion from the Class, you do need to make
request in writing no later than ninety (90) calendar days from
when Notice is first mailed out, or no later than November 10,
2020.  If you do not submit a valid and timely request for
exclusion, any claims you may have over the Merger will be released
if the Settlement is approved, and you will not be permitted to sue
Defendants or any of the other Released Parties in connection with
the Merger.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Plaintiff's
Counsel listed above.  If you wish to see the court fillings in
Court, you must make an appointment to view documents at the Office
of the Clerk at (213) 745-3200.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT.                                      
                                 

By Order of The Court

[1] The Stipulation and all of its Exhibits, along with other
documents relevant to the prosecution and resolution of this
Litigation, can be viewed at www.rg2claims.com/mrv.html.  All
capitalized terms used herein have the same meanings as the terms
defined in the Stipulation. [GN]


MYLAN NV: Court Compels Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation in KPH Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation in the
case captioned KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.
v. MYLAN N.V., et al., Case No. 20-2065-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.).

The Court grants the Motion to Compel Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation,
and denies as moot the Motion to Stay the Case.

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. filed
this action against Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan Specialty L.P.,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. The Complaint asserts
class action allegations for a putative Class of Direct Purchasers
of the EpiPen (an epinephrine auto-injector used to treat
anaphylaxis) and alleges various federal antitrust claims. They
include a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
as well as claims for unlawful tying, exclusive dealing, and
deceptive conduct.

On May 15, 2020, Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan Specialty L.P., and
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, "Mylan") filed a Motion
to Compel Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation and To Stay the Case. Mylan
argues that the Plaintiff is an assignee of a Core Distribution
Services Agreement, which contains a multi-step alternative dispute
resolution ("ADR") process that includes mediation. Mylan asserts
that the Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit fall within the scope
of the Agreement's ADR clause. So, Mylan contends, the Agreement
requires the Plaintiff to complete the ADR process before it can
prosecute this lawsuit. Mylan, thus, asks the court to enforce the
Agreement's ADR provision, compel the Plaintiff to mediate this
case before pursuing litigation, and stay the case until the ADR
process is complete.

The Parties agree that the Plaintiff never completed the stages of
the Agreement's mandatory ADR provision before filing this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff argues that it has no obligation to comply with the
ADR provision because that Agreement doesn't apply to its antitrust
claims in this lawsuit. Mylan disagrees.

The Court holds that the Agreement's ADR provision applies to the
Plaintiff's antitrust claims, and concludes that the Agreement
requires the Plaintiff to submit its claims to mediation before
bringing suit in court.

The Court concludes that the Agreement's ADR clause requires the
Plaintiff--as assignee of McKesson Corporation--to mediate the
antitrust claims it asserts against Mylan before bringing this
lawsuit. The Court, thus, grants Mylan's request that the Court
compel the Plaintiff to mediate it claims.

As to Mylan's motion to stay the case pending the Plaintiff's
compliance with the Agreement's ADR clause, Mylan's asserts that
the Plaintiff's request for a stay is mooted by Magistrate Judge
Teresa James's Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Extend
the deadline for responding to the Complaint. Based on this Order,
the Court denies as moot Mylan's request for a stay, and directs
the Parties to follow the instructions imposed by Judge James's
Order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yabyt7dp from
Leagle.com.


NATIONAL CREDIT: Morales Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA M. MORALES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers v. NATIONAL CREDIT CONTROL AGENCY, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-07743 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's attempts to collect a debt, which have resulted in
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff allegedly incurred personal medical debts in 2013 and
2014 and failed to make payments on the alleged debts at any time.
On September 17, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter offering to "settle" her debt, and providing a
"settlement" amount due. The Defendant alleged in its Collection
Letter that the Plaintiff has not paid her debt since September 12,
2014.

At the time the Collection Letter was sent, the Plaintiff's alleged
debt was beyond the statute of limitations, according to the
complaint. California Code of Civil Procedure section 337 provides
a limitation of four years on breach of contract. Despite this, the
Defendant completely failed to advise the Plaintiff of this fact,
and attempted to collect the debt as though it could still sue the
Plaintiff for non-payment. This is especially the case here, where
the Defendant intentionally used settlement language.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engaged in misleading,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the
FDCPA by its Collection Letter to her.

National Credit Control Agency, Inc., is a debt collection agency
based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neda Farah, Esq.
          FARAH LAW, P.C.
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 666-3786
          Facsimile: (775) 261-1726
          E-mail: neda@nedafarahlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Cries Race Discrimination on MDL Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HENRY and NAJEH DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NFL
PROPERTIES, LLC, successor-in-interest to NFL Properties, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04165 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought on
behalf of former Black football players alleging deprivation of
equal rights under the law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have been avoiding
paying head-injury claims under the settlement agreement in the
National Football League: Players' Concussion Injury Litigation,
Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, by manipulating the evaluation for the
qualifying diagnoses of neurocognitive impairment through a
statistical manipulation approach called "race-norming", which
discriminates against former Black football players.

When being evaluated for the qualifying diagnoses, former Black
players are automatically assumed to have started with worse
cognitive functioning than former White players. As a result, if a
retired Black player and a retired White player receive the exact
same raw scores on a battery of tests designed to measure their
current cognitive functioning, the Black player is presumed to have
suffered less impairment, and he is, therefore, less likely to
qualify for compensation.

As a result of the Defendants' actions, it is far more difficult
for Black retirees, including the Plaintiffs, to receive benefits
for the brain injuries, which are a routine result of playing
professional football, the Plaintiffs contend.

The National Football League is a sports league in the United
States, headquartered in New York City.

NFL Properties LLC is a company that controls the merchandising and
licensing arm of the National Football League, headquartered in New
York City. NFL Properties is a wholly owned subsidiary of NFL
Ventures, L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:             
  
         Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
         ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
         100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Telephone: (410) 332-0444
         E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

                - and –

         Aitan D. Goelman, Esq.
         Steven N. Herman, Esq.
         David A. Reiser, Esq.
         Ezra B. Marcus, Esq.
         Megan S. McKoy, Esq.
         ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
         1800 M Street, 10th Floor
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 778-1800
         E-mail: agoelman@zuckerman.com
                 sherman@zuckerman.com
                 dreiser@zuckerman.com
                 emarcus@zuckerman.com
                 mmckoy@zuckerman.com

                - and –

         Edward S. Stone, Esq.
         EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
         300 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (203) 504-8425
         E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com

                - and –

         J.R. Wyatt, Esq.
         JR WYATT LAW PLLC
         49 West 37th Street, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 557-2776
         E-mail: justin@jrwyattlaw.com


NEONODE INC: Files False Proxy for Purchase Accord, Garfield Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GARFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated stockholders of Neonode, Inc. v. MATTIAS BERGMAN, PETER
LINDELL, LARS LINDQVIST, PER LOFGREN, ULF ROSBERG, and NEONODE,
INC., Case No. 2020-0701 (Del. Ch., Aug. 25, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their filing of a misleading proxy
statement for the approval of a securities purchase agreement.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with Neonode's annual meeting of
stockholders scheduled for September 29, 2020. Specifically, the
proxy statement fails to disclose to stockholders: (a) whether
there were negotiations concerning the terms of securities purchase
agreement, and whether the conflicted insiders or their reports
participated in setting the terms; (b) who approved the securities
purchase agreement, and in particular whether the conflicted
insiders approved it; (c) what analyses and other information the
board or other decisionmakers considered; (d) whether the board or
other decisionmakers obtained outside legal or financial advice,
and if so: who were the advisors, how were they selected and
compensated, and did they suffer any actual or potential conflicts
of interest; and (e) what alternative transactions were
considered.

Through the Proxy, the Company's board of directors is seeking
stockholder approval of a securities purchase agreement to effect a
private placement on August 7, 2020, to convert preferred stock
into common stock.

The Plaintiff contends that the omissions of information on the
Proxy Statement are material for the Company's stockholders,
including the Plaintiff, for them to cast fully informed votes at
the annual meeting.

