/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200917.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 187

                            Headlines

626 AWI LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages to FSIEs, Kollegger Says
835 FOX ST REALTY: Campos Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wage
ACADEMY LTD: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
ADIAGO TEAS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ADVANTAGE RN: $3.2MM Deal in Howell Suit Gets Prelim. Approval

AETNA INC: Flaim Sues Over Breaches of Plan Duties Under ERISA
AGA SERVICE: Elgindy Sues Over Unlawful Marketing of Insurance
AIRBUS SE: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Class Action Over Ticket Refunds Tossed
BEDGEAR LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation

BELLACOR.COM INC: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BLACK FOREST: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
BLACKBAUD INC: Johnson Files Class Suit in D. South Carolina
CABOT OIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CANADA: Settles G20 Summit Mass Arrest Class Action for $16.5MM

CANDLE WARMERS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CASE FARMS: Lutz Wants to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid w/o Prejudice
CENTRAL YESHIVA: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Associates Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Strauch Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.

COTTER CORPORATION: Banks Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
COTY INC: Faces Garrett-Evans Suit Over Decline in Share Price
CREME DE LA CREME: Faces Romero Class ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRYSTAL OF AMERICA: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
D PRIME INC: Cui FLSA Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Chefs

DAL-TILE SERVICES: Provides Improper Wage Statements, Aldana Says
DELORME ENTERPRISES: Faces Hacker Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
DRESS UP FORUM: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ELKTON FCI: 6th Cir. Vacates Prelim. Injunction in Wilson Suit
EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: 4th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Hill Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Summary Judgment in Johnson Suit Upheld
EPPING GARDENS: More Than 25 Families Launch Class Action
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Faces $1.5BB Class Action Over Power Outages
EVOLUTIONS BRANDS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Instagram Biometric Data

FCA US: Motion to Dismiss Vehicle Hacking Class Action Granted
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over PPP Lending
GOOGLE INC: Consultant Sues Class Action Lawyers Over Fees
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HIBBETT SPORTS: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

HIGHLAND BAKING: Citizens Sues Over Insurance Coverage Claims
HOME MARKETING: Faces Austin TCPA Class Suit in E.D. Arkansas
IMPOSSIBLE FOODS: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
INDIANA: Indiana Vote by Mail Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
INTEL CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Whitworth Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JUST BORN: Settles Candy Product Packaging Class Action
KAZ INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
KELLOGG SALES: Brown Files Suit in Southern District of New York
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over "Just Fruit" Jam Labeling

L'CHEF LLC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
LENOX CORPORATION: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
LISA FREEDE DESIGN: Bunting Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
LIVEPURE LLC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
LOANCARE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice as Premature

LONGFIN CORP: October 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
LOUISIANA: No Decision Yet on Health Safety Restrictions Suit
M.A.C. PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage to Drivers, Siegmann Says
METAL WARE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
METROPOLITAN DETENTION: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Chunn Suit Denied

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: TRO Motion in Goyette Denied Without Prejudice
MY DAILY CHOICE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Hoxha Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
NEONODE INC: Rosenblatt Sues Over Private Placement's False Proxy
NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Bid for FLSA Collective Status Granted

NUTREX RESEARCH: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
OHIO NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cook Suit
OMNI HOTELS: Charbonnet Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
OPENSIDED MRI: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Alleging Violation of ADA
PERRIGO: Two Fla. Pension Funds Unqualified to Lead Class Action

PILOT TRAVEL: Fortney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal Court Victory Doesn't Block Class Action
RAYTHEON CO: Court Dismisses N.R. ERISA Class Action
REGIONS BANK: $2.8MM Settlement in Swaney Suit Gets Final Approval
RIMPORTS LLC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Suit Claims

RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Tobacco Suits
SALESFORCE: Faces Class Action Over GDPR Violation
SARA LEE FROZEN: Briley Initiates Class Suit in S.D. New York
SC EDISON: Faces Britt FLSA Class Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping

SIMMONS PREPARED: Smith Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages
ST MARY PARISH: Class Recertification Bid OK'd in Boudreaux Suit
STANDARD SALES: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
STATE FARM: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call Ads
SUNDER ENERGY: Abboud Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

THREEBYONE USA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
TIGER BRANDS: To Sell Processed Meat Division Amid Class Action
TIKTOK INC: C. H. Suit Moved From C.D. Calif. to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: G. R. Suit Moved From C.D. Calif. to N.D. Illinois
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Amy G. Suit

UNITED STATES: Cays Files Class Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNITED STATES: Court Issues Prelim. Injunction in Rivas Suit vs. IC
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Children Expulsion
UNITED STATES: Trump Faces Class Action Over Mail Slowdown
URBAN VILLAGES: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Alleging ADA Violation

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VORNADO LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
VRBO: Motion Filed for Consolidation of Travel Insurance Suits
WAITR HOLDINGS: Nears Settlement of Delivery Drivers' Class Suit
WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Overcharging Scheme

WALLPAPER DIRECT: Calcano Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
WALLPAPERWAREHOUSE.COM LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WASH PARK VINTNERS: Katt Sues in Colorado Alleging ADA Violation
WEIMAN PRODUCTS: Faces Romero ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Fails to Cover COVID Loss, Last Resort Says

WESTPAC: Insurance Customers May Be Eligible for Compensation
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
WORKFORCE RESOURCES: $900,000 Deal in Jamil Suit Gets Prelim. OK
WORLD WRESTLING: Judge Denies Securities Class Action Dismissal Bid
YA YA CREATIONS: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

[*] Class Action Plaintiffs Must Offer Affirmative Evidence
[*] Ontario Amends Class Proceedings Act to Up Bar on Certification

                            *********

626 AWI LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages to FSIEs, Kollegger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY KOLLEGGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 626 AWI LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
MICHAEL FISCHER, individually, and PHILLIP REVIEN, individually,
Case No. 9:20-cv-81487-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime wages to
Field Service Imaging Engineers.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in August 2019 until
August 20, 2020, performing non-exempt work as a Field Service
Imaging Engineer.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Field Service Imaging Engineers worked an average of 60
hours per week during their employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendants paid them a flat salary regardless of the
number of hours they worked in each workweek because they were
misclassified by the Defendants as exempt employees under the FLSA,
thereby, failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times of
their regular rate of pay.

626 AWI LLC provides maintenance on medical technology equipment in
hospitals and other medical facilities in Florida, New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other locations
throughout the U.S. Michael Fischer and Phillip Revien were
managing members and owners of AWI within Delray Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


835 FOX ST REALTY: Campos Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 835 FOX ST REALTY, LLC; OAK EQUITIES LLC;
OSCAR KOHN; and JOSH KOWITZ, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-07149 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a superintendent
and porter from approximately 2001 until May 2020.

The complaint asserts these claims:

     -- the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and
        party plaintiffs overtime compensation at one and
        one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
        worked over 40 each workweek;

     -- the Defendants failed to reimburse the Plaintiff's cell
        phone bill;

     -- the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a
        statement each payment of wages;

     -- the Defendants failed to post or keep posted notices
        explaining the minimum wage rights of employees under the
        FLSA and the NYLL; and

     -- the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient
        records.

835 Fox St Realty, LLC, and Oak Equities LLC operate residential
apartment buildings business. Oscar Kohn was an owner, shareholder,
officer, or manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Tel: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jmgurrierri@zellerlegal.com
                 jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ACADEMY LTD: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy, Ltd. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Academy, Ltd., Case No.
1:20-cv-07434 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Academy, Ltd., doing business as Academy Sports + Outdoors, retails
sports related products. The Company offers sports apparel and
footwear, marine products, fitness, golf, hunting, fishing,
boating, team sports, recreation, and leisure equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADIAGO TEAS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adiago Teas, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Adiago Teas, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07422
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Adagio Teas was founded in 1999 and is providing consumers with
variety of teas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANTAGE RN: $3.2MM Deal in Howell Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY HOWELL, an individual on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE RN, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-883 JLS (BLM) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted Howell's unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class and Collective Action
Settlement.

The case began when the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against Advantage RN ("ARN") on May 1, 2017.  In the operative
First Amended Complaint, filed July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff alleges
the Defendant illegally excluded per diem stipends and monetary
bonuses from the "regular rate" when calculating employee overtime.
She further alleges that the exclusion caused damages under
several provisions of federal and state law, including damages for
unpaid overtime, unfair business practices, waiting time penalties,
and civil penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA"), as well as damages for unpaid overtime under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  On July 24, 2017, the Defendant
filed an answer denying liability and asserting 16 affirmative
defenses.

On Dec. 15, 2017, the Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 to certify a California class in connection with
the state law claims and a nationwide collective in connection with
the FLSA claim.  The Defendant opposed.  The Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion and certified a Rule 23 class and FLSA
collective.  On March 25, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to
modify the end of the class period from July 17, 2018 to June 30,
2017, to reflect the date the Defendant ceased operations.  The
Court denied the motion.

On March 29, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgement, and the Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgement as to the Defendant's liability only on April 19,
2019.  On Aug. 16, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant's motion
and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion.
Specifically, the Court granted summary judgement in the
Plaintiff's favor as to the California claims for overtime, unfair
business practices, civil PAGA penalties, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.  With respect to the California waiting time
penalties, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion as to the bonus
claims but denied it as to her per diem claims.  Similarly, the
Court extended the FLSA statute of limitations from two to three
years on grounds of willfulness for the bonus claims but not the
per diem claims.

In October 2017, the Parties participated in a private mediation
with the Hon. Carl West (Ret.); however, the Parties did not agree
to settlement terms at that time.  On Nov. 21, 2019, the Parties
participated in a second private mediation with the Hon. Jay C.
Gandhi (Ret.) that resulted in a tentative settlement.  In January
2020, the Parties reached a comprehensive settlement.  The
resulting Proposed Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement,
filed Jan. 24, 2020, is now before the Court.

The Parties have submitted a comprehensive Proposed Joint
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with approximately 18 pages of
substantive terms, as well as a Proposed Notice.

The Proposed Settlement Class is defined to include all non-exempt
hourly health care professionals employed by ARN in California from
May 2, 2013 through July 17, 2018 who worked pursuant to a Traveler
Assignment Confirmation, worked overtime, and had the value of the
per diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension or completion bonus paid
to them excluded from their regular rate for the purpose of
calculating overtime.  According to the Parties' investigation and
available data, this constitutes 237 individuals ("California
Class").

The Proposed Settlement Collective is defined to include all
non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed by ARN in the
United States within three years prior to July 17, 2018 who worked
pursuant to a Traveler Assignment Confirmation, worked in excess of
40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the value of the per
diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension or completed bonus paid to
them excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating
overtime.  According to the Parties' investigation and available
data, this constitutes 215 individuals ("FLSA Collective").  Some
individuals are members of both the California Class and FLSA
Collective.

The Proposed Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement provides
for $3.2 million in non-reversionary Gross Settlement Proceeds,
used to pay no more than one-third (or $1,066,666.67) in Attorneys'
fees, no more than $40,000 for the Class Counsel's costs, no more
than $15,000 in settlement administration fees and costs, $10,000
for the Named Plaintiff Service Award, and $50,000 allocated to
PAGA penalties, 25% of which ($12,500) is to be distributed to the
California Class.  The resulting Net Settlement Amount will be used
to pay the California Class and FLSA Collective members.  

In the event the Court reduces any of the aforementioned awards,
the difference will be included in the funds available for
distribution to the California Class and FLSA Collective and none
of the funds will revert to ARN.  Employer-side payroll taxes will
not be deducted from the settlement and will be paid by ARN with
separate funds.

The members of the California Class and/or FLSA Collective will
automatically be mailed a settlement payment.  The members of the
California Class and FLSA Collective will be given 45 days to
dispute overtime calculations.  The settlement checks will be valid
for 180 days from their date of mailing, and any checks left
uncashed after the expiration period will be voided and deposited
into the State of California Controller's Office of Unclaimed Funds
in the name of the individual to whom the settlement check
originally had been addressed.

Eighty-eight percent of the Net Settlement Fund, or approximately
$1,787,133.30, will be paid to the California Class.  To allocate
funds, the California Class Fund will first be divided by the total
number of California overtime hours worked by the entire California
class, in aggregate, to determine the monetary value of each
California overtime hour.  Each member's share will then be
calculated by multiplying that individual's number of California
overtime hours by the monetary value of each such hour.

In exchange, the California Class members will release all Class
Related Claims, which are defined as any and all claims, debts,
liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses,
attorney's fees, damages, or causes of action, contingent or
accrued, which arose during the certified class period and relate
to California wage and hour and California Labor Code claims that
were alleged in the Action.

Twelve percent of the Net Settlement Fund, or approximately
$243,700, will be paid to the FLSA Collective.  To allocate funds,
the FLSA Fund will first be divided by the total number of FLSA
overtime hours worked by the entire collective, in aggregate, to
determine the monetary value of each FLSA overtime hour.  Each
member's share will then be calculated by multiplying that
individual's number of FLSA overtime hours by the monetary value of
each such hour.

In exchange, the FLSA Collective members will release all FLSA
Released Claims, which are defined as any and all claims, debts,
liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses,
attorney's fees, damages, or causes of action, contingent or
accrued, that arose during the certified collective period and were
alleged in the Action related to unpaid overtime wages or any other
violation of the FLSA.

Judge Sammartino determines that (i) given the risks of further
litigation, the amount offered in the Proposed Joint Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable; (ii) the Parties
have entered into the Proposed Joint Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement with a strong working knowledge of the relevant facts,
law, and strengths and weaknesses of their respective claims and
defenses; (iii) the Plaintiff's counsel has extensive experience
litigating employment and class action lawsuits; (iv) the Class
Counsel will need to show what special circumstances exist
warranting a higher percentage in their motion for attorney's fees;
(v) before final approval of the Class Representative Award, the
Plaintiff must provide documentation detailing the time and effort
she has expended in pursuit of the litigation and the actions she
has taken to benefit the Settlement Class in its motion for final
approval; and (vi) both the method and content of the Proposed
Notice comply with Rule 23.

For the reasons stated, Judge Sammartino preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

The Judge preliminarily approved the form and substance of the
Proposed Notice set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and approved
and appointed ILYM Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.  As
provided in the Settlement Agreement, ILYM will provide notice to
the Class Members and respond to Class Member inquiries.  ILYM will
disseminate the Notice and in the manner and form provided in the
Proposed Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.

The Judge set a Final Approval Hearing on Oct. 1, 2020 at 1:30
p.m., in Courtroom 4D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States
Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/j5MdBf from Leagle.com.


AETNA INC: Flaim Sues Over Breaches of Plan Duties Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL FLAIM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AETNA, INC., CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, AETNA BENEFITS
FINANCE COMMITTEE, LARRY J. MERLO, FRANK M. CLARK, BETTY Z. COHEN,
JEFFEREY GARTEN, MARK T. BERTOLINI, ROGER N. FARAH, EDWARD J.
LUDWIG, EVA C. BORRATTO, AETNA DOES 1-20 and CVS DOES 1-20, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01321 (D. Conn., Sept. 4, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Aetna 401(k) Plan and plan participants alleging that the
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by engaging in prohibited
transactions.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all
current and former participants in Aetna 401(k) Plan (which on
November 28, 2018, was converted into the CVS 401(k) Plan), between
December 3, 2017, to February 20, 2019, who held or acquired Aetna
stock units in their 401(k) accounts beginning on December 3, 2017,
through November 28, 2018, and/or who held or acquired CVS
shares/units in their 401(k) on or after November 28, 2018, through
February 20, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries
under ERISA by, among other things: (a) Selecting and maintaining
Aetna stock units as an investment alternative for Participant
contributions under the Plan after the merger was announced when it
was no longer a suitable or prudent Plan investment option; (b)
Encouraging Aetna employees to invest in Aetna stock units in
advance of the merger; (c) Failing to divest the Plan from units in
Aetna stock after the merger was announced when continuing to hold
that investment option became imprudent as a result of the
undisclosed material information of adverse financial and operating
performance at CVS throughout 2017 and 2018 and the risks presented
to plan participants of investments in Aetna stock units. (d)
Failing to provide accurate, material information to enable Plan
participants to make informed investment decisions concerning their
contributions invested in Aetna stock units; (e) Allowing and/or
participating in non-exempt prohibited transactions; and (f)
Abdicating their continuing duty to review, evaluate and monitor
the suitability of the Plan's investment in Aetna stock units after
the merger was announced.

The Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan, who was invested in
the Aetna Stock Fund during the Class Period.

Aetna Inc. is an American managed health care company and is now a
wholly owned subsidiary of CVS. CVS Health Corporation is an
American healthcare company. After their Merger, CVS became the
owner of 100% of Aetna stock and replaced Aetna as the sponsor and
administrator of the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860)493-6294
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


AGA SERVICE: Elgindy Sues Over Unlawful Marketing of Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ELGINDY and JULIANNE CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the
general public, and those similarly situated v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY
(d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, and
BCS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-06304-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept.
4, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive practices relating to their online marketing and sale of
insurance policies on the checkout pages of ticketing and travel
Web sites.

The action arises from the Defendants' longstanding practice of
charging consumers with hidden fees. According to the complaint,
the Defendants secretly and unfairly charge unsuspecting consumers
additional fees, on top of the calculated premium, on insurance for
the event tickets and travel arrangements purchased on major event
and travel Web site, without disclosing that they are charging
those fees.

In places other than the checkout screens where the transactions
occur, the Defendants try to justify those fees by representing
that the fees are for a supposed assistance service. The said
service purports to allow insureds to spend time on the telephone
with Allianz Global Assistance's customer service representatives
to request information about various topics, such as directions,
weather, restaurants, hotels, new travel arrangements, and possibly
medical needs. But consumers are unaware of any such service and
they do not want it; and they certainly do not want to pay what
Defendants charge for it, the Plaintiffs contend.

Under California law, an appointed agent, such as Allianz Global
Assistance, is not permitted to collect a fee for services
constituting or arising out of the transaction of insurance,
according to the complaint. In the end, the assistance service is a
sham and a pretext to collect illegal fees at the expense of
millions of consumers.

The Defendants are insurance companies doing business throughout
the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com


AIRBUS SE: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 17 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Airbus SE ("Airbus" or the "Company") (OTC: EADSY,
EADSF) in the United States between February 24, 2016 and July 30,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) that Airbus's policies and protocols were
insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (ii) 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; (iii) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (iv) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (v) 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 (vi) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2016, Reuters reported that the U.K. had opened a
corruption probe into Airbus. Specifically, the SFO announced that
it had "opened a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud,
bribery and corruption in the civil aviation business of Airbus,"
which "relate to irregularities concerning third party
consultants." The investigation followed Airbus's flagging of
"misstatements and omissions" involving outside contractors in
certain export financing applications to U.K. regulators and the
European Export Credit Agencies earlier in the year, which the
Company had found through an internal probe.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.21 per share, or 1.49%, to close
at $13.86 per share on August 8, 2016, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $0.82 per share, or 1.45%, to close at $55.58 per
share on August 8, 2016.

France and the U.S. later opened their own investigations into the
subject of the SFO's allegations in 2017 and 2018, respectively. On
January 31, 2020, media outlets reported that Airbus had agreed to
a deal with U.S., U.K., and French prosecutors to settle bribery
and export-control violations against the Company for EUR3.6
billion ($4 billion). Pursuant to the settlement, Airbus also
agreed to appoint an external compliance officer for at least two
years to monitor the Company's handling of its defense-related
sales and disclosures.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.72 per share, or 1.93%, to close
at $36.68 per share on January 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.21 per share, or 1.48%, to close at $147.00 per
share on January 31, 2020.

Then, on March 15, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about fees paid
to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter division, led
at the time by the Company's current Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Defendant Guillaume M.J.D. Faury that may have violated
global bribery and corruption rules, according to internal
documents related to Airbus's $4 billion bribery settlement, which
were not previously made public and/or reported.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or 15.71%, to close
at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $77.75 per
share on March 16, 2020.

Finally, on July 30, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
the SFO had charged GPT and three individuals with corruption in
connection with a defense contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi
Arabia. These charges were the culmination of the investigations
initiated by the SFO back in August 2012.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or 3.56%, to close
at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries
fell $2.85 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $72.10 per share on July
31, 2020.

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. 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 Airbus securities in the United States, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/airbusse-eadsy-eadsf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-289/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.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Class Action Over Ticket Refunds Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
FOX Business' Stephanie Pagones and The Associated Press report
that American Airlines has asked a judge to throw out a
class-action lawsuit seeking airfare refunds for trips that were
canceled amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, arguing the people
seeking reimbursements canceled their own flights and are therefore
not eligible or agreed to arbitration upon buying their tickets,
court papers show.

Lawyers representing the airline told a judge on Aug. 13 that two
of the three plaintiffs who had proposed the class-action suit had
agreed to arbitration clauses when they booked their trips through
Hotwire and Expedia, according to the airline's motion to dismiss,
which was published online by Law360.com.

"Those agreements expressly state that the purchaser must bring any
claims against travel suppliers (like American) in individual
arbitration or small claims court, and that travel suppliers like
American are intended beneficiaries of the agreements to
arbitrate," court papers state. "As such, those plaintiffs' claims
must be resolved by an arbitrator, and should be dismissed."

The lawyers also argue that, according to American's "conditions of
carriage," passengers will typically only be eligible for refunds
if the flight was canceled by the airline.

"American 'do[es]n't refund cash for non-refundable tickets' when
passengers themselves 'cancel [their] trip before departure,'"
court papers further state. "Rather, such passengers may instead
apply the 'value of [their] ticket toward future travel on
American,' after pay[ing] a change fee plus any difference in
fare.'"

The motion further points to the U.S. Department of
Transportation's own ruling on the matter, as outlined in a
May 12 document for Frequently Asked Questions "Regarding Airline
Ticket Refunds Given the Unprecedented Impact of the Covid-19
Public Health Emergency on Air Travel."

"Passengers who purchase a non-refundable ticket on a flight to,
within, or from the United States that is still being operated
without a significant change, but would like to change or cancel
their reservation, are generally not entitled to a refund or a
travel voucher for future use on the airline," the DOT document
states. "This is true even if the passenger wishes to change or
cancel due to concerns related to the COVID-19 public health
emergency."

Three people--Lee Ward, William Holloway and James Saunders--filed
the lawsuit seeking class-action status on April 22, accusing
airlines of breaking consumer protection rules and government
guidelines by only offering company credit to be used toward future
flights, Law360 reported. All three individuals canceled their
trips that were planned through American Airlines for March, April
and May.

According to the outlet, their attorneys also cited a DOT
enforcement document, though this one from April 3, which states
"passengers should be refunded promptly when their scheduled
flights are canceled or significantly delayed."

The lawsuit also slammed American Airlines for refusing to provide
refunds despite receiving a $4.75 billion loan from the Treasure
Department in July in addition to $5.8 billion that Treasury had
already agreed to extend.

"American not only has a moral responsibility to provide real
refunds, it has a legal obligation to do so, particularly in light
of the substantial bailout it received from American taxpayers,
including plaintiff and the class members," the complaint stated,
according to Law360.

Lastly, American's motion to dismiss also claims that none of
Ward's tickets were even issued by the airline, but were instead
were purchased through and issued by LATAM Airlines, which,
according to the court papers, "has the ability to sell seats on
American flight segments as part of the tickets that it sells to
its customers." [GN]


BEDGEAR LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bedgear, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bedgear, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07403
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Bedgear manufactures bedding products. The Company designs,
produces, and markets specialized pillows, sheets, and related
bedding products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BELLACOR.COM INC: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellacor.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bellacor.com, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07424 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Bellacor.com, Inc., offers home furnishing products. The Company
supplies products including tables, stools, sofas, chairs, racks,
cabinets, jewelry boxes, stands, dressers, computer desks,
nightstands, bed skirts, drinkware, mirrors, towel bars, lamps,
door hardware, and shelves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK FOREST: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Forest Decor,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Black Forest Decor,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-07272 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).

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

Black Forest Decor is a mail order catalog and internet business
specializing in home decor and lighting products for homes, cabins
and lodges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACKBAUD INC: Johnson Files Class Suit in D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is styled as Matthew Johnson, an individual and Minnesota
Resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03181-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 4,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community--nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Burton Ulmer, Esq.
          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER, PLLC
          701 East Bay Street, Suite 411
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 444-5404
          Fax: (843) 444-5403
          Email: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
                 smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


CABOT OIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 17 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot" or "the Company") (NYSE:COG)
for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
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.