Neonode, Inc., provides optical sensing solutions for touch,
gesture control, and remote sensing. The Company's principal
executive office is located in Stockholm, Sweden, and its United
States office is located in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
         Craig J. Springer, Esq.
         David M. Sborz, Esq.
         ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
         3801 Kennett Pike
         Building C, Suite 305
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Telephone: (302) 504-4957

                - and –

         Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
         Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
         Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
         Kaitlyn T. Devenyns, Esq.
         PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
         708 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 725-1000

                - and –

         Adam Frankel, Esq.
         GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES
         881 Lake Avenue
         Greenwich CT 06831
         Telephone: (203) 622-6001


NETFLIX: New Boston Files Class Action
--------------------------------------
Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that the City
of New Boston, Texas, filed a proposed class action lawsuit on Aug.
11 in a Texarkana federal court against the popular streaming
services Netflix and Hulu.

The city claims the services should be paying 5% of their local
gross revenues to Texas municipalities because the services take
advantage of local infrastructure to stream videos.

"When a Netflix subscriber wants to view Netflix programming, the
subscriber's Internet service provider will connect the subscriber
to the closest Netflix Open Connect server offering the fastest
speeds and best video quality. According to Netflix, that means
that most of its subscribers receive Netflix's video programming
from servers either inside of, or directly connected to, the
subscriber's Internet service provider's network within their local
region," states a complaint filed by Austin Tighe of Nix
Patterson's Austin law office.

The complaint alleges Hulu uses a similar process to deliver its
content and complains that neither service filed a required
application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for a
"state-issued certificate of franchise authority" or SICFA.

"Defendants were required to obtain a SICFA before providing video
service in New Boston, and the other Texas municipalities in which
it provides they provide their video services. Defendants' failure
to obtain a SICFA, however, did not relieve Defendants of the
obligation to pay a franchise fee of 5 % of their gross revenues,
as derived from providing such video service in those
municipalities," the complaint argues.

New Boston isn't planning to go it alone in its suit against Hulu
and Netflix. The complaint asks for class action certification
which would include as plaintiffs "all Texas municipalities in
which one or more of the defendants has provided video service."

The complaint accuses Netflix and Hulu of violating the Texas
Utilities Code and seeks a declaration from the court affirming the
position. Netflix has argued in a suit pending in state court in
Missouri that it isn't a video service provider. The Texas suit
wants the court to declare that Netflix and Hulu meet the
definition spelled out in the Texas Utility Code and thus liable
for paying the franchise fee.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder
III in the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas.
Neither Netflix nor Hulu have been formally served with a copy of
the complaint. [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN: Counsel Disqualification in Cortina Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, issued an
Opinion reversing the Trial Court's Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Disqualify Defendant's Legal Counsel in the case
captioned CAROLYN CORTINA, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
F077659 (Cal. App.).

The order of disqualification is reversed and the Trial Court is
directed to enter a new order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion. The
Defendant shall recover its costs on appeal.

Defendant North American Title Company, Inc. (NATC), appeals from
an order disqualifying its legal counsel for having ex parte
communications with class members in a class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Carolyn Cortina, et al., are employees, who sued NATC
for unpaid overtime. The Trial Court certified two classes of
Plaintiffs: those NATC deemed exempt from overtime regulations and
those it classified as non-exempt.

After years of litigation, the Trial Court issued a statement of
decision in which it found (1) a "[f]ailure of class-wide proof"
required decertification of the "non-exempt class" and dismissal of
its claims, and (2) NATC was liable to the "exempt class" for
restitution of unpaid overtime. Pursuant to the latter ruling, a
referee was appointed to conduct evidentiary proceedings and make
recommendations as to the amount of restitution owed.

The special reference proceedings included testimony by members of
the exempt class. To prepare for cross-examination of the
witnesses, lawyers from one of NATC's defense firms, Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP (Morgan Lewis), attempted to interview members of the
decertified class, i.e., parties who had no stake in the outcome of
the reference proceedings. When the Plaintiffs' counsel learned of
those efforts, they moved on behalf of their clients to disqualify
Morgan Lewis for violating former rule 2-100 of the State Bar Rules
of Professional Conduct (rule 2-100). Rule 2-100 is the predecessor
to current rule 4.2, and both versions prohibit unauthorized
communications with a represented party about the subject matter of
the representation.

Morgan Lewis admitted to speaking with four members of the
nonexempt class, claiming to have acted in good faith, believing
those individuals were not represented by counsel since the Trial
Court had ruled to decertify the nonexempt class. The involved
attorneys further submitted that the conversations did not yield
any material information. The Plaintiffs argued the decertification
order had not yet taken effect, meaning the nonexempt class was
still represented by class counsel, but the Plaintiffs offered no
evidence of any information disclosed to Morgan Lewis during the
allegedly improper communications.

In its Opinion, the Appellate Court notes that it was the
Plaintiffs' burden to establish three factual predicates: (1) the
nonexempt class members were represented by counsel during the
relevant time period, (2) Morgan Lewis had actual knowledge of the
representation, and (3) there was a genuine likelihood the
unauthorized contact would have a substantial continuing effect on
the proceedings in the case.

NATC argues, and the Appellate Court agrees, that the Plaintiffs
did not meet their burden of demonstrating the likelihood of a
substantial continuing effect on the proceedings. The Appellate
Court also agrees any implied findings by the Trial Court of the
requisite circumstances are not supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore, the disqualification order must be reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycdxoa5x from Leagle.com.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Thomas M. Peterson and Deborah E. Quick
for Defendant and Appellant.

Wagner Jones Kopfman & Artenian, Lawrence M. Artenian, Laura E.
Brown; Wanger Jones Helsley and Patrick D. Toole for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


PATRIOT ERECTORS: White Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WHITE and CANDELARIO DAVILA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PATRIOT ERECTORS LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00884-LY (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees the required
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff White was employed by the Defendant as a welder in July
2010. He was promoted to production manager in 2013 and remained to
that position until October 2019. Plaintiff Davila was hired by the
Defendant in 2014 as a welder, and later promoted to supervisor.
Mr. Davila remained employed as a supervisor until January 2020.

Headquartered in Dripping Springs, Texas, Patriot Erectors LLC
offers steel fabrication and erection services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         Kell A. Simon, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
         501 North IH-35, Suite 111
         Austin, TX 78702
         Telephone: (512) 898-9662
         Facsimile: (512) 368-9144


PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Chavez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC. a domestic non-profit; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30313 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought to remedy the Defendants'
alleged wage-and-hour violations under the California Private
Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the
Plaintiff and their other non-exempt employees for at least one
year prior to the filing of this action and through the present.
The Defendants have allegedly failed to provide meal and rest
breaks, to pay minimum and overtime wages, and to furnish the
Plaintiff and other employees with accurate, itemized wage
statements.

Mr. Chavez was employed by the Defendants as a pet stylist from May
15, 2013, to December 20, 2019, in Los Angeles, California. The
Plaintiff's job tasks included bathing, grooming, styling, and
cleaning kennels for animals.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., is an American pet retailer in the
United States, with corporate offices in San Diego, California, and
San Antonio, Texas. Petco sells pet products and services, as well
as certain types of live animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          Facsimile: (818) 507-8588
          E-mail: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
                  vache@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: CA@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Ex-Workers Fight Class Decertification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that thousands of former PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
workers have urged a New York federal judge to reject the company's
bid to decertify their class action accusing PwC of violating the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act's standards for calculating
lump-sum retirement benefits. [GN]

PROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces Webb Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Healthcare at Home LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Kimberly
Webb, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees v. Professional Healthcare at Home LLC, and Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2020-00283323-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Aug. 13, 2020).

The case type is stated as Other employment.