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

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


CANADA: Settles G20 Summit Mass Arrest Class Action for $16.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a $16.5-million settlement has been
reached in a class-action lawsuit over mass arrests at the 2010 G20
summit.

The agreement comes after 10 years of court proceedings and
negotiations between the Toronto Police Services Board and
representatives for about 1,100 people who were arrested during the
summit.

Under the settlement, those arrested will each be entitled to
compensation between $5,000 and $24,700, depending on their
experiences.

The deal also includes a public acknowledgement by police regarding
the mass arrests and the conditions in which protestors where
detained, as well as commitment to changing how protests are
policed in the future.

Those who were wrongfully arrested will also have their police
records expunged.

Thousands participated in demonstrations
Toronto hosted the G20 summit of world leaders in June 2010.

Many public demonstrations were organized to address issues like
climate change, globalization and poverty. Thousands of protestors
demonstrated peacefully, but some protests were accompanied by
deliberate vandalism.

Police reacted by encircling large groups of hundreds of protestors
in several locations in downtown Toronto with cordons of riot
police, holding them for hours, and then transferring many of them
to a temporary detention centre.

The lawsuit was launched in 2010 by Sherry Good as the legal
representative of approximately 1,100 class members. The Toronto
Police Service initially objected to the class-action proceedings
in court, and the class-action status was not finalized until
November 2016.

"When these events happened many Canadians could not believe they
happened in Canada. The settlement appears to fairly recognize
through financial compensation, acknowledgements and reforms that
they shouldn't have happened and will never happen again," said
Eric Gillespie, a Toronto litigation lawyer leading the case with
Murray Klippenstein.

Klippenstein and Gillespie are urging anyone who was present at the
June 2010 G20 riots and who might be eligible for compensation to
contact them or review the G20 class-action website. [GN]


CANDLE WARMERS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candle Warmers Etc.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Candle Warmers Etc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07405 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Candle Warmers Etc. sells electric candle warmers and offers
fragrance warmers that are designed to warm wax melts and candles
while quickly releasing fragrance throughout the home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASE FARMS: Lutz Wants to Withdraw Class Cert. Bid w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LUTZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CASE FARMS, LLC, Case
No. 5:20-CV-00103-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. withdrawing his motion for class certification without
      prejudice; and

   2. granting any other and such further relief as necessary.

Case Farms LLC provides poultry slaughtering and processing
services. The Company offers breaded filets, breaded party wings,
whole legs, roaster products, tenders and split tender, patties
and, roaster legs. Case Farms serves customer throughout United
States.

A copy of Mr. Lutz's Motion to Certify Class is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32wuxwM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Stephenson, Esq.
          POPE AYLWARD SWEENEY & STEPHENSON, LLP
          6701 Carmel Road, Suite 105
          Charlotte, NC 28226
          Telephone: 704 374-1600
          Facsimile: 704 759-8966
          E-mail:jstephenson@passlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rebecca K. Cheney, Esq.
          HAMILTON STEPHENS STEELE & MARTIN, PLLC
          525 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: 704 344 1117
          Facsimile 704 344 1483
          E-mail: bcheney@lawhssm.com

CENTRAL YESHIVA: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Yeshiva
Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitz Of The United States Of America. The case
is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Central Yeshiva Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitz Of
The United States Of America, Case No. 1:20-cv-04229-FB-LB
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Central Yeshiva Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitz of The United States of
America was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business
includes operating elementary and secondary schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Associates Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASSOCIATES IN PERIODONTICS, PLC v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-11385-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., Aug. 25, 2020), is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated arising from the Defendant's systematic denial
of the Plaintiff's insurance claims for losses due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff says it purchased the Defendant's insurance policy
and made premium payments for a policy that, in the event of a
catastrophe requiring a shutdown of business operations, would
require the Defendant to honor its contractual obligation to
provide coverage. In March 2020, such a catastrophe took place when
the Plaintiff was forced to close its dental office due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, many insureds, including the
Plaintiff, filed claims for Business Income coverage, Extra Expense
coverage, coverage for losses due to the actions of a Civil
Authority, and Business Income from Dependent Properties coverage.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's decision to not provide
coverage and/or its decision to refuse to pay claims under the
common policy forms issued to the Plaintiff and the putative class
members constitutes a breach of contract and provides it with the
right to seek a declaratory judgment on behalf of itself and the
class members establishing that they are entitled to receive the
benefit of the insurance coverage they purchased and for
indemnification of the businesses losses they have sustained.

The Plaintiff is a dental office located in South Burlington,
Vermont.

Cincinnati Insurance Company is an insurance company engaged in the
business of selling insurance contracts to commercial entities and
is authorized to transact business in the State of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence E. Bathgate, II, Esq.
          John J. Reilly, Esq.
          Ryan M. Farrell, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (732) 363-0666
          E-mail: lbathgate@bathweg.com
                  jreilly@bathweg.com
                  rfarrell@bathweg.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Howard Moore, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
          E-mail: cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com
                  mmoore@merlinlawgroup.com
               
               - and -

          Rene M. Sigman, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP
          515 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 626-8880
          Facsimile: (713) 626-8881
          E-mail: rsigman@MerlinLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Christina Phillips, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP
          181 West Madison, Suite 3475
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 260-0806
          Facsimile: (312) 260-0808
          E-mail: cphillips@merlinlawgroup.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Strauch Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Strauch, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Ruling dated July 27, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled JOSEPH STRAUCH, TIMOTHY COLBY, CHARLES TURNER, and VERNON
CARRE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Case No. 14-cv-956, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 18,
2020, the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut has granted Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motion for
Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JOSEPH STRAUCH, TIMOTHY
COLBY, CHARLES TURNER, and VERNON CARRE individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil No. 3:14-cv-956 (JBA) (D. Conn.).

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Strauch et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, Case No. 20-2814, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated; Timothy Colby, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated; Vernon Carre, on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated; and Charles Turner, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

Defendant-Appellee Computer Sciences Corporation is represented
by:

          David R. Golder, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          90 State House Square
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-0404
          Facsimile: (860) 247-1330
          E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com


COTTER CORPORATION: Banks Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tamia Banks, Ronnie Hooks, Barbara Hooks,
Joel Hogan, Kenneth Niebling, Kendall Lacy, Tanja Lacy, Willie
Clay, Bobbie Jean Clay, Angela Statum, Missouri Rentals Company,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Cotter Corporation; Commonwealth Edison Company; Exelon
Corporation; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; DJR Holdings, Inc.
formerly known as: Futura Coatings, Inc.; St. Louis Airport
Authority, a Department of the City of St. Louis, Defendants;
Cotter Corporation N.S.L., Third Party Plaintiff; MALLINCKRODT
LLC.; EverZinc USA Inc.; Bridgeton Landfill, LLC; Republic
Services, Inc.; Allied Services, LLC; West Lake Landfill, Inc.;
Rock Road Industries, Inc.; Third Party Defendant, Case No.
18SL-CC00617-01, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St.
Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri on Sept. 10, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01227-JAR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Cotter Corporation provides mining services. The Company uranium,
vanadium, molybdenum, silver, lead, zinc, copper, selenium, nickel,
cobalt, tungsten and limestone.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
          JOHNSON GRAY LLC
          The Security Building
          319 N. 4th St., Suite 212
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 385-9500
          Fax: (314) 594-2052
          Email: agray@johnsongraylaw.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel Richard Carroll, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
          440 N. 4th St., Suite 390
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 361-8834
          Fax: (314) 925-1307
          Email: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 391-4700
          Fax: (314) 244-3778
          Email: ryan@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          David Roy Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Blvd. E.
          300 E. Pedro Simmons Drive
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Phone: (304) 343-4401
          Fax: (304) 343-4405
          Email: drbarneywv@gmail.com

The Defendants and Third Party Plaintiff are represented by:

          Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq.
          Lauren Jaffe, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER LLP
          70 W. Madison, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 471-8776
          Fax: (312) 471-8701
          Email: bwatson@rshc-law.com
                 ljaffe@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          Marcie J. Vantine, Esq.
          SWANSON AND MARTIN LLP
          One Bank of America Plaza
          800 Market St., Suite 2100
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 421-7100
          Fax: (314) 241-7106
          Email: mvantine@smbtrials.com

               - and -

          Jennifer R Steeve, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER LLP
          100 Spectrum Center Dr., Ste. 440
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (805) 550-6221
          Email: jsteeve@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          Saturnin Martin Jansky, Esq.
          MARTIN JANSKY LAW FIRM PC
          2001 Big Bend Road
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Phone: (314) 881-6144
          Fax: (314) 644-4303
          Email: martin@janskylaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Cowling, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 621-5070
          Fax: (314) 621-5065
          Email: jcowling@armstrongteasdale.com

The Third Party Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Erickson, Esq.
          Steven D. Soden, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY LLP
          2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Fax: (816) 421-5547
          Email: derickson@shb.com
                 ssoden@shb.com

               - and -

          Gregory C. Mollett, Esq.
          Richard E. Greenberg, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER HEMKER PC
          10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 516-2628
          Fax: (314) 345-4792
          Email: gcm@greensfelder.com
                 reg@greensfelder.com

               - and -

          Allyson Elisabeth Cunningham, Esq.
          Patricia L. Silva, Esq.
          William Garland Beck, Esq.
          LATHROP GPM LLP
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 460-5116
          Email: allyson.cunningham@lathropgpm.com
                 patricia.silva@lathropgpm.com
                 william.beck@lathropgpm.com


COTY INC: Faces Garrett-Evans Suit Over Decline in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL GARRETT-EVANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. COTY INC., LAMBERTUS "BART" BECHT, CAMILLO
PANE, PIERRE LAUBIES, PATRICE DE TALHOUĂ‹T, and PIERRE-ANDRE
TERISSE, Case No. 1:20-cv-07277 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Coty common stock during the period
from October 3, 2016, to May 28, 2020, inclusive.

On November 18, 2019, Coty announced another beauty brand
acquisition--a 51% majority stake in Kylie Cosmetics for $600
million in order to "build and further develop Kylie's existing
beauty business," which "realized an estimated $177M net revenues
for the trailing twelve months (TTM)." Kylie Jenner was described
"as the youngest-ever self-made billionaire on the cover of Forbes
Self-Made Billionaire issue in August 2018."

But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner "has
been inflating the size and success of her business. For
years."--revealing that the Defendants had overvalued yet another
acquisition.

On this news, Coty shares fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a close of
$4.19 on May 28, 2020, to a close of $3.63 per share on May 29,
2020, on heavy volume.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Coty's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no
stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate
processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the
P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2)
that as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty
Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate
infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands
that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4)
that, as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not
successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and
not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a
result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

Coty Inc. is an American multinational beauty company founded in
1904 by Francois Coty. With its subsidiaries, it develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes fragrances, cosmetics, skin
care, nail care, and both professional and retail hair care
products. Coty owns around 77 brands as of 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constantine Economides, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 971-5943
          Facsimile: (646) 392-8842
          E-mail: ceconomides@rcfllp.com
                  vel@rcfllp.com
                  ingo@rcfllp.com

               - and -

          Kyle Roche, Esq.
          Jason Cyrulnik, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 350-0527
          Facsimile: (646) 392-8842
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
                  jcyrulnik@rcfllp.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 303-1964
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com


CREME DE LA CREME: Faces Romero Class ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creme De La Creme
Imports LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Creme De La Creme
Imports LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07427 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Creme De La Creme is located in Middleburg, Virginia, and is part
of the restaurants industry and offers a wide range of tastes and
designs in unique tableware, furniture, linens and gifts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRYSTAL OF AMERICA: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crystal of America,
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Crystal of America, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07404-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Crystal is family-owned glass design and manufacturing company.
Crystal provides a variety of glassware, including wine glass and
specialty glass products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


D PRIME INC: Cui FLSA Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Chefs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHENG ZHE CUI; and JINGHUA ZHENG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. D PRIME INC. d/b/a SungBookDong BBQ;
MI SUK CHOI a/k/a Misuk Choi; and WON BOK CHOI a/k/a Wonbok Choi,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03667 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2020), seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as chefs.

D Prime Inc., doing business as SungBookDong BBQ, is engaged in the
restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


DAL-TILE SERVICES: Provides Improper Wage Statements, Aldana Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANELE ALDANA, as an individual, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a private attorney general v. DAL-TILE SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20071668
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 25, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code against individuals, who
worked for them.

According to the complaint, the Defendants disregard the rights of
employees by failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements.
Specifically, the Defendants issue wage statements that did not
identify the overtime rate as one and a half times the regular rate
of pay and inaccurately stated the total hours worked when
employees earned certain wages in addition to their base hourly
earnings.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in February 2018 as
a team lead for sample express and has been paid on an hourly basis
as a non-exempt employee.

Dal-Tile Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of Mohawk Industries Inc.,
an American flooring manufacturer licensed to do business and
actually doing business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  sly@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


DELORME ENTERPRISES: Faces Hacker Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEGAN HACKER and BRANDON SRINAMYOM, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. DELORME ENTERPRISES,
INC., A Tennessee Corporation, and ROBERT DELORME, individually,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00398 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 4, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is also brought against the Defendants as a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 class action, alleging breach of contract under the laws
of the State of Tennessee, to recover unpaid contractual wages owed
to the Plaintiff and the class members.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a centralized
plan, policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated "over the road" truck driver employees to
perform truck driving/distribution job duties without compensating
them the applicable FLSA minimum wage. Additionally, the Defendants
issue pay stubs to the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class
that erroneously charge them for "advances" they never received.
The Defendants then charge the Plaintiffs and members of the
putative class for work they provided for the Defendants, issuing
them pay stubs with a negative balance.

Delorme Enterprises, Inc., is a Tennessee-based company, which
provides trucking/distribution services to business entities
throughout the Southeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


DRESS UP FORUM: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dress Up Forum, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dress Up Forum, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07430 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Dress Up is a one-stop-shop for all of outfit needs from dresses,
tops, denim, shoes, jewelry and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELKTON FCI: 6th Cir. Vacates Prelim. Injunction in Wilson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG WILSON, ERIC BELLAMY, KENDAL NELSON, and
MAXIMINO NIEVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Petitioners-Appellees, v. MARK WILLIAMS, in his official
capacity as Warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institution;
MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his official capacity as the Federal Bureau of
Prisons Director, Respondents-Appellants, Case No. 20-3447 (6th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the
district court's April 22, 2020 preliminary injunction.

Elkton Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) is a low-security
prison in Lisbon, Ohio, designed to house approximately 2,000
inmates at the main facility and 500 inmates at the satellite
facility.  The main facility consists of three buildings with six
dormitory-style housing units; each unit holds approximately 300
inmates split between two sides. The satellite facility has two
housing units, each with approximately 250 inmates.  Each side of a
housing unit contains approximately 150 bunks resulting in two to
three inmates sharing a cube and sleeping a few feet away from each
other.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) began a phased approach nationwide.  Phase One of its action
plan began in January 2020 and involved creating a strategic
response plan.  On March 13, 2020, the BOP implemented Phase Two,
which suspended social and legal visits, inmate facility transfers,
staff travel and training, contractor access, and volunteer visits.
Phase Three involved inventorying the BOP's cleaning, sanitation,
and medical supplies.  In Phase Four, beginning on March 26, the
BOP expanded its initial screening procedures to mandate use of a
screening tool and temperature check, and require asymptomatic
arrivals to be placed in quarantine for fourteen days and
symptomatic arrivals to be isolated until they tested negative for
COVID-19 or were cleared by medical staff.  

On March 31, the BOP implemented Phase Five.  Phase Five required
all inmates to be secured to their quarters for a 14-day period
with limited access to the commissary, laundry, showers, telephone,
and other services. The BOP also coordinated with the U.S. Marshals
Service to decrease incoming arrivals during this period.  Phase
Six, ordered on April 13, extended Phase Five through May 18.

In addition to complying with nationwide directives, Elkton fCI
also provided inmate and staff education through Frequently Asked
Questions bulletins, provided staff training on using Personal
Protective Equipment, ordered enhanced cleaning, and took other
preventative measures.  Elkton also began, but quickly ended, daily
temperature screening of inmates.  For inmates deemed to have
"essential" work details requiring movement throughout the
building, such as food service and cleaning orderlies, Elkton
implemented enhanced screening before and after assigned work
details.  Inmates are encouraged to self-monitor and report
symptoms and are screened for symptoms and exposure to risk
factors.

The Petitioners, four inmates housed in the Elkton and its
satellite facility FSL Elkton, on behalf of themselves and others
housed or to be housed there, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 to obtain release from custody to limit their exposure
to the COVID-19 virus.  They sought to represent all current and
future inmates, including a subclass of inmates who -- through age
and/or certain medical conditions -- were particularly vulnerable
to complications, including death, if they contracted COVID-19.

The Petitioners contend that the BOP's approach and procedures are
limited in effectiveness due to the dormitory-style housing at
Elkton making it impossible to maintain physical distance and
because there are insufficient supplies.  The Petitioners, on
behalf of themselves and current and future inmates at Elkton,
allege that their confinement in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak
violates the Eighth Amendment.  Specifically, they claim that there
is no set of internal protocols or practices that, in light of the
current conditions and population levels, Elkton can use that will
prevent further disease and death inside the prison.  Therefore,
they sought class certification and a preliminary injunction
ordering the BOP to identify and release all inmates ages fifty or
older and those that are medically vulnerable.  Beyond the release
of the initial subclass, they seek specific mitigation efforts to
prevent spread of COVID-19 within Elkton.

On April 22, the district court granted the Petitioners' motion in
part.  The district directed Respondents Mark Williams, Elkton's
warden, and Michael Carvajal, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP"), to (1) evaluate each subclass member's eligibility
for transfer out of Elkton by any means, including compassionate
release, parole or community supervision, transfer furlough, or
non-transfer furlough within two weeks; (2) transfer those deemed
ineligible for compassionate release to another BOP facility where
testing is available and physical distancing is possible; and (3)
not allow those transferred to return to Elkton until certain
conditions were met.

The district court conditionally certified a medically-vulnerable
subclass and determined that the subclass was likely to succeed on
the merits of the Eighth Amendment claim.  It limited the subclass
to inmates sixty-five and older and those with medical conditions
posing additional risk of severe harm from COVID-19.  Because the
subclass consisted of hundreds of inmates who were subject to the
same dangerous conditions at Elkton and petitioners have serious
medical issues commensurate with the rest of the subclass, the
court held that the etitioners met the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b).

On April 27, the BOP filed a notice of interlocutory appeal.  On
April 28, the BOP filed an emergency motion for an administrative
stay and stay pending appeal to the district court and the court.
Both the panel and the district court denied the motions to stay.

On May 6, the Petitioners filed an emergency motion to enforce the
preliminary injunction.  The district court granted the motion to
enforce on May 19, concluding that the BOP's actions did not comply
with the preliminary injunction.

On May 20, the BOP filed an application for a stay of the district
court's April 22 preliminary injunction order and May 19
enforcement order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied
the application for a stay in light of the fact that the BOP had
not sought review or a stay of the May 19 order in the Court.

On May 27, the BOP filed a notice of appeal from the May 19
enforcement order.  On May 29, the BOP requested a stay of the same
order.  The Court denied that motion.  On June 1, the BOP filed
another application for a stay of the May 19 enforcement order to
the Supreme Court.  On June 4, the Supreme Court granted the BOP's
request for an administrative stay pending disposition of the
appeal and further order of the Court.

On appeal, the BOP argues that (1) the district court lacked
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and that the suit must
comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); (2) the
Petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of
their Eighth Amendment claim; and (3) the district court abused its
discretion in granting the injunction.

The Sixth Circuit concludes that the Petitioners' claims are
properly brought under Section 2241 because they challenge the fact
or extent of their confinement by seeking release from custody.
However, because they bring their claims under Section 2241, the
relief available is circumscribed.  The decision to bring a habeas
claim, rather than one challenging the conditions of confinement,
limits the type of relief available to the Petitioners.  A district
court reviewing a claim under Section 2241 does not have authority
to circumvent the established procedures governing the various
forms of release enacted by Congress.  Because the Petitioners'
claims are properly brought under Section 2241, the BOP's argument
that the claims are foreclosed by the PLRA fails.  The PLRA does
not apply in habeas proceedings.

Turning to the preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit focuses
her analysis on the Petitioners' likelihood of success on the
merits of their Eighth Amendment claim, as the prong of the
preliminary injunction framework is often dispositive.  The Sixth
Circuit concludes that the Petitioners have not provided sufficient
evidence to show that the BOP was deliberately indifferent to the
serious risk of harm presented by COVID-19 at Elkton.  The
conclusion is dispositive.  The cases warn that a court must not
issue a preliminary injunction where the movant presents no
likelihood of merits success.  The district court erred in holding
that petitioners had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their
Eighth Amendment claim.

Although the Petitioners' failure to demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits is dispositive, the Sixth Circuit briefly
notes that the district court's consideration of the other
preliminary injunction factors was incomplete.  The district court
correctly noted that inmates at Elkton face a risk of irreparable
injury if they are infected by COVID-19.  However, the district
court gave scant attention to the harms the BOP argued would result
from the injunction and ignored the Supreme Court's instruction
that the harm to the opposing party and the public interest factors
merge when the Government is the opposing party.  In granting a
preliminary injunction without adequately addressing the remaining
preliminary injunction factors, the district court abused its
discretion.

In light of the foregoing, the Sixth Circuit holds that
jurisdiction was proper under Section 2241, although Section 2241
does not permit some of the relief the Petitioners seek.  However,
because the district court erred in concluding that the Petitioners
have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth
Amendment claim, the Sixth Circuit holds that the district court
abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.  The
Sixth Circuit accordingly vacated the district court's April 22,
2020 preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 9, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/TVlEFX from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Sarah Carroll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for
Appellants.

David J. Carey, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, for
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Sarah Carroll, Abby C. Wright, Casen B. Ross, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for Appellants.

David J. Carey, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, Joseph
Mead, Freda J. Levenson, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Cleveland, Ohio,
David A. Singleton, Mark A. Vander Laan, Michael L. Zuckerman, OHIO
JUSTICE & POLICY CENTER, Cincinnati, Ohio, Kirti Datla --
kirti.datla@hoganlovells.com -- HOGANS LOVELLS US LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.

Laura Osseck, DISABILITY RIGHTS OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, Subodh
Chandra -- Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com -- THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM
LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.


EMPLOYEE RESOURCE: 4th Cir. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Hill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APRIL D. HILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMPLOYEE RESOURCE
GROUP, LLC; WV NEIGHBORHOOD HOSPITALITY, LLC; NEIGHBORHOOD
HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-2009 (4th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant-Appellants Employee Resource Group LLC, Neighborhood
Hospitality, Inc., and WV Neighborhood Hospitality, LLC's Motion to
Enforce Arbitration Agreement.

Employee Resource Group (ERG) owns and operates Applebee's
Neighborhood Bar & Grill restaurants in West Virginia, Kentucky,
Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee.  Hill is a former employee of ERG's
Applebee's in Beckley, West Virginia.

On Nov. 30, 2016, April Hill filed a lawsuit individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated employees against ERG.  On
May 30, 2017, Hill filed a Third Amended Complaint -- the operative
complaint.  Hill alleges that ERG failed to pay employees the
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and that ERG failed to pay wages within the time required following
voluntary separation in violation of the West Virginia Wage Payment
Collection Act ("WVCPA").  On July 11, 2017, the district court
conditionally certified the FLSA class.

On March 18, 2018, ERG filed a "Motion to Enforce Arbitration
Agreement" with respect to Hill, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and
all members of the putative WVPCA class.  ERG did not attach any
signed arbitration agreements to its motion.  Instead, ERG
attached, among other exhibits: (1) a copy of its Dispute
Resolution Program booklet containing an arbitration agreement; (2)
a copy of a class action opt-in list filed by Hill with annotated
"check marks" identifying FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs for whom ERG
purportedly found arbitration agreements, along with a notation
that it did not have arbitration agreements for at least 60 FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs; and (3) an affidavit from ERG's Director of
Human Resources, David Bates, attesting that all ERG employees were
expected to sign arbitration agreements before starting their
employment, regardless of location and relevant time period, and
that the lack of some arbitration agreements must have been due to
recordkeeping errors.