Professional Healthcare at Home LLC is California-based a health
care provider company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS, A PROF. CORP.
          106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., No. 412
          Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805
          Telephone: (213) 280-8908
          E-mail: justicelawpartners@gmail.com


QUALFON DATA: Livingston Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY LIVINGSTON, and KOBI LYLES, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. QUALFON DATA SERVICES GROUP, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-12302-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 26, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other applicable
penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The action is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of all current and former hourly call-center employees, who worked
for the Defendant anywhere in the United States, at any time from
August 26, 2017, through the final disposition of this matter.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members have not been paid for all hours worked nor the correct
amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law. The
Defendant enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it
improperly required its hourly call-center employees, including the
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members, to perform work
"off-the-clock" and without pay. Further, Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper
amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the
relevant time period.

Qualfon Data Services Group, LLC, operates as a provider of contact
center, back-office, and business process outsourcing services. The
Company offers a full suite of customer lifecycle services,
including sales, customer care, technical support, and retention
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI
          Telephone: (248) 658-8951
          Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


RANDSTAD NORTH: Diaz Seeks Wage and Hour Remedies for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC. a corporation; FASHION
NOVA, INC. a corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 20STCV30294 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 10,
2020), is brought on behalf of laborers seeking remedy under the
California Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code,
from the Defendants' wage-and-hour violations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of the Defendants in
violation of applicable California laws, including failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, to pay minimum and overtime wages,
and to furnish the Plaintiff and other employees with accurate,
itemized wage statements, for at least one year prior to the filing
of this action and through the present.

Mr. Diaz has been jointly employed by the Defendants as a general
laborer from February 2019 to the present at Defendant Fashion
Nova, Inc.'s warehouse in Santa Fe Springs, California.

Randstad North America, Inc., is a staffing agency located in Los
Angeles, California. Fashion Nova, Inc., is a fashion apparel
clothing store that is owned and operated in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          Facsimile: (818) 507-8588
          E-mail: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
                  vache@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: CA@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


RCN TELECOM: Sued by Reid for Charging Unlawful Late Payment Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC; PATRIOT MEDIA CONSULTING,
LLC; RCN ISP, LLC; RCN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; RCN CAPITAL CORP.;
RCN TELECOM SERVICES (LEHIGH), LLC; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF NEW
YORK, L.P.; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA, LLC; RCN TELECOM
SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC; and RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Case No. MER-L-001432-20 (N.J. Super., Mercer
Cty., Aug. 12, 2020), challenges the Defendants' uniform policy of
charging their broadband customers improper late fees.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants charge a $15 late fee
when their own terms and conditions, as well as all other written
materials presented to the class, state that they will charge
customers a late fee of no more than $9. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive, declaratory, monetary, and statutory relief for himself
and the proposed class to obtain redress and to end Defendants' $15
late fee policy, bringing claims under the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and
Notice Act and the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act.

RCN Telecom Services, LLC; RCN ISP, LLC; RCN Management
Corporation; RCN Capital Corp.; RCN Telecom Services (Lehigh), LLC;
RCN Telecom Services of New York, L.P.; RCN Telecom Services of
Philadelphia, LLC; RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC; and RCN
Telecom Services of Massachusetts, LLC, are Internet service
providers that provide broadband Internet services to customers
throughout a number of major metropolitan regions in the U.S.,
including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts,
Illinois, and Washington D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 233-8650
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                  pkl@hattislaw.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Falsely Markets Neuriva Pills, Williams Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WILLIAMS and CAROLL ANGLADE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and RB
HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-23564-MGC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26,
2020), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in false, deceptive,
and misleading advertising and labeling of Neuriva Original and
Neuriva Plus dietary supplements, in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, contend that the Defendants represented the
products as clinically proven to improve brain performance with
natural ingredients. In reality, the Defendants have no scientific
or clinical proof that Neuriva provides any benefit to the brain or
that its key advertised ingredients can actually access the brain
in sufficient amounts, or in any amount, to provide meaningful
brain performance benefit, according to the complaint. The
misrepresentations led the Plaintiffs and Class members into
believing that the products can actually enhance brain
performance.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and deceptive acts, the
Plaintiffs say they and Class members have been damaged because
they would not have purchased Neuriva had they known that it does
not improve brain performance and was not scientifically and
clinically proven to do so.

Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a manufacturer of health and cleaning
products with its principal place of business located in
Parsippany, New Jersey. RB Health (US) LLC is a manufacturer of
health and hygiene products with its principal place of business
located in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         Rachel Soffin, Esq.
         Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Martha A. Geer, Esq.
         Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         900 West Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 martha@whitfieldbryson.com
                 pat@whitfieldbryson.com

                - and –

         Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
         LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
         & PROCTOR, PA
         316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
         Pensacola, FL 32502
         Telephone: (850) 435-7140
         Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
         E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com

                - and –

         Nick Suciu, Esq.
         BARBAT, MANSOUR, & SUCIU PLLC
         1644 Bracken Rd.
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


RENN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Perry Employment Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renn Transportation
Inc. The case is captioned as Michael L. Perry, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Renn Transportation
Inc., Case No. 34-2020-00283281-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., Aug. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Renn Transportation Inc. is a trucking company based in Gilroy,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
          1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610,
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Vicknair Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VICKNAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case No.
4:20-cv-02916 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 19, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field specialist
from March 31, 2019, to July 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant failed to pay
the Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half
times his regular rate for the hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. Additionally, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate time
and pay records.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net


SOUTHERN METHODIST: Hogan Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE HOGAN, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY and other affiliated
entities and individuals, Case No. DC-20-11139 (Tex. Dist., Dallas
Cty., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of those who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the University and
who did not receive the benefits and services that they bargained
for when they provided payment as a result of the Defendant's
response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a contract where the
Plaintiffs would provide payment in the form of tuition and fees
and Defendants would provide in-person educational services,
experiences, opportunities, and other related services. On March
12, 2020, Southern Methodist University canceled all in-person
education and in-person educational services, then, transitioned to
complete online education.

Based on these closures, the Defendants have failed to uphold their
end of the contract to provide in-person educational services,
experiences, and opportunities, according to the complaint. Despite
the Defendants' failure to provide the services and experiences as
bargained for, they have not offered any refund of the tuition and
fees that the Plaintiff and the Class paid.

The Plaintiff was a full-time graduate student in the management
program during the Spring 2020 semester.

Southern Methodist University is a private university and Texas
corporation whose principal place of business is located in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Edwards, Esq.
          Michael Singley, Esq.
          David James, Esq.
          THE EDWARDS LAW GROUP
          The Haehnel Building
          1101 E. 11th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 623-7727
          Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
          E-mail: jeff@edwards—1aw.com
                  mike@edwards—law.com
                  david@edwards—1aw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbr0wnlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employment Discrimination Class Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Spirit
AeroSystems was able to get an employment discrimination class
action against it narrowed, in part because some of the claims were
brought too late, a federal court in Kansas said.

Twenty-four former Spirit engineers say they and other employees
faced age discrimination when they were laid off as part of a 2013
reduction in force, alleging that Spirit "designed and implemented
a plan to terminate older employees" in the belief this would save
the company money under its employee health insurance plan. [GN]


STARBUCKS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a former Starbucks Canada employee
is suing the company for unpaid overtime for himself and other
store managers.

Trevor Hopman is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action that
claims Starbucks was wrong to class store managers as exempt from
overtime pay for work in excess of 44 hours per week.

Hopman worked for Starbucks in Toronto from 2010 through 2017 and
is making the claim on behalf of all current and former managers at
Starbucks-owned stores in Ontario from Oct. 1, 2014 or later.

The suit, filed Aug. 7 by Toronto-based Goldblatt Partners, asks
the court to declare that Starbucks violated Ontario's Employment
Standards Act.

The claim, which requires court certification to proceed as a class
action, seeks $50 million in general damages and $10 million in
punitive damages -- although it leaves the amounts to the court's
discretion.

A Starbucks representative says the company is aware of the suit
and will respond to its allegations in the course of litigation.
[GN]


STARBUCKS: Could Face $50 Million Employees Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
HRReporter reports that Starbucks Coffee Canada could be facing a
$50-million class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of current and
former employees.