Hill opposed ERG's motion, arguing that ERG was unable to establish
the existence and terms of the agreements for at least 60 FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs, including herself, and that Mr. Bates's general
testimony did not establish the existence of the arbitration
agreements.

Shortly thereafter, ERG filed two separate notices - one attaching
21 files purporting to contain 780 arbitration agreements, another
attaching six different versions of ERG's Dispute Resolution
Program booklets, which contained arbitration agreements.

On April 6, 2018, ERG filed its reply and argued that the documents
attached to its notices provided sufficient parol evidence that
every employee who worked at ERG, from 2005 to present, was bound
by an arbitration agreement regardless of whether it produced the
agreement.  On Aug. 7, 2018, the district court granted ERG's
motion to compel arbitration only as to potential class members for
whom signed agreements have been produced.  The district court,
however, denied ERG's motion as to class members for whom ERG
produced no signed agreements.  

The district court stated that without testimony from those
directly involved in the asserted formation of the contract or a
written, signed copy of the contract, there is little evidence to
support a finding that the contract exists.  Thus, ERG had not met
its burden of demonstrating that arbitration agreements existed for
those potential class members for whom they were unable to produce
such agreements.  The district court's order instructed the parties
to supply the court with lists of opt-in Plaintiffs for whom
arbitration agreements have and have not been produced, as well as
any specific employees for whom there is a dispute regarding the
existence or enforceability of an arbitration agreement.

Per the district court's order, on Sept. 7, 2018, the parties
reported that there were: (1) 71 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs for whom no
arbitration agreements were produced; (2) 61 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs
for whom arbitration agreements were produced; and (3) 177 FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs for whom the parties disputed whether the
arbitration agreements were produced, because only a portion of the
employment or arbitration agreement was produced.

ERG timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit.  On appeal, ERG argues
that the district court erred in not compelling arbitration for
Hill and the 71 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs for whom no arbitration
agreements have been produced.

The question is whether an agreement to arbitrate exists between
ERG and Hill and the 71 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs for whom no
arbitration agreements can be produced.

The Fourth Circuit is satisfied that, as a matter of law, ERG has
failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement
between itself and Hill or the 71 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs for whom
no arbitration agreements were produced.  On appeal, ERG primarily
relies on two pieces of evidence in arguing it has demonstrated, as
a matter of law, that an arbitration agreement exists: Mr. Bates'
affidavit and the 780 arbitration agreements that ERG produced.
However, such evidence falls far short of reaching the heightened
standard for proving the existence of lost contracts under West
Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia state law.

First, without testimony from those individuals that had first-hand
knowledge of the onboarding process of Hill and the other 71 FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs, Mr. Bates' evidence does little to prove the
existence of an arbitration agreement between Hill and the 71
opt-in Plaintiffs.  Like the district court, the Fourth Circuit
finds that a human resource official's expectations or assumptions
about what happened during a hiring process conducted by individual
managers on many dates, in many locations, is of little probative
value.

Second, ERG's counsel could not point to any record evidence or
provide the Court the total number of employees and therefore the
estimated rate of compliance (i.e., the number of signed
arbitration agreements versus the number of employees onboarded for
the relevant period).  It should go without saying that a numerator
is of scant value without a denominator.  Therefore, without more
contextualizing evidence, the 780 arbitration agreements are of
little probative value as to whether an agreement to arbitrate
exists between ERG and Hill and the other 71 FLSA opt-in
Plaintiffs.

Applying the summary judgment standard to the record in the case,
the Fourth Circuit concludes that there is no genuine issue of
material fact; in other words, no reasonable jury could find that
ERG has proven by clear and conclusive (or clear and convincing,
clear and satisfactory, or strong and convincing evidence) evidence
that an agreement to arbitrate exists between ERG and Hill and the
71 FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs.  As a result, the district court did not
err in holding that no agreement to arbitrate exists.  For these
reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, the Fourth
Circuit rules.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's June 9, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/etMBMn from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Bradley K. Shafer-- bshafer@defensecounsel.com -- MINTZER
SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDVA & MEYERS, LLP, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Cherry
Hill, New Jersey, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Elizabeth Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- Boston,
Massachusetts, Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
-- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Summary Judgment in Johnson Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant, Case Nos. 19-1210 & 19-1334 (7th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of
the district court granting Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC ("ERC")'s
motion for summary judgment.

Johnson filed the putative class action against Enhanced Recovery
Company (ERC), alleging that it sent her a misleading collection
letter in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  ERC is a third-party debt collector that attempted to
collect on a delinquent debt of Johnson's arising from a broken
contract for a cell phone with Sprint wireless.

In early March 2016, ERC acquired Johnson's debt from Sprint and
began its collection efforts.  Such efforts are highly regulated by
the FDCPA, which was enacted to eliminate the use of abusive debt
collection practices against vulnerable debtors.  To that end,
Section 1692e broadly prohibits debt collectors from using "any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation" in connection with
the collection of a debt.  In total, ERC sent Johnson three dunning
letters dated, respectively, March 8, April 21, and June 6, 2016.
Johnson denies having ever seen the March 8 letter.

ERC mailed Johnson the second dunning letter, which forms the basis
of her lawsuit, 44 days later, on April 21, 2016.  The top right
corner of the letter contains the date and a heading identical to
one appearing in the March letter.  That heading identifies the
creditor as Sprint, lists an account number, and says in bold,
capital letters, "YOU HAVE OP-TIONS."  

ERC reported Johnson's delinquent Sprint account to the national
credit bureaus on April 24, 2016.  It sent the third and final
dunning letter to Johnson on June 6, 2016.  With the exception of
the specifics of the three settlement options, which were for
further reduced amounts and specified a date in July as opposed to
May to remit payment, the June letter was identical to the April
letter.

In July that same year, Johnson filed the suit, maintaining that
the April letter was misleading in violation of Section 1692e.  She
focused primarily on the sentence, "This letter serves as
notification that your delinquent account may be reported to the
national credit bureaus."  According to Johnson, the statement that
her debt may be reported to credit bureaus was deceptive.  As she
read the letter, the phrase "may be reported" implied future
reporting, and by the time she received the letter her debt had
already been reported.  She also singled out the sentence near the
end of the letter stating, "Payment of the offered settlement
amount will stop collection activity on this matter."  Johnson
claimed that statement amounted to a promise by ERC that if she
took advantage of the first settlement offer and paid by May 26,
then ERC would not report her debt to the national credit bureaus.

ERC moved to dismiss Johnson's claim on the grounds that no
reasonable consumer could have been misled by its letter.  The
district court declined to dismiss Johnson's claim for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), noting that whether a
communication is confusing or misleading under Section 1692e is
ordinarily a question of fact.  Because the district court believed
the allegedly confusing interpretation of the letter proposed by
Johnson was at least "plausible," it concluded that dismissal would
be premature.

The district court denied ERC's motion and certified a class
composed of all individuals in Indiana who had received a
collection letter like Johnson's from ERC between July 2016 and
August 2017.  

After class certification and on the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment, however, the court granted summary judgment to
ERC based on Johnson's failure to adduce necessary evidence that
the language in question would be confusing or misleading to a
significant fraction of the population.  Johnson appeals, arguing
both that summary judgment for ERC was inappropriate, and that she
is entitled to summary judgment.  ERC cross-appeals, claiming that
the district court erred by denying its motion at the outset to
dismiss Johnson's claim for failure to state a claim.

The Seventh Circuit holds that by citing bits and pieces of
inapposite cases, Johnson sidesteps entirely the requirement,
applicable in the case, that the Plaintiff bears the burden of
demonstrating that language not misleading on its face yet that
could plausibly be read in a misleading or deceptive manner would
in fact mislead a "significant fraction" of the population.
Johnson's complaint proposes an interpretation of ERC's letter that
could be confusing to an unsophisticated debtor.  But without
evidence of how such a debtor would actually read the letter,
Johnson cannot make the required showing that the language of the
April letter "unacceptably increases the level of confusion.

In order to arrive at the allegedly misleading interpretation
Johnson proposes, the reader must first assume the "remit by" date
of May 26 listed at the beginning of the letter with two other
settlement offers is linked to the statement, appearing much later
in the letter, that the debt "may" be reported to credit bureaus.
Next, the phrase "may be reported" must be defined solely as a
statement of prospective possibilities as opposed to the equally
likely usage indicating ability or authority to report the debt.
These proposed interpretations must then be combined with the
statement in yet another paragraph informing the debtor that
payment of the settlement offer "will stop collection activity"
(but not restore service with Sprint), to yield the allegedly
misleading interpretation that if the debtor pays the first offered
settlement by May 26, then ERC will not report the delinquent debt
to the national credit bureaus.  

Because the language in the April letter, standing alone, makes no
such promise, Johnson bore the burden of producing evidence beyond
her own say so demonstrating the likelihood that an unsophisticated
debtor would conclude as much.  It is not enough that Johnson
reached such a conclusion; under the FDCPA, confusion is not in the
eyes of the beholder. Her belief that the letter offered to forgo
reporting her debt if she paid by May 26th (or, inversely
threatened to report the debt unless she paid by May 26th) fails to
create a genuine issue as to whether a significant fraction of the
population would reach such a conclusion after reading the April
letter.

The FDCPA is not violated by a dunning letter that is susceptible
to an ingenious misreading, for then every dunning letter would
violate it.  It protects the unsophisticated debtor, but not the
irrational one.  Johnson presented one such "ingenious" reading of
ERC's letter and then failed to prove by any objective measure that
a significant fraction of its recipients were misled.  The case law
makes clear that "mere speculation" by the Plaintiff that a
collection letter is misleading is insufficient to survive a debt
collector's motion for summary judgment.

In denying ERC's motion to dismiss Johnson's complaint, the
district court observed that as the case proceeds, the parties may
(both might, and are permitted to) present evidence about how
unsophisticated consumers would interpret the allegedly misleading
statements in ERC's April letter.  Because Johnson chose instead to
rely solely on her "speculation" to support her claim, summary
judgment for ERC was appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/9uaQC2 from Leagle.com.


EPPING GARDENS: More Than 25 Families Launch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that more than 25 families of Epping Gardens aged
care residents have launched a class action against the home. [GN]

EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Faces $1.5BB Class Action Over Power Outages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Soule and Dan Haar, writing for ctpost, report that
aiming to make Eversource Energy pay for spoiled food and other
costs of extended outages incurred after Tropical Storm Isaias blew
through the state, a trio of customers have filed suit in
Connecticut Superior Court.

West Hartford acupuncturist Stan Baker, Krysztof Kosieradzki of
Farmington and Michael O'Neill of New Britain are seeking
class-action status that would allow others to join the lawsuit, as
first reported on Aug. 13 by the Hartford Courant. Arguing
Eversource failed to take "appropriate and effective measures" to
prevent blackouts--despite weather forecasts showing Isaias on
track for Connecticut--plaintiffs are seeking $1.5 billion.

A judge would have to certify the lawsuit for class-action status
before any final damages would be determined as part of the civil
litigation process.

Eversource generated profits last year of $411 million from its
historic Connecticut Light & Power operations.

"We recently learned of the lawsuit and are reviewing it, but we
believe it has no merit," stated Eversource spokesperson Mitch
Gross, in response to a Hearst Connecticut Media query on Aug. 13.
"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."

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Commission plans
hearings in a "contested" proceeding to determine any lapses by
Eversource and United Illuminating, which is owned by Orange-based
Avangrid. PURA has the authority to impose civil penalties, and to
reduce the amounts Eversource can charge customers on future bills
to pay for storm restoration.

Attorney General William Tong late on Aug. 12 called for Eversource
to reimburse customers for the cost of lost food and medicine -- a
move Consolidated Edison is doing in New York. Tong said he had not
calculated the estimated value of the reimbursement.

Tong told Hearst Connecticut on Aug. 13 that he has yet to
determine whether to file a lawsuit against Eversource or United
Illuminating, with plans to testify at the PURA hearing in 11
days.

"We're looking at every available legal option, but . . . the law
says that these disputes are adjudicated in front of PURA," Tong
said on Aug. 13. "The distribution companies are heavily regulated
. . . by a whole legal structure that we have to work within, and
the head of that structure is PURA."