It's alleged that store managers in Ontario are "working managers"
who are entitled to overtime according to the province's Employment
Standards Act (ESA), according to Goldblatt Partners, which is
leading the class action.

The statement of claim states that the company violated the act by:
classifying the employees as exempt from overtime pay; not advising
them of their entitlement to overtime pay for hours worked in
excess of 44 hours per week; failing to ensure that employees'
hours of work were monitored and accurately recorded; failing to
implement and maintain an effective, reasonable and accurate
class-wide system or procedure recording all hours worked by the
employees and ensuring they were appropriately compensated; and
requiring or permitting the employees to work overtime hours but
failing to compensate them as required for hours worked in excess
of the overtime threshold.

The plaintiff is Trevor Hopman who was employed as a store manager
at Starbucks in Toronto from 2010 to 2017.

The misclassification of working managers to exempt them from
overtime pay is a "systemic problem in the retail industry," says
Geetha Philipupillai, co-counsel at Goldblatt Partners in speaking
to the Star.

"We hope this class action sends a strong message to retail
employers about the importance of properly classifying their
working managers as entitled to overtime pay." [GN]


STATE FARM: Page Seeks to Recoup Excess Charges of Insurance Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD K. PAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:20-cv-00945-FB (S.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2020), seeks to recover
amounts that the Defendant charged and collected from the Plaintiff
and other life insurance policy owners in excess of amounts
authorized by the express terms of their policies.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is contractually bound to
deduct only those charges explicitly identified and authorized by
the terms of its life insurance policies, which are fully
integrated agreements. He alleges that the Defendant deducts
charges from the Account Values of the Plaintiff and the proposed
class members in excess of amounts specifically permitted by their
life insurance policies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has caused material harm
to the Plaintiff and the proposed class members by improperly
draining monies they accumulated in the Account Values of their
policies. Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one
less dollar on which policy owners earn interest and one less
dollar that can be: applied to pay future premiums; used to
increase the death benefit; used as collateral for policy loans; or
withdrawn as cash. The Plaintiff's claims and those of the proposed
class members are exclusively supported by the explicit provisions
of their life insurance policies and are not derived from any
alleged conversations had, or documents reviewed, at the time of
sale.

State Farm Life Insurance Company is a Bloomington, Illinois-based
life insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com
     
               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          James T. Clancy, Esq.
          Anderson P. Heston, Esq.
          BRANSCOMB, PLLC
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401-0036
          Telephone: (361) 886-3800
          Facsimile: (361) 886-3805
          E-mail: jclancy@branscomblaw.com
                  aheston@branscomblaw.com


TESLA INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Nguyen Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Hugh Nguyen, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in their lawsuit entitled Hugh Nguyen, et al. v. Tesla,
Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01422-JLS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress for breach of express and implied warranties,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud
by concealment and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Federal
Trade Commission Act, the California Vehicle Code, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law
and California's False Advertising Law.

Plaintiff Nguyen purchased a used Tesla Model S vehicle and claim
that its battery was severely degraded and was defective.

The appellate case is captioned as Hugh Nguyen, et al. v. Tesla,
Inc., Case No. 20-55873, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants E'rika Brock, Ian Ellwood, Hugh Nguyen and Todd
      Wolven's opening brief is due on October 26, 2020;

   -- Appellee Tesla, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      November 27, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants HUGH NGUYEN, TODD WOLVEN, E'RIKA BROCK and
IAN ELLWOOD, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Edward Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD C. CHEN
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (626) 500-7302
          Facsimile: (626) 385-6060
          E-mail: Edward.Chen@edchenlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation, DBA Tesla
Motors, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Grimaldi, Esq.
          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 599-7761
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com


TFS DINING: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Heath Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE HEATH, aka HAZEL/PEPPER, an individual; BRENNA WILDER, an
individual; TARA HEADRICK, an individual; KIARA HOPKINS, an
individual v. TFS DINING, LLC, AND RPM DINING, LLC D/B/A YELLOW
ROSE; JON PERSINGER AND KENNY DOE, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-00890 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and illegally absconding with the
Plaintiffs' tips.

The causes of action in the complaint allegedly arise from the
Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiff Heath was employed by
Defendants from January 2019 through March 2019. Plaintiff Wilder
worked from June 2016 through November 2017. Plaintiff Hopkins
worked from July 1, 2019, until February 13, 2020. Plaintiff
Headricks worked from October 2016 to November 2018. Throughout
their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have been
denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the
Defendants scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."

The Defendants also would have the Plaintiffs and other dancers
subsidized the clubs' employment costs by forcing them to tip DJs,
managers, security and other personnel, according to the complaint.
The Defendants saved labor costs by having one set of their
employees pay another set. The Defendants also took a percentage of
the gratuities and tips earned by the Plaintiffs, also in violation
of the FLSA.

TFS Dining, LLC, d/b/a Yellow Rose, and RPM Dining, LLC are strip
club companies based in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


THERMO FISHER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Clark Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANCE CLARK, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC ASHEVILE LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-04232-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 20, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and policies of not paying
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an assembly worker
between October 2018 and July 2019.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees for
their work performed between their scheduled start and stop times,
and before and after their scheduled start and stop time. As a
result, the Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to its
manufacturing employees, including the Plaintiff, at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they
worked in excess of 40 each workweek. Moreover, the Defendant
failed to keep records of all of the hours worked each workday and
the total hours worked each workweek by the Plaintiff and others.

Thermo Fisher Scientific Asheville LLC provides laboratory product
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: 216-696-5000
          Fax: 216-696-7005
          Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


TRANS UNION: 7th Cir. Affirms Denan FCRA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH W. DENAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 19-1519, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs appeals to the District Court's dismissal of their
complaint.

Plaintiffs Joseph Denan and Adrienne Padgett sued consumer
reporting agency Trans Union LLC, alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Trans Union moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Sections 1681e(b) and
1681i(a) impose a duty to transmit factually accurate credit
information, not to adjudicate the validity of disputed debts.
Plaintiffs' FCRA claims fall short, Trans Union argued, because
plaintiffs failed to allege that their credit reports were
factually inaccurate.

The district court granted Trans Union's motion, concluding that
until a formal adjudication invalidates the plaintiffs' loans they
cannot allege factual inaccuracies in their credit reports.

The Appellate Court must decide whether Sections 1681e(b) and
1681i(a) of the FCRA compel consumer reporting agencies to
determine the legal validity of disputed debts. The district court
dismissed plaintiffs' lawsuit, holding these provisions impose no
such duty. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the
Seventh Circuit affirms.

According to the Seventh Circuit, Section 1681e(b) does not explain
what it means to be inaccurate, nor does it draw a line between
factual and legal accuracy.

Plaintiffs contend there is no line, arguing that Section 1681e(b)
requires consumer reporting agencies to verify the factual and
legal accuracy of information contained in credit reports. Assuring
maximum possible accuracy, they insist, required Trans Union to
look beyond the data furnished by Plain Green and Great Plains and
determine the legality of plaintiffs' loans. But this argument does
not find support in the FCRA or its implementing regulations.

The FCRA imposes duties on consumer reporting agencies and
furnishers in a manner consistent with their respective roles in
the credit reporting market. Furnishers such as banks, credit
lenders, and collection agencies provide consumer data to consumer
reporting agencies. In turn, those agencies compile the furnished
data into a comprehensible format, allowing others to evaluate the
creditworthiness of a given consumer.

Consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, though interrelated,
serve discrete functions: furnishers report data to incentivize the
repayment of debts, while consumer reporting agencies compile and
report that data for a fee. What results is a credit reporting
system, producing a vast flow and store of consumer information.
For example, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
each of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies receive
information from furnishers on over 1.3 billion consumer credit
accounts or trade lines on a monthly basis.

Here, plaintiffs contend not only that Trans Union had a duty to
verify plaintiffs' debt liability, but that Trans Union knew or
recklessly ignored that their loans are void and uncollectible as a
matter of clearly established law. Their claims, though, attempt to
graft responsibilities of data furnishers and tribunals onto a
consumer reporting agency. Only furnishers are tasked with
accurately reporting liability. And it makes sense that furnishers
shoulder this burden: they assumed the risk and bear the loss of
unpaid debt, so they are in a better position to determine the
legal validity of a debt.  