More broadly, Tong and other elected officials -- including
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a former longtime state attorney
general -- have called on Eversource to agree to pay for the entire
cost of the cleanup. Blumenthal also called for rebates to
customers that lost power.

Con Ed agreed to pay up to $540 for spoiled food for households
that lost power for at least 48 consecutive hours, and up to
$10,700 for businesses, according to media reports including
WPIX-TV Channel 11.

Eversource issued a statement on Aug. 12, saying: "We understand
how difficult it is for our customers to be without power. As this
was an act of nature we don't provide reimbursement, but we
encourage our customers to reach out to their insurance carrier to
see if it's in their homeowners or renters policy."

Tong said he intends to argue before regulators at upcoming
hearings on the storm, and at future electric rate hearings, that
Eversource shareholders, not ratepayers, should shoulder the
restoration cost -- which has not been estimated publicly.

"It's probably more than the $40 million they paid their executives
last year," Tong said, referring to the publicly listed pay of the
top five executives including nearly $20 million for CEO Jim Judge
if factoring in the future value of pension benefits he is slated
to receive. [GN]


EVOLUTIONS BRANDS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolutions Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Evolutions Brands, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-07398 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Evolutions Brands, Inc., is a business comprising of several
different footwear brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Instagram Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FindBiometrics reports that Facebook is facing another potentially
massive BIPA lawsuit. The news comes mere weeks after the social
media giant offered a $650 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit for failing to obtain proper consent before collecting and
using the biometric information of its users.

The new class action suit concerns Instagram (which is owned by
Facebook) rather than Facebook itself. It alleges that the photo
sharing platform engaged in similarly deceptive practices to gather
facial recognition data, both from those who signed up for the
platform, and from non-Instagram users who appeared in photos
uploaded to the site. Instagram did not start informing users about
its use of biometric data until the beginning of this year, while
those who have not signed up for the platform have never had the
opportunity to provide their consent.  

"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," reads the complaint.
"Facebook does all of this without providing any of the notices or
disclosures required by Illinois law."

The new lawsuit was filed with the Superior Court of California in
Redwood City. However, plaintiff Kelley Whalen is an Illinois
resident, and is alleging that the company's actions violate that
state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The original
Facebook lawsuit was filed in Illinois, but was allowed to continue
after it was transferred to Northern California.

For its part, Facebook flatly denied the allegations, and claimed
that Instagram does not use facial recognition in the same manner
as the parent company.

"This suit is baseless," said Spokesperson Stephanie Otway.
"Instagram doesn't use face recognition technology."

Whalen v. Facebook seeks damages for as many as 100 million users,
each of whom could be entitled to anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000
under the terms of the Illinois law. Those numbers would point to a
settlement in the area of about $500 million. [GN]


FCA US: Motion to Dismiss Vehicle Hacking Class Action Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elsa M. Bullard, Esq. -- elsa.bullard@faegredrinker.com -- Patrick
H. Reilly, Esq. -- patrick.reilly@faegredrinker.com -- Michael
Jaeger, Esq. -- michael.jaeger@faegredrinker.com -- and Emanuel L.
McMiller, Esq., of Faegre Drinker, in an article for The National
Law Review, report that in a decision likely to bring comfort to
the manufacturers of vehicle automation technology, the court in
Flynn v. FCA US LLC, No. 15-cv-855-SMY, 2020 WL 1492687 (S.D. Ill.
Mar. 27, 2020) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court
ruled that the plaintiffs' class-action claims of vehicle
vulnerability to hacking were too hypothetical to provide standing.
The case was dismissed by an Illinois federal district court for
lack of jurisdiction on March 27, 2020. The plaintiffs have since
appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit, which was recently set
for oral argument on October 27, 2020. As of August 10, the appeal
is fully briefed. Flynn v. FCA US LLC is one of the first court
rulings that could have an impact on autonomous vehicle (AV)
development and liability.

The plaintiffs sought damages based on vulnerabilities in Chrysler
vehicles that could have allowed hackers to access both critical
and non-critical vehicle systems. Although none of the vehicles
were actually hacked outside of a controlled environment, the
plaintiffs alleged that the vehicles were defective in that (1) the
infotainment system was "exceedingly hackable"; (2) the vehicle's
computer system failed to prevent hackers from remotely taking
control of the vehicle; and (3) the infotainment system and the
vehicles lacked the capability to download software patches that
were critical for protecting the vehicles.

In 2016, the court denied a prior motion to dismiss because the
plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to establish standing. In
2018, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, a decision which the Supreme Court declined to
review.

After the close of discovery following class certification, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
which led to the court's recent decision. The court determined that
a reexamination of the defendants' standing arguments was
warranted, stating that "Article III standing requires that the
plaintiff suffered an injury in fact [ . . . ] which is concrete
and particularized and actual or imminent--not conjectural or
hypothetical." Id. at *7.

The court noted that it was unclear whether the infotainment system
was defective at all. "The mere fact that a product has a
vulnerability does not in itself, mean the product is defective."
Id. at *11. Recognizing that any product can be made safer or
better, the court held that a future risk of hacking is too
speculative and that allegations of economic loss stemming from
speculative risk of future harm cannot establish standing. The
court further found that there was no demonstrable effect on the
market for the plaintiffs' vehicles, and as such, the plaintiffs
had not suffered any injury in fact.

Although this case was disposed of on standing grounds, it is a win
for those in favor of greater vehicle automation. Manufacturers do
not have to account for wholly hypothetical risks. However,
manufacturers must continue to establish and employ best practices
for vehicle cybersecurity. They should examine the practices of
their suppliers and service providers to avoid cybersecurity risks,
and work with their dealers to review agreements with car buyers to
cover similar potential litigation.

Faegre Drinker will watch the appellate decision and provide any
necessary updates. [GN]


FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over PPP Lending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Lynch, writing for Orlando Business Journal, reports that a
California company filed a lawsuit regarding Fountainhead
Commercial's PPP lending. [GN]



GOOGLE INC: Consultant Sues Class Action Lawyers Over Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consultant
whose work led to a $22 million class action settlement with Google
is complaining that the lawyers who hired him also shortchanged him
by several hundred thousand dollars.

Stephen Arpaia sued the law firm Foote Mielke in Palm Beach County
in June, and the defendants recently removed the case to Florida
federal court. At issue is a $310,000 payment from Google's AdWords
settlement in 2017.

That was much lower than what was requested by class action
lawyers, and what they requested was much lower than what Arpaia
felt he was owed.

"During the course of negotiations, Arpaia advised the Foote firm
that his customary hourly fee was $1,000 per hour, however, when
Arpaia was ultimately asked to submit time sheets for submission to
the In Re: AdWords court, he did not modify the $750 an hour fee
that was programmed into the time sheet template supplied by
defendant.

"Under the terms of this contract, Defendant is under a duty to pay
those fees irrespective of success or outcome of any ensuant
litigation and irrespective of other fees incurred in pursuing the
litigation."

Arpaia's work helped establish a proper class to be reimbursed
after plaintiffs alleged Google dumped their advertising on
low-quality websites without telling them it would happen.

Arpaia was hired by the Foote firm for consulting services and
performed work for Schubert, Jonekheer & Koibe when it became lead
counsel.

Arpaia says he spent more than 1,000 hours on the case in a
two-year span. But he watched as what was submitted to the court
for approval cut both his hourly fee and the amount of hours he
worked, the lawsuit says.

What was submitted asked for Arpaia to be paid more than
$516,000--for 688.1 hours at $750 per.

But in September 2017, Arpaia received a check in the mail for only
$310,000 for his work. He claims this violated his agreement with
the Foote firm that said he would be paid the greater of 10% of
attorneys fees ($607,500) or 5% of the first 50% of all attorneys
fees, plus Arpaia's lodestar ($667,950).

Or, he asks the court, he should be paid for all of his 1,089 hours
at $750 per ($817,424). [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Guidewire Software,
Inc. ("Guidewire" or the "Company") (NYSE: GWRE) common stock
between March 6, 2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

On March 4, 2020, Guidewire announced its financial results for the
second quarter of fiscal year 2020 and slashed its full-year
revenue guidance by $57 million, from a range of $759 million to
$771 million to only $702 million to $714 million.  Additionally,
the Company cut its Annual Recurring Revenue guidance from a range
of 14% to 16%, down to 11% to 12% for the third quarter of
2020.During the accompanying earnings conference call, the Company
specified that the Company's cloud products needed to be improved
in order to meet customer needs and successfully compete against
rival systems, and also revealed that a large swath of Guidewire
customers no longer wanted the Company's traditional on-premise
products and had not adopted Guidewire's cloud products.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $18.92 per share, or
over 16%, to close at $93.56 per share on March 5, 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 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 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Guidewire common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
September 23, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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


HIBBETT SPORTS: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hibbett Sports, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Hibbett Sports, Inc.,
Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07423 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Hibbett Sports, Inc., is an American publicly traded holding
company for Hibbett Sporting Goods, a full line sporting goods
retailer headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HIGHLAND BAKING: Citizens Sues Over Insurance Coverage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA, a Michigan corporation; and
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation v. HIGHLAND
BAKING COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation; and TEODORO
ONTIVEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-04997 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2020), seeks
a declaration that the Plaintiffs have no duty to defend or
indemnify Highland Baking under certain policies issued by the
Plaintiffs in connection with the underlying putative class action
lawsuit captioned Ontiveros v. Highland Baking Corporation, Inc.,
Case No. 19 CH 02062, in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.

The lawsuit is an insurance coverage dispute between Citizens and
Hanover, on the one hand, and Highland Baking. Citizens issued
Commercial Lines Policies to Highland Baking that contain a General
Liability Coverage Part and a Cyber Liability Coverage Part.
Hanover issued Commercial Follow Form Excess and Umbrella Policies
to Highland Baking.

The Ontiveros Lawsuit for which Highland Baking seeks a defense and
indemnity is a putative class action. The Citizens Policies have
Limits of Liability of $1 million for Personal and Advertising
Injury, $1 million in the General Aggregate, and a $50,000 Privacy
and Security Liability Limit. The Hanover Policies have Limits of
Liability of $10 million Each Claim and $10 million in the
Aggregate.

The complaint contains two counts wherein Count I alleges that
Highland Baking violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for its
failure to pay Ontiveros and putative class members overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek while Count II
alleges that Highland Baking violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").

According to the complaint, the Ontiveros Lawsuit is a "claim" that
was first made against Highland Baking on February 15, 2019, after
the expiration of the 2017 and 2018 policies period. As a result,
Citizens has no defense or indemnity obligation for the Ontiveros
Lawsuit under the Cyber Liability Coverage Part of the 2017 Policy
or the Cyber Liability Coverage Part of the 2018 Policy. The
allegations in the Ontiveros Complaint that Highland Baking
violated BIPA do not allege any publication of material violating a
person's right of privacy or otherwise allege or involve any
offense contained in the "personal and advertising injury"
definition, and therefore, are not covered by the General Liability
Coverage Part of the Policies. The Umbrella Liability Coverage Part
of the 2017 and 2018 Umbrella Policies also do not actually or
potentially provide coverage for the Ontiveros Lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs are insurance companies in the U.S.

Highland Baking Co., Inc., bakes bread products. Highland offers
table breads, dinner rolls, pan breads, hamburger buns, rolls, and
subs, as well as frozen products. The Company was founded in 1984
and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Goldwater, Esq.
          Kelly Ognibene, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 345-1718
          Facsimile: (312) 345-1778
          E-mail: Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Kelly.Ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com


HOME MARKETING: Faces Austin TCPA Class Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Marketing
Associates Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Austin,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Home
Marketing Associates Inc. doing business as: PermaSteel, John Doe
Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-01083-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 10,
2020).

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

Permasteel, Inc., was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes the marketing of semifinished metal
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
          RYBURN LAW FIRM
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 228-8100
          Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com


IMPOSSIBLE FOODS: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Impossible Foods Inc.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Impossible Foods Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04218 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10,
2020).