Nor are consumer reporting agencies tribunals; they collect
consumer information supplied by furnishers, compile it into
consumer reports, and provide those reports to authorized users.

Section 1681e(b) requires reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy.
Plaintiffs' claims impose procedures tribunals, not consumer
reporting agencies, can perform. They also impute knowledge of
information that only tribunals can verify. What plaintiffs call
legally inaccurate and legally incorrect information amounts to
non-adjudicated legal defenses to their debts. One might speculate
that a loan is illegal, as plaintiffs do, but it would be just
speculation. Only a court can fully and finally resolve the legal
question of a loan's validity.
  
Absent an adjudication invalidating plaintiffs' debts, plaintiffs'
Section 1681e(b) inaccuracy claim does not move from speculative to
plausible. So plaintiffs cannot prove any facts that would support
their claim for relief.

A plaintiff advancing Section 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) claims must
allege a credit report contained inaccurate information. Plaintiffs
have not done so. Therefore, the district court's entry of judgment
on the pleadings is AFFIRMED, rules the Seventh Circuit.

A full-text copy of the  Seventh Circuit's May 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybf2gtj4 from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Caddell , Attorney, Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, John
G. Jacobs, Attorney, Jacobs Kolton, Chicago, IL, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph W. Denan, Adrienne L. Padgett.

Albert E. Hartmann, Michael C. O'Neil, Michael Patrick Yingling,
Maxwell J. Eichenberger, Attorneys, Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, IL,
for Defendant-Appellee.

Lauren KW Brennan, John Soumilas, Attorneys, Francis Mailman
Soumilas P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Amici Curiae National Consumer
Law Center, Incorporated, National Association of Consumer
Advocates, Incorporated.

Allen Denson, Attorney, Hudson Cook, LLP, Washington, DC, for
Amicus Curiae Consumer Data Industry Association.


TRANS UNION: Court Dismisses Grunfeld Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an order on June 17, 2020, dismissing the case
captioned Joel Grunfeld, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TransUnion, LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A.,
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-11781
(S.D.N.Y.), as the parties have informed the Court that they have
reached a settlement in principle in this case.

The dismissal is without costs and without prejudice to restoring
the action to the Court's calendar, provided the application to
restore the action is made within 60 days of the Order.

Any application to reopen filed after 60 days from the date of the
Order may be denied solely on that basis. Any pending motions are
DISMISSED as moot, and all conferences are CANCELED.

Prior to this, the Court February 24, 2020, denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action in
Favor of Individual Arbitration in the case. That Motion was denied
without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's individual
rules.  A full-text copy of that Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sxd9f9k from Leagle.com.

Joel Grunfeld, other, Plaintiff, represented by David Paul Force,
Stein Saks, PLLC, 285 Passaic Street, Hackensack NJ 07601

TransUnion, LLC, Defendant, represented by Camille Renee Nicodemus
-- cnicodemus@schuckitlaw.com -- Schuckit & Associates, P.C.

U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Michael Kliebard
-- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
& Victoria Peng -victoria.peng@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 16 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)

Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

The complaint alleges that during the class period Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (iii) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

The UCO lawsuit alleges that Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) decreased demand for oil due to the coronavirus
pandemic and increased oil supply and diminished oil prices caused
by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had caused extraordinary market
volatility; (2) a massive influx of investor capital into the Fund,
totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, in a matter of days had
increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened illiquidity in the West
Texas Intermediate ("WTI") futures contract markets in which the
Fund invested, and caused the Fund to approach positional and
regulatory limits (adverse trends exacerbated by the Offering
itself); (3) there was a sharp divergence between spot and future
prices in the WTI oil markets, leading to a super contango market
dynamic as oil storage space in Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was
insufficient to account for the excess supply expected to be
delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020 futures contract. As a
result, UCO could not continue to pursue the passive investment
strategy represented in the Registration Statement, causing its
results to significantly deviate from its purported benchmark.

Learn about your recoverable losses in UCO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?id=8598&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or the "Company")
(NYSE:TUFN) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and indexed under 20-cv-06290, is on behalf of Plaintiff and
all other persons or entities, except for Defendants, who purchased
ordinary shares in the Company's April 2019 IPO and/or December
2019 SPO pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents.
Plaintiff brings this class action under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against Tufin and
certain of the Company's senior executives, directors, and agents
who signed the Offering Documents (collectively, "Defendants").
The Securities Act protects investors and the capital markets of
the U.S. by preventing companies and underwriters from issuing
shares to investors by means of incomplete and inaccurate offering
documents.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tufin ordinary shares in the
Company's April 2019 IPO and/or December 2019 SPO pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents.,  you have until September 21,
2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, markets, and sells software-based solutions primarily in
the United States, Israel, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa,
Germany, Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company provides
SecureTrack, which enables security administrators to define and
manage a centralized security policy, minimize the attack surface,
and ensure continuous compliance across the network; SecureChange
that is used to assess, provision, and verify security
configuration changes across physical networks and cloud platforms,
while maintaining security and compliance; and SecureApp, which is
used to define, manage, and monitor network connectivity for their
applications. It also offers SecureCloud, a security policy
automation service that provides the real-time visibility and
control needed to ensure the security and compliance of hybrid
cloud environments.

On March 6, 2019, Tufin filed a registration statement with the SEC
on Form F-1, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on April 10, 2019 (the Form F-1, together with all
amendments, is referred to herein as the "April Registration
Statement").  Thereafter, on April 11, 2019, Tufin filed a
prospectus for its initial public offering (the "IPO") on Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the April Registration
Statement (the "April Prospectus" and collectively, with the April
Registration Statement, the "IPO Offering Documents"), issuing
7,700,000 ordinary shares to the investing public at $14.00 per
share (the "IPO Price"), for anticipated gross proceeds of
$107,800,000.

On December 2, 2019, the Company filed a second registration
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on Form F-1,
which was declared effective on December 5, 2019 (the "December
Registration Statement").  Thereafter, on December 5, 2019, Tufin
filed a prospectus for its secondary offering (the "SPO") on Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the December
Registration Statement (the "December Prospectus" and collectively,
with the December Registration Statement, "SPO Offering
Documents"), issuing an additional 4,279,882 ordinary shares to the
investing public at $17.00 per share (the "SPO Price"), for
anticipated gross proceeds of $72,757,994.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Offering Documents contained materially incorrect or misleading
statements and/or omitted material information that was required by
law to be disclosed.  Defendants are each strictly liable for such
misstatements and omissions therefrom (subject only, in the case of
the Individual Defendants, to their ability to establish a "due
diligence" affirmative defense and are so liable in their
capacities as signers of the Offering Documents, control persons,
and/or as issuers, statutory sellers, and/or offerors of the shares
sold pursuant to the IPO and SPO (together, the "Offerings")).
Plaintiff expressly disclaims any allegations that could be
construed as alleging fraud or intentional or reckless misconduct.

The IPO and SPO Offering Documents (together, the "Offering
Documents") that Tufin and the other Defendants (defined below)
used to ultimately secure over $180 million, combined, in net
proceeds from investors, however, contained misleading statements
in that, among other things: (i) Tufin's customer relationships and
growth metrics were overstated, particularly with respect to North
America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating, primarily in
North America; and (iii) as a result, Tufin's representations
regarding its sustainable financial prospects were overly
optimistic.

On January 8, 2020, after the market closed, Tufin released its
preliminary fourth-quarter financial results for 2019 and announced
significantly lowered financial expectations, specifically: (i) it
expected to report total revenue in the range of $29.5 million to
$30.1 million, lowered from its previous guidance of total revenue
in the range of $34.0 million to $38.0 million; and (ii) it now
anticipated non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6 million,
compared to the previous guidance of non-GAAP operating profit in
the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million.  The primary reason
given for the revenue shortfall was Tufin's "inability to close a
number of transactions, primarily in North America, that [the
Company] anticipated would close but did not close by the end of
the quarter."

Following this news, Tufin's share price fell by 24%, or $4.14 per
share, and its market capitalization declined by nearly $145
million.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. [GN]


TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX: Class Certification Denied in T.S. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned T.S. and Q.B., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
TELEVISION, FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX,
INC., FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, FOX NETWORKS GROUP, INC., FOX
TELEVISION GROUP, THE COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, LEONARD DIXON, JOHN
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, and THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-08303. (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Rebecca Pallmeyer finds that Plaintiffs have not yet met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and (b)
and thus, declines to certify their proposed class at this time.

Plaintiffs T.S. and Q.B. were pretrial detainees at the Cook County
Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC).  Defendant Twentieth
Century Fox and other Fox entities (Fox Defendants) filmed scenes
for the television show Empire at the JTDC. Plaintiffs allege that
Empire filming altered the normal operations of the JTDC in ways
that harmed them and other juvenile detainees. In the proposed
class action, they assert claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
various supplemental state law theories.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all youth detained at the
JTDC during Empire filming.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice to renewal, the Court orders.  Defendants may then
respond to the renewed motion for class certification or seek a
determination on the merits.

The court notes, further, that although it appears Plaintiffs'
claims present common questions, it may well be that some residents
of the JTDC were affected by the Empire filming only briefly or in
relatively insignificant ways.  Moreover, as time passes, it likely
will become increasingly difficult to locate and provide meaningful
relief to a class of persons who were juveniles at the time of the
relevant events but may well now be moving toward adulthood.

For all of these reasons, the Court encouraged the parties to
explore the possibility of settlement before incurring the expense
of another round of briefing. The case is referred to Magistrate
Judge Kim for settlement conference.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rxm73f4 from
Leagle.com.

T.S., a minor by and through his parent and guardian, S.S, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. & Q.B., a
minor by and through his grandparent and guardian, V.P, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated., Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam J. Pessin , Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, 1835
Market Street, 28th Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, pro hac
vice, Alexis Garmey Chardon , Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq., 224
South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100, Chicago,  IL  60604, Stephen H.
Weil , Loevy & Loevy, 311 North Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor,
Chicago, IL 60607, TERRENCE D. GARMEY - tgarmey@garmeylaw.com -
TERRY GARMEY & ASSOCIATES, pro hac vice, Jonathan I. Loevy , Loevy
& Loevy, Michael I. Kanovitz , Loevy & Loevy & Sarah Copeland Grady
, Loevy & Loevy, 311 North Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL
60607

Twentieth Century Fox Television, a division of Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corporation, Fox Broadcasting Company & Twenty-First
Century Fox, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobson -
jeffrey.jacobson dbr.com - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Matthew
Charles Luzadder -mluzadder@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, Catherine E. James - cjames@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, Janine Nicole Fletcher-Thomas -
jfletcher@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren Llp & Justin
O'Neill Kay - justin.kay@dbr.com - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
The County of Cook, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Danielle
Mikhail, Cook County State's Attorney Office, Francis J. Catania,
Cook County State's Attorney & Marissa D. Longoria , Cook County
State's Attorney's Office.


UNITED STATES: USMS & DHS Appeal Ruling in Index Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants United States Marshals Service and U.S. Department of
Homeland Security filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Index Newspapers LLC, et al. v. United States
Marshals Service, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01035-SI, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13,
2020, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of journalists and legal
observers, who they say were targeted and attacked by police while
documenting the recent protests in Portland.

The ACLU says police have fired rubber bullets at journalists and
legal observers, tear-gassed them, pepper-sprayed them in the face,
beat them with batons, and thrown flash bangs directly at them.
Police have also arrested journalists and legal observers,
according to the ACLU.

The lawsuit seeks an order to declare law enforcement's actions
unconstitutional and prohibit them from targeting and attacking
journalists again. The suit also seeks damages for injuries
sustained.

The appellate case is captioned as Index Newspapers LLC, et al. v.
United States Marshals Service, et al., Case No. 20-35739, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees INDEX NEWSPAPERS LLC, DBA Portland Mercury,
DOUG BROWN, BRIAN CONLEY, SAM GEHRKE, MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND, KAT
MAHONEY, SERGIO OLMOS, JOHN RUDOFF, ALEX MILAN TRACY, TUCK
WOODSTOCK, and JUSTIN YAU, and those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Athul K. Acharya, Esq.
          Matthew Brooks Borden, Esq.
          J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
          BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
          351 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 963-4493
          E-mail: acharya@braunhagey.com
                  borden@braunhagey.com
                  hagey@braunhagey.com

               - and -

          Kelly Simon, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON
          506 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 700
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (573) 444-7015
          E-mail: ksimon@aclu-or.org

Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY are represented by:

          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq.
          Andrew I. Warden, Esq.
          Jordan Von Bokern, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-7583
          E-mail: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov
                  andrew.warden@usdoj.gov


US WELL SERVICES: Faces Easom WARN Suit Over Abrupt Mass Layoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT EASOM, ADRIAN HOWARD, and JOHN NAU, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US WELL SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02995 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violating the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act when it terminated the Plaintiffs and
Class Members without providing sufficient, or any, advance written
notice.

The Plaintiffs and the other Class members were employees of the
Defendant, who were terminated without cause on their part in March
or April 2020, as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence
of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was effectuated by the
Defendant on that date.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in the amount of 60 days'
compensation and benefits for each of them by reason of the
Defendant's violation of their rights under the WARN Act.

In violation of the WARN Act, the Defendant failed to provide as
much written notice as was practicable, and also failed to provide
a statement of the basis for reducing the notification period to
zero days advance notice, according to the complaint. The Defendant
had the layoff planned well in advance of March 2020, and in fact
began laying off employees as early as November 2019 due to lack of
revenue.

US Well Services, Inc., provides hydraulic fracturing services,
including natural gas powered electric frac, for customers in the
oil and gas industry in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          MCDONALD WORLEY, PC
          1770 St. James St., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 523-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
          E-mail: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com

               - and -

          Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 425-6445
          E-mail: galvin@kennedyattorney.com


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 16 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

PPC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-information-request-form?prid=8596&wire=1
USO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/united-states-oil-fund-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=8596&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8596&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ:PPC)

PPC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2017
- June 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-information-request-form?prid=8596&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its
executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to
fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and
continuing through at least early 2017; (2) the Company received
competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period,
from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8596&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.

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

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

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


VERA WANG: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VERA WANG ONE UNION SQUARE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01629-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their Web site to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Because the Company's Web site, https://www.verawang.com/, is not
fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the Defendants violate the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that their Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Vera Wang One Union Square LLC is a New York-based company, which
provides to the public important goods and services. Vera Wang's
Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of designer
ready to wear eyewear, jewelry and fragrance. The Web site also
offers a wedding collection, which provides consumers with access
to a look book of bridal gowns along with information on how to
book an in-store bridal appointment. Consumers can also access a
home collection, which includes bedding, tabletops and gifts along
with other products and services, which are available online and in
store for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VXI GLOBAL: Wage Class Action Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action complaint alleging that
VXI Global Solutions, LLC, failed to provide their California
employees with proper compensation. The VXI Global Solutions, LLC
class action lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV25007, is currently pending in
the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of California.

According to the lawsuit filed, VXI Global Solutions, LLC allegedly
(a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages,
(c) failed to properly record and provide legally required meal and
rest periods, (d) failed to provide PLAINTIFF accurate itemized
wage statements, and (e) failed to reimburse employees for required
expenses, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections
listed in Labor Code Sections Secs. 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194,
1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby
gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.

Additionally, the complaint further alleges VXI Global Solutions,
LLC committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Secs. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide
policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and
record all missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFFS and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional
disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT
allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required
compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA
CLASS and violated the California Labor Code.