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

Impossible Foods Inc. is a company that develops plant-based
substitutes for meat products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDIANA: Indiana Vote by Mail Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Indiana Vote by Mail, Inc., Barbara Tully, Katharine
Black, Marc Black, and David Carter filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BARBARA TULLY, KATHARINE
BLACK, SHELLY BROWN, DAVID CARTER, REBECCA GAINES, JANICE JOHNSON,
ELIZABETH KMIECIAK, CHAQUITTA MCCLEARY, KATHERINE PAOLACCI, DAVID
SLIVKA, DOMINIC TUMMINELLO, and INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL, INC.,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. PAUL
OKESON; S. ANTHONY LONG; SUZANNAH WILSON OVERHOLT; ZACHARY E.
KLUTZ, in their official capacity as members of the Indiana
Election Commission, Case No. 1:20-cv-01271-JPH-DLP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 21,
2020, the case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Patrick Hanlon.
The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights-related laws.

On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction based on their federal constitutional claims. Pursuant
to the briefing schedule set by the court, Defendants filed their
Response in opposition on July 24, and Plaintiffs filed their reply
on July 31. On August 21, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not shown a
reasonable likelihood of success. As to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment
claim, the Court held that mail-in voting restrictions do not
"absolutely prohibit" voters from casting a ballot and therefore
that the Amendment's prohibition on the denial or abridgement of
the right to vote on account of age was not implicated. As to the
Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court similarly held that
Defendants' refusal to permit all Indiana voters to vote by mail
during the pandemic did not "absolutely prohibit" Plaintiffs from
voting.

The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 24, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as BARBARA TULLY, KATHARINE BLACK,
MARC BLACK, DAVID CARTER, REBECCA GAINES, ELIZABETH KMIECIAK,
CHAQUITTA MCCLEARY, DAVID SLIVKA, DOMINIC TUMMINELLO, and INDIANA
VOTE BY MAIL, INC., individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAUL OKESON, S. ANTHONY LONG,
SUZANNAH WILSON OVERHOLT, and ZACHARY E. KLUTZ, in their official
capacity as members of the Indiana Election Commission, and CONNIE
LAWSON, in her official capacity as the Indiana Secretary of State,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-2605, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that oral
argument is set for September 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL, INC., BARBARA TULLY,
KATHARINE BLACK, MARC BLACK, and DAVID CARTER are represented by:

          Mark Sniderman, Esq.
          FINDLING, PARK, CONYERS, WOODY & SNIDERMAN, PC
          151 N. Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 361-4700
          Facsimile: (317) 231-1106
          E-mail: msniderman@findlingpark.com

               - and -

          Jed Wolf Glickstein, Esq.
          Gary A. Isaac, Esq.
          Brett E. Legner, Esq.
          Michael Anthony Scodro, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Strauss, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: jglickstein@mayerbrown.com
                  gisaac@mayerbrown.com
                  blegner@mayerbrown.com
                  mscodro@mayerbrown.com
                  jstrauss@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          William R. Groth, Esq.
          FILLENWARTH, DENNERLINE, GROTH & TOWE, LLP
          445 N. Pennsylvania Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000
          Telephone: (317) 353-9363
          E-mail: wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees PAUL OKESON; S. ANTHONY LONG; SUZANNAH WILSON
OVERHOLT; ZACHARY E. KLUTZ, in their official capacities as members
of the Indiana Election Commission; CONNIE LAWSON, in her official
capacity as the Indiana Secretary of State, are represented by:

          Thomas M. Fisher, Esq.
          Kian James Hudson, Esq.
          Julia Catherine Payne, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          302 W. Washington Street
          Indiana Government Center South
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
          Telephone: (317) 232-6255
          E-mail: tom.fisher@atg.in.gov
                  kian.hudson@atg.in.gov
                  julia.payne@atg.in.gov

Amici Curiae INDIANA STATEWIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL, AMERICAN
DIABETES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK,
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC., and THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER are represented by:

          Bridget A. Clarke, Esq.
          456 Boyton Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94707
          Telephone: (510) 528-7755
          E-mail: baclarke456@gmail.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Dhuey, Esq.
          ANDREW J. DHUEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          456 Boynton Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94707-0000
          Telephone: (510) 528-8200
          E-mail: dhueyaj@yahoo.com


INTEL CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-intel-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html)
on Aug. 17 disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to
represent purchasers of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 23, 2020 and July
23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the
Northern District of California and is captioned Matheson v. Intel
Corporation, No. 20-cv-05780.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Intel publicly traded securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Intel
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Intel class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Intel
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Intel class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in the Intel class action lawsuit, you must move the
Court no later than 60 days from July 28, 2020. If you wish to
discuss the Intel class action lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com.
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-intel-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Intel class action lawsuit charges Intel and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Intel designs and manufactures hardware and software
for computing, networking, data storage, and communications
solutions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the Company's business and financial condition by
issuing false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company's financial performance
and, in particular, the current performance and production status
of its 10-nanometer ("10nm") and new generation 7-nanometer ("7nm")
products. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (a)
Intel's 7nm processor scheduled for release in 2021 was not on
track, but rather, was suffering from material production and yield
defects that threatened the 2021 delivery and timing of the product
and the Company's overall product roadmap; (b) the Company's gross
margins and fiscal 2020 outlook had been adversely impacted and
would continue to be adversely impacted by continued acceleration
of 10nm production and simultaneous 7nm technology development
problems; and (c) because of the ongoing process and production
defects of the 7nm products, the Company was considering material
changes to its manufacturing protocols to include third-party
foundries -- a process that Intel had long resisted. As a result
this information being withheld from the market, Intel securities
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
with the price of the Company's stock reaching a high of $64.34 per
share.

On June 11, 2020, the Company announced the resignation of Senior
Vice President Jim Keller (who had been hired in 2018 to take over
and lead Intel's stumbling process and chip development group). On
this news, the price of Intel stock declined nearly 7%. Then on
July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel announced its second
quarter 2020 financial results. Despite impressive revenue and
earnings results, the Company disclosed that it was further
accelerating its transition to 10nm products and, more importantly,
that production and development of its 7nm products was 12 months
behind schedule. As a result of these disclosures, the Company's
share price declined approximately 16%, from a close of $60.40 per
share on July 23, 2020 to a close of $50.59 per share on July 24,
2020.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]


JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Whitworth Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DARTANYON J. WHITWORTH, On
behalf of himself and all similarly situated class members, v.
JACKSON COUNTY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00661-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who have paid Court Costs to the Jackson County
   Municipal Court, including the $25.00 charge purported to be
   assessed by § 1810.2(i), from January 29, 2008 through June
   29, 2020."

Jackson County is located in the western portion of the U.S. state
of Missouri. As of the 2010 census, the population was
674,158.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Shipley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES MICHAEL S. SHIPLEY, LLC
          204 A East Kansas
          Liberty, MO 64068
          Telephone: (816) 781-0299
          Facsimile: (816) 781-4088
          E-mail: mshipley@mshipleyllc.com

               - and -

          Ben T. Schmitt, Esq.
          SCHMITT LAW FIRM, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 380
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: 816 400-1000
          Facsimile: 816-389-4015
          E-mail: ben@kansascitylawyers.com

JUST BORN: Settles Candy Product Packaging Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The following is issued by Digital Settlements Group.

This Notice provides information about a lawsuit pending in the
Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino and Central
District of California ("Litigation") that may affect your rights.
The Litigation claims Just Born, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Just Born")
deceptively packaged Mike and Ike(R) and/or Hot Tamales(R) candy
products ("Settlement Class Products") in oversized packaging with
nonfunctional empty space. Just Born denies all claims made in the
Litigation.  The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiff or
Defendant. The parties instead agreed to settle.

The class is defined as all persons residing in the United States
who purchased one or more Settlement Class Products between
February 3, 2013 and July 23, 2020.

You have three options:

1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive
a Cash Payment or Voucher must submit a Claim Form on or before
November 10, 2020 either online at www.JustBornCandySettlement.com
or by mailing it to Digital Settlement Group, LLC; PO Box 232
Valparaiso, IN 46384. If you don't submit a timely Claim Form and
don't exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be bound by
the settlement and will not receive a Cash Payment or Voucher. If
you stay in the Class, you will be bound by all orders and
judgments of the Court, and you won't be able to sue or continue to
sue Just Born as part of any other lawsuit involving the same
claims in the Litigation.

2. You Can Object to the Settlement. You can ask the Court to deny
approval by objecting with the Court. You can't ask the Court to
order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the
settlement as agreed to by the parties. If the Court denies
approval, no settlement payments will be sent out to anyone and the
lawsuit may continue to be litigated on the merits. If that is what
you want to happen, you must object. You may hire your own lawyer
to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, you will be
responsible for paying your lawyer. Objections will be considered
by the Court only if filed in writing and mailed by October 11,
2020 to the Office of the Clerk of Court; Superior Court of
California County of San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd Street, San
Bernardino, California, 92415 and also mailed to counsel for the
parties. Objections must state your name, address, telephone
number, name of this Litigation, factual and legal grounds for your
objection, name, address and telephone number of any attorney
representing you, and any case in which you or your attorney has
objected to a class action settlement previously and the result of
that objection. The Court may only require substantial compliance
with the requirements for submitting an objection. The Court may
waive the requirement to submit a written objection if good cause
is shown.

3. You Can "Opt Out" (i.e. exclude yourself) from the Settlement.
If you exclude yourself from the Class – which is sometimes
called "opting-out" of the Class – you won't get a payment from
the settlement but won't be barred from asserting claims against
Defendant in a separate lawsuit. Such notice shall include your
name, address, telephone number, and signature and a statement that
you want to be excluded from the Litigation, Mateski, et al. v.
Just Born, Inc., Superior Court of California County of San
Bernardino, Case No. CIVDS1926742 and Escobar v. Just Born, Inc.,
Central District of CA, Case No. 2:17-cv-01826-TJH-PJW.

With Court approval, the settlement provides cash payments or
vouchers. Class Members with receipts may submit a claim to receive
either (i) $0.50 per box of Settlement Class Products purchased,
capped at $8.00 maximum, or (ii) a voucher for one free box of
Settlement Class Products for every two boxes purchased, capped at
eight (8) vouchers. Class Members who do not have a receipt may
submit a claim to receive a voucher for one free box of Settlement
Class Products for every two boxes purchased, capped at eight (8)
vouchers.   No more than eight (8) vouchers may be redeemed at any
one time.

Cash payouts will be adjusted pro rata up or down in the event of
under- or over-subscription, respectively, of the Cash Claim Fund;
voucher payouts will be adjusted pro rata up or down in the event
of under- or over-subscription, respectively, of the Voucher Claim
Fund. Pro rata upward adjustment of cash claims shall be capped at
a multiple of 9-times, and voucher claims shall be capped at a
multiple of 3-times, the claimed amounts. Any amounts remaining in
the Cash Claim Fund or Voucher Claim Fund after checks and vouchers
are issued and cashed or expired shall be disbursed cy pres to
Blessings in a Backpack and Feed the Children, respectively. The
Settlement also provides for modification of Defendant's Product
labeling in the form of either: (i) an actual size depiction of an
individual piece of the Settlement Class Product's candy
accompanied by the term "actual size," and/or (ii) a fill line.

This is only a summary of the settlement. If you have questions or
want to view the detailed notice or other documents about the
Litigation, including the Settlement Agreement, you may visit
JustBornCandySettlement.com or contact Class Counsel at
info@clarksonlawfirm.com, or call the Settlement Administrator at
1- 877-595-9314. www.justborncandysettlement.com [GN]


KAZ INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaz, Inc. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kaz, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07429 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Kaz, Inc., is a Marlborough, Massachusetts-based manufacturer and
distributor of health care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KELLOGG SALES: Brown Files Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kellogg Sales
Company. The case is styled as Kelvin Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kellogg Sales Company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07283 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Kellogg Sales Company was founded in 1923. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over "Just Fruit" Jam Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Brownfield, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that Cincinnati-based grocery giant Kroger Co. has been sued over
claims that one of its in-house brands misleads customers with its
labeling.

Sarah Vitort of Portland, Ore., filed a class action lawsuit
against Kroger (NYSE: KR) in the District Court of Oregon on Aug. 6
over the labeling of its "Just Fruit" brand of jams. In her
lawsuit, Vitort claims the brand is misleadingly labeled. She is
seeking damages in excess of $5 million.

Just Fruit is a Kroger house brand of jams labeled as "spreadable
fruit" and sold in its grocery stores. The grocer did not respond
to a request for comment as of this posting.

Vitort in her lawsuit claims that, despite being named Just Fruit,
the Kroger-brand jam's No. 1 ingredient was listed as fruit syrup,
and the product contained a number of other non-fruit ingredients
such as sweeteners, added sugars, apple juice concentrate, pectin
and calcium citrate.