If you would like to know more about the VXI Global Solutions, LLC
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]


YODLEE INC: Wesch Sues Over Covert Data Collection, Poor Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Wesch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YODLEE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ENVESTNET,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05991 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendants' secretive data
collection practices and recent reports regarding its grossly
inadequate approach to data security.

The Defendant's business focuses on selling highly sensitive
financial data, such as bank balances and credit card transaction
histories, collected from individuals throughout the United States.
This data is not available from public sources and is so sensitive
that the individuals it concerns would not voluntarily turn it
over. Rather, Yodlee surreptitiously collects such data from
software products that it markets and sells to some of the largest
financial institutions in the country, the Plaintiff alleges.
Yodlee, in turn, acquires financial data about each individual that
interacts with the software installed on its customers' systems.
However, these individuals often have no idea they are dealing with
Yodlee.

According to the complaint, this is by design. Given the highly
sensitive nature of the data Yodlee collects, Yodlee's software is
developed to be seamlessly integrated directly into the host
company's existing website and/or mobile app in a way that obscures
who the individual is dealing with and where their data is going.
Yodlee, in fact, stores a copy of each individual's bank log in
information (i.e., her username and password) on its own system
after the connection is made between that individual's bank account
and any other third party service (e.g., PayPal). Yodlee then
exploits this information to routinely extract data from that
user's accounts without their consent. This process continues even
if, for example, an individual severs the connection between its
bank account and the third party service (e.g., PayPal) that Yodlee
facilitated. In that instance, Yodlee relies on its own stored copy
of the individual's credentials to extract financial data from her
accounts long after the access is revoked.

At no time was it disclosed by PayPal, Yodlee, or PNC Bank that the
Defendants would continuously access the Plaintiff's bank account
to extract and sell data without her consent, according to the
complaint. This is especially troubling as reports have revealed
that the Defendants are mishandling the data they collected from
individuals without authorization by distributing it in unencrypted
plain text files. These files, which can be read by anyone who
acquires them, contain highly sensitive information that makes it
possible to identify the individuals involved in each transaction.

Yodlee's failure to take even the most basic steps to protect this
highly sensitive data (e.g., requiring a password to open such
files) has placed the Plaintiff and all Class members at
significant risk of fraud and identity theft, the Plaintiff
contends. This risk is especially heightened given Yodlee's
practice of reselling the data it collects--without
authorization--to third parties, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Deborah Wesch connected her PNC Bank account to PayPal
using a Yodlee-powered portal in order to facilitate transfers
among those accounts.

Yodlee is one of the largest financial data aggregators in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Christine S. Yun Sauer, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Phone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          Email: asheanin@robinskaplan.com
                 cyunsauer@robinskaplan.com

               - and –

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          David Rochelson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          Email: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                 klerner@robinskaplan.com
                 drochelson@robinskaplan.com

               - and –

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          Email: tundlin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
                 afiorilla@lowey.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (215) 399-4770
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          Email: achristina@lowey.com


[*] $600MM Crypto Ad Ban Class Action Filed in Australian Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm JPB Liberty filed a class-action lawsuit in the Federal
Court of New South Wales earlier today, targeting Facebook and
Google for anti-competitive behavior for banning cryptocurrency
advertising in 2018.

JPB argues the ban, which was loosened in 2019, killed the initial
coin offering (ICO) market and caused severe financial damage to
the wider cryptocurrency industry.

JPB Liberty CEO Andrew Hamilton said the tech giants had acted as a
cartel in launching the crypto ad ban, in order to crush
competition from the blockchain sector.

The suit has garnered more than $600 million worth of claims from
across the crypto community, with claimant sign-ups set to remain
open until August 21. Hamilton believes that the total value of
claims could grow to as much as $300 billion.

The case has been funded by friends and family of Hamilton, in
addition to institutional litigation funders. If the suit is
successful, claimants will receive 70% of any future settlement,
while the case's funeral will reap the remaining 30%.

As the suit has been filed in Australia, the losing party in the
case will be liable to pay all legal expenses incurred throughout
the proceedings.

YouTube crypto scams flourish

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Hamilton slammed the firms' pretext of
protecting consumers against scams in justifying the crypto ad
ban.

"Youtube has failed to ban actual impersonation scams while banning
the genuine company," said Hamilton, noting legal action taken by
Binance against YouTube.

"CZ, the CEO of Binance, has said: 'we, Binance, can't advertise on
YouTube [. . . ] but you are letting scammers using my image and
advertise, to not just post on YouTube, but advertise on Google
AdWords.'"

Hamilton said research has shown the majority of scams associated
with cryptocurrencies are impersonations in which fraudsters claim
to be associated with the blockchain industry — noting a recent
proliferation in crypto impersonation scams using YouTube to find
victims.

"It's the most appalling and egregious thing I've ever heard of,"
Hamilton added. [GN]


[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Developments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. --
Stephanie.Adler-Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- David R. Golder, Esq.
-- David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com -- and Eric R. Magnus, Esq. --
Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an
article for The National Law Review, report on employment
litigation post Covid-19 and other class action developments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected virtually every aspect of our
lives. How will the pandemic change employment litigation and jury
trials?

COVID-19 has changed the way attorneys work, particularly
litigators. As a practical matter, depositions, oral arguments,
witness interviews, and settlement negotiations must take place by
phone or videoconferencing, altering the dynamics of the
interaction, hindering the ability to assess witness credibility,
and requiring the use of other subtle tools of persuasion and
communication.

As for trials, it is uncertain when they will resume; the answer
will vary by region and with the ebbs and flows of the pandemic.
What will those trials look like?

With an eye to reopening, the U.S. courts' COVID-19 Judicial Task
Force on June 4, 2020, issued guidance on conducting jury trials
and convening grand juries during the pandemic. The guidance notes
that each tribunal will set its own rules for jury trials based on
location, budget, and courtroom facilities. However, the task force
offered recommendations applicable to all courts regarding ensuring
jurors of their safety; the use of PPE in the courtroom; the
possible use of virtual voir dire, with prospective jurors
participating from home; the use of apps to conduct sidebars, and
other means of limiting physical contact between litigants; and
courtroom modifications to maximize social distancing.

Practical considerations aside, the pandemic will have a
significant substantive impact on jury trials -- as it will have a
profound effect on jurors.

Co-Leader of the Jackson Lewis Class Actions and Complex Litigation
Practice Group. The critical question for litigants: "Will jurors
be sympathetic to employers that are struggling to stay afloat to
employ people, or will they be viewed harshly and in an untrusting
light?"

What factors may have shaped (or will reveal) jurors' perceptions
of the claims and the parties?

* Whether they reside in an area hard-hit by the pandemic, or a
   region that suffered comparably minimal impact Whether they
   contracted COVID-19

* Whether a loved one fell ill or died from the disease

* Whether they or a family member were furloughed or laid off

* Whether they were eager or reluctant to return to work

* Whether they were front-line essential workers or safely
   working from home

* Whether their employer was shut down; and if so, whether
   due to the economic downturn or a government mandate

* Whether their own employer adopted ample safety measures and
   provided paid leave to affected employees Whether they wore
   masks and followed social distancing protocol or believed the
   COVID-19 panic was overblown.

Counsel for both parties will query the jury pool to glean how
potential jurors' personal experience of the pandemic may form
their impressions of the case before them.

Other Class Action Developments

Important developments in class litigation since our last issue:

Putative class members are nonparties:  Addressing a significant
procedural issue, a divided federal appeals court panel held that a
district court cannot dismiss putative class members in a
not-yet-certified class action because, absent class certification,
those individuals are not parties before the court. Denying a
grocer's motion to narrow the putative class in a lost wages suit,
the court noted that unnamed class members are treated as
nonparties for other purposes in litigation. Furthermore, the U.S.
Supreme Court has held in Smith v. Bayer Corp. that putative class
members "are always treated as nonparties." Thus, the employer's
motion was premature.

Court won't enjoin 10,000 individual arbitrations:  A federal
district court held that an app-based delivery service was unlikely
to succeed on the merits of its argument that a court should enjoin
the arbitration demands in a misclassification claim brought by a
single law firm on behalf of 10,356 couriers because they
constitute a de facto class arbitration in violation of the
arbitration provisions of the company's agreement with its
couriers. The question whether the arbitration demands violate the
arbitration provisions is one that should be decided by the
arbitrator; thus, the court denied the company's emergency TRO
motion. Further, the court was not persuaded that the company's
$4.6 million in arbitration fees or the possibility of arbitrating
a dispute that was not covered by their agreement would result in
irreparable harm. Litigation expenses alone, even if not
recoverable, are not irreparable harm.

Decade-long litigation battle goes to arbitration:  A federal court
has ruled that 1,000 putative class members in a lengthy gender
discrimination suit against a multinational investment bank will
have to arbitrate their claims individually, pursuant to the
arbitration agreements they signed as part of their separation,
promotion, or compensation agreements. However, employees who may
have been misled into agreeing to arbitrate as part of their equity
award agreements -- more than six years after the suit commenced --
will be given the chance to opt out. A magistrate judge rejected
the employees' contention that the employer waived its right to
compel arbitration, finding all four categories of operative
arbitration agreements were enforceable. The employees also failed
to convince the court that the arbitration provisions in all 1,220
agreements that were entered into by class members after this
action was filed should be voided pursuant to the court's duty to
manage communications with putative class members under Rule
23(d).

Pregnancy discrimination suit ends for $14 million:  A federal
district court granted final approval of a settlement resolving a
lengthy pregnancy discrimination class action brought by employees
of a large retailer. The employer agreed to pay $14 million to
resolve employees' claims that the company denied accommodations,
such as light-duty, to workers with pregnancy-related medical
restrictions between 2013-2014. The claimants will receive
$2,221.65, on average, and the deal grants attorneys' fees to class
counsel in the amount of $4.6 million, which represents one-third
of the common fund.

Employer to pay $8.7 million for "shift-jamming":  A federal
district court preliminarily approved an $8.7-million settlement of
a class action lawsuit asserting that under state law, a retailer
owed 30 days' wages to approximately 4,300 class members who were
terminated during the company's "shift-jamming" period. During this
time, employees were required to work shifts beginning less than 16
hours after the end of their previous shift. In addition, employees
were not paid daily overtime within 30 days. The court found the
significant risk of continued litigation and the lawsuit's
"specific, nuanced, and complex legal issues," some of which had
been litigated and some of which the settlement would avoid,
supported the proposed settlement amount. The court also approved
an attorneys' fee award of $2.9 million -- about one-third of the
class settlement amount -- finding it "well within the range of
reasonable attorney fees in such cases."

IT workers get nod for $5.7-million settlement:  Employees of an
information technology company were granted preliminary approval of
a proposed $5.7 million settlement to resolve their class claims
for overtime pay. A federal district court found the proposed
settlement was the product of serious, informed, noncollusive
negotiations; it had no obvious deficiencies; it did not improperly
grant preferential treatment to class representatives of segments
of the class; and it fell within the range of possible approval.

Restaurant settles misclassification claim for $4.6 million. A
federal court certified a settlement class of assistant managers
for a restaurant franchisee who alleged they were misclassified as
exempt and, therefore, denied overtime pay. The parties had reached
an agreement on settlement after multiple mediations and sought
final certification and approval from the court for a settlement of
over $4.6 million, including a "clear sailing" agreement regarding
attorneys' fees. The court approved the settlement agreement,
although it modified the enhancement awards sought, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

Antitrust challenge to "no poach" pact survives:  A former
fast-food restaurant employee may proceed with her consolidated
putative class action asserting that her employer violated the
Sherman Act by agreeing with franchisees not to hire each other's
current or former employees for a period of six months. Denying the
company's motion to dismiss, a federal district court ruled that
the employee plausibly alleged Article III standing by asserting
that the no-hire agreement depressed her wages; and established
antitrust standing by asserting "the injury of depressed prices
(wages) to sellers (employees) due to anticompetitive behavior of
buyers (employers)." Nor was dismissal warranted on
statute-of-limitations grounds; her claim accrued the last time she
received a depressed wage, not when she initially became aware of
the no-hire agreements

Companywide policy not enough to show predominance:  A federal
court rejected the bid for class certification of wage claims filed
by an employee of an e-commerce company on behalf of himself and
fellow shift managers. He contended the managers, who were treated
as exempt and denied overtime wages, were in fact entitled to such
wages under state law. However, the court concluded the employee
failed to show that common issues predominated over individual
ones. The existence of a policy treating the managers as exempt was
not enough on its own to establish predominance. The managers' job
description set forth key duties that did not include the types of
nonexempt, manual labor the managers alleged they were required to
perform.

Procedural BIPA violation not enough for standing:  An employee
lacked Article III standing to pursue a lawsuit alleging her former
employer violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) by requiring workers to scan their fingerprints in its
biometric time-tracking system. Her original complaint asserted
only a procedural violation of the law. She claimed the employer
failed to inform her in writing of the purpose for which her
fingerprints were collected. And she admitted she was not alleging
any "disclosure of biometric data to a third party such as a
payroll company" and was not "presently aware of any data breach,
identity theft, or other similar loss." Because she failed to
allege an injury-in-fact as required by federal courts, a federal
district court remanded the case to state court.

Delivery driver's class claims tossed under first-filed rule:  A
delivery driver for an e-commerce company's contractor could not
advance her FLSA overtime lawsuit as a collective action since she
sought to represent many of the same drivers already covered by a
similar FLSA action that was filed before hers and had been
conditionally certified. Allowing the named plaintiff in that prior
lawsuit to intervene for limited purposes, a federal district
court, joined by the federal judge overseeing the other lawsuit,
dismissed the driver's collective action without prejudice under
the first-filed rule, and denied her motion for conditional
certification and settlement approval. She and the sole opt-in
claimant were also given a deadline to decide if they would proceed
with their individual claims or opt into the other action.

No refund of pre-Janus agency fees:  A federal appeals court held
that a lower court properly dismissed putative class claims brought
by a nonunion teacher seeking reimbursement of "agency" fees
collected by a teacher's union prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's
2018 Janus decision outlawing such fees. The appeals court
concluded that private parties may invoke an affirmative defense of
good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 when they acted in good faith in following existing state law
and prior Supreme Court precedent, which had expressly permitted
the union fees. The appeals court also affirmed the dismissal of
the employee's state-law conversion claim. [GN]


[*] Multiple Retailers Sued Under CCPA for Sharing Data Used
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that earlier this year, The Retail
Equation, a loss prevention service provider, and Sephora were hit
with a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiff claimed Sephora
improperly shared consumer data with The Retail Equation without
consumers' knowledge or consent. The plaintiff claimed The Retail
Equation did so to generate risk scores that allegedly were "used
as a pretext to advise Sephora that attempted product returns and
exchanges are fraudulent and abusive."

On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff, now joined by others, amended her
complaint to cast an even wider net. The amended complaint now
asserts claims against 12 additional retailers based on their
alleged use of The Retail Equation's services to identify
fraudulent returns. As against the retailer defendants, the
plaintiffs assert claims for invasion of privacy, violations of
California's unfair competition law, unjust enrichment, and, most
notable, violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act
("CCPA").

It is questionable whether the CCPA, which provides for statutory
damages of no less than $100 and up to $750 per violation, even
applies. The CCPA's private right of action is limited to
situations where personal information is "subject to unauthorized
access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the
business's violation of the duty to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices" (Cal. Civ. Code Sec.
1798.150). The plaintiffs' claims, however, concern the voluntary
transfer of data to a third-party service provider. Contrary to a
data breach, a voluntary transfer arguably does not involve any
alleged "violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices." We note this same theory has
been asserted against Zoom based on its alleged sharing of data
with Facebook. Zoom's response to the complaint in that action, In
Re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, N.D. Cal.
Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK, is due on September 14, 2020. [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 ***