Vitort's lawsuit claims there is a growing demand for minimally
processed, additive-free foods in the U.S., with some studies
indicating that more than 80% of consumers seek to limit or avoid
sugar in their diet.

The lawsuit claims manufacturers and retailers are able to charge
more for products that meet the demand for minimally processed and
additive-free foods.

The lawsuit alleges by being named "Just Fruit" and labeled as
"spreadable fruit," Kroger engaged in unfair or deceptive acts
caused a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the
source of goods. The lawsuit accuses Kroger of recklessly or
knowingly engaging in conduct would cause confusion or
misunderstanding.

"Defendants are sophisticated grocer entities who manufacture and
sell a number of products, and can be presumed to have an
understanding of federal food labeling requirements," the suit
claims.

Vitor's lawsuit claims purchasers of Just Fruit spreads paid more
than they otherwise would have under the belief it was a product in
higher demand due to the benefits they perceived by it being called
"Just Fruit."

The lawsuit is being filed on behalf of all purchasers of Just
Fruit spreads who bought the product in the state of Oregon since
Aug. 6, 2016. [GN]


L'CHEF LLC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L'Chef, LLC. The case
is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. L'Chef, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07428
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

L'Chef manufactures and distributes small kitchen electrics, which
promote healthy lifestyles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENOX CORPORATION: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lenox Corporation.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lenox Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-07407 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Lenox Corporation is an American manufacturing company that sells
tableware, giftware and collectible products under the Lenox,
Dansk, Reed & Barton, and Gorham brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


LISA FREEDE DESIGN: Bunting Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisa Freede Design
Limited Liability Company. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Lisa Freede Design Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04220 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Lisa Freede offers affordable designer & celebrity jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIVEPURE LLC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LivePure LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. LivePure
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04219 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Livpure offers UV & RO water purifiers and air purifiers for home
and offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOANCARE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ, v. LOANCARE
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice as premature Plaintiff, Donna
      Alvarez's Motion for Class Certification; and

   2. denying as moot Defendant, LoanCare LLC's Partially
      Unopposed Expedited Motion for Extension of Time to
      Response to Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion.

The Plaintiff may refile her motion after (a) producing the
requested discovery and (b) allowing the Defendant to depose her
and her husband, the Court says.

LoanCare,LLC, a ServiceLink company, is a leading national provider
of full service subservicing and interim subservicing to the
mortgage industry.

A copy of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Certify Class dated
Sept. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3km7tXA at no extra charge.[CC]

LONGFIN CORP: October 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

Lead Case No.: 1:18-cv-2933-DLC

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

This Notice is addressed to the members of the following Class of
Persons:

ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
LONGFIN'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 13,
2017 THROUGH APRIL 6, 2018, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND
WERE INJURED THEREBY.

Your Rights May Be Affected

This Action was filed on April 3, 2018, and was brought by
Plaintiffs Mohammad A. Malik and Karthik Reddy ("Plaintiffs")
against Defendants Longfin Corp., Venkat S. Meenavalli, Vivek Kumar
Ratakinda, and Suresh Tammineedi ("Defendants"). This Action was
also brought against Network 1, Andy Altahawi, and Dorababu
Penumarthi, who are no longer Defendants in this Action.

Plaintiffs allege that between December 13, 2017 through April 6,
2018 (the "Class Period"), Defendants perpetrated a securities
fraud that included false statements and insider trading. The
alleged scheme included (1) the Defendants improperly obtaining a
listing for Longfin Stock on the NASDAQ stock exchange, (2) the
Defendants manipulating the price of Longfin Stock after that
listing by making false and misleading statements about Longfin's
acquisition of Ziddu.com, and after the Longfin Stock price rose in
response to this news, (3) the Defendants wrongfully profiting from
that inflated stock price by illegally selling their own Longfin
Stock between December 13, 2017 and March 22, 2018. The price of
Longfin Stock dropped precipitously when the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced that it was investigating
Longfin.

On May 14, 2020, the Court ordered that this Action be certified as
a class action, that Mohammad A. Malik be appointed Class
Representative, and that Levi & Korsinsky, LLP be appointed Class
Counsel, and that this Summary Notice be sent to all members of the
Class.

The Court will exclude from the Class all members of the Class who
wish to be excluded. To be excluded from the Class, each member
must make a written request to be excluded. Such a request must
contain the following information: (i) your name; (ii) your
address; (iii) your telephone number; (iv) a statement confirming
that you want to opt out of the class; (v) the number of Longfin
shares you purchased and sold during the Class Period; and (vi) the
name and case number of this Action, "In Re Longfin Corp.
Securities Class Action Litigation, Lead Case No.:
1:18-cv-2933-DLC." All requests for exclusion must be sent to the
following address: Longfin Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O.
Box 3207, Portland, OR 97208-3207. Exclusion requests must be
postmarked no later than October 1, 2020. Subject to the Court's
discretion, this will be the only opportunity a Class member will
have to be excluded from the Class.

Additional information about this Class Action, including a copy of
the full Court-ordered Notice, can be found at
www.LongfinSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to Longfin
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3207, Portland, OR
97208-3207.

For further information, you may contact class counsel:

Donald J. Enright
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290 [GN]


LOUISIANA: No Decision Yet on Health Safety Restrictions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
KLFY reports that a U.S. District Court has not yet made a decision
on Gov. John Bel Edwards' health safety restrictions that are being
challenged in a class-action lawsuit by plaintiffs, which include
local bar owners.

U.S. Western District Court Judge Robert Summerhays heard testimony
on Aug. 17 for and against the state's order, which closed bars and
limited capacity in restaurants.

Edwards testified in Lafayette on Aug. 17 in support of the state's
Phase 2 measures. Court adjured for the day shortly after 6:30
p.m.

Earlier that day, a New Orleans federal judge sided with the
governor in a separate, similar lawsuit. [GN]


M.A.C. PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage to Drivers, Siegmann Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY SIEGMANN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
M.A.C. PIZZA COMPANY, LLC, BRYAN DOBB, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10, JOHN
DOE INDIVIDUAL 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-00215-JWS (D. Alaska, Sept.
2, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
and other delivery drivers federal and Alaska state minimum wage
for all hours worked because the Defendants failed to adequately
reimburse them for their delivery-related expenses.

The lawsuit is a class and collective action brought against
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Alaska Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver
from July 2018 to September 2019 at the Defendants' Domino's store
in Wasilla, Alaska.

M.A.C. Pizza Company operates Domino's Pizza franchises in Alaska
and Canada. Bryan Dobb is the owner and operator of the Company and
the Defendants' Domino's stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara L. Bloom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SARA L. BLOOM
          1120 Huffman Rd., Ste. 24-785
          Anchorage, AK 99515
          Tel: (907) 519-3613
          Fax: (907) 345-8570
          Email: sara@907lawyer.com

                - and –

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent St., Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Tel: (614) 604-8759
          Fax: (614) 340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

                - and –

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Tel: (513) 715-8711
          Fax: (614) 340-4620
          Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


METAL WARE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Metal Ware
Corporation. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Metal Ware
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07406 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Metal Ware Corporation is a company located in Two Rivers,
Wisconsin, and manufactures small kitchen appliances primarily
marketing them under the NESCO and American Harvest brand
names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN DETENTION: Prelim. Injunction Bid in Chunn Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HASSAN CHUNN; NEHEMIAH McBRIDE; AYMAN RABADI by his
Next Friend Migdaliz Quinones; JUSTIN RODRIGUEZ, by his Next Friend
Jacklyn Romanoff; ELODIA LOPEZ; and JAMES HAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. WARDEN
DEREK EDGE, Respondent, Case No. 20-cv-1590 (RPK) (RLM) (E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denied the Petitioners' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

Six federal prisoners who were detained at the Metropolitan
Detention Center ("MDC") in Brooklyn when the suit was filed
brought the lawsuit to challenge the facility's response to the
COVID-19 pandemic on constitutional grounds.  They contend that MDC
officials' response to the pandemic has been so deficient as to
violate the Eighth Amendment.  They contend that MDC officials have
been deliberately indifferent to the risks of COVID-19.  The
Petitioners argue that, as a consequence, MDC officials have
violated the Eighth Amendment rights of sentenced inmates, such as
the named Petitioners.  They further argue that conduct which
qualifies as deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment
also violates the Fifth Amendment rights of pretrial detainees at
the MDC, because conduct that violates the Eighth Amendment rights
of sentenced inmates also violates the Fifth Amendment rights of
pretrial detainees.  They have not raised arguments under the Fifth
Amendment that are distinct from their deliberate-indifference
claims under the Eighth Amendment.

To remedy the asserted violations, the Petitioners seek extensive
judicial oversight of the MDC's response to COVID-19, and they ask
that the Court orders the Respondent to release from custody all
medically vulnerable inmates housed at the MDC who represent about
a quarter of the facility's population.

On March 30, 2020, three days after the initial habeas petition was
filed, the four original petitioners sought a temporary restraining
order ("TRO") directing their immediate release.  They also
requested the immediate appointment of a special master who would
make recommendations for the release of other medically vulnerable
MDC inmates and make further recommendations for ameliorative
action.  On April 8, 2020, the Court denied the request for a TRO.
It then set a schedule for expedited discovery and for a hearing on
the Petitioners' anticipated request for a preliminary injunction.


The Petitioners filed their motion for a preliminary injunction on
April 30, 2020.  They seek a preliminary injunction based on Eighth
Amendment violations that directs the "immediate release" of the
nearly 400 inmates at the MDC whom respondent has identified as
medically vulnerable due to underlying health conditions or age.
They also ask the Court to enter a detailed injunction controlling
almost every aspect of the MDC's response to COVID-19.  

The Petitioners further request that the preliminary injunction
appoint a Special Master or other Court-appointed expert to oversee
implementation of the Court's ameliorative injunctive relief, make
recommendations regarding the release of medically vulnerable
inmates, and make additional recommendations for ameliorative
action at the MDC.  In order to enable the Court to enter the broad
injunctive decree that petitioners seek, the Petitioners also seek
an order conditionally certifying the class of all inmates at the
MDC.  Alternatively, they seek an order awarding class-wide relief
under the Court's general equity powers.

To obtain such an injunction, petitioners must establish a clear or
substantial likelihood that the conditions at the MDC during the
COVID-19 pandemic constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  The bar
is high: The Petitioners must show that officials' response to the
pandemic reflects "the deliberate infliction of punishment."  The
standard is satisfied when officials exhibit deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.  But it is not
satisfied by negligent lack of due care for prisoner interests or
safety.

Based on the record from a two-day evidentiary hearing, Judge
Kovner concludes that petitioners have not shown a clear likelihood
that MDC officials have acted with deliberate indifference to
substantial risks in responding to COVID-19.  Rather than being
indifferent to the virus, MDC officials have recognized COVID-19 as
a serious threat and responded aggressively.  They have, for
example, implemented heightened sanitation protocols, distributed
masks to inmates and staff, required use of masks when social
distancing is not possible, initiated COVID-19 screenings upon
entry to the MDC, created quarantine and isolation units, and
substantially restricted movement within the facility.  With those
measures in place, just one MDC inmate has been hospitalized in
connection with COVID-19, and none have died from the disease, even
though the surrounding community has been at the epicenter of the
pandemic.

Evidence submitted at the hearing does expose several deficiencies
in the MDC's implementation of Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention ("CDC") guidelines that both parties have treated as
authoritative.  Those shortcomings merit a swift response from MDC
officials—the institutional actors charged in the first instance
with ensuring that their facilities are managed in accordance with
appropriate standards of care.  But the facility's aggressive
response to a public health emergency with no preexisting playbook
belies the suggestion that these apparent deficiencies are the
product of deliberate indifference on the part of prison
officials.

Judge Kovner concludes that prison officials have a responsibility
to protect inmates from substantial risks to their health and
safety.  That duty has special urgency during the COVID-19
pandemic.  The record from the preliminary injunction hearing
reflects that MDC officials recognize their duty to inmates and
have taken extensive measures to combat the virus.  The record also
gives reason for cautious optimism about the effectiveness of those
measures thus far -- with no COVID-connected fatalities and just a
single COVID-related hospitalization at the facility even though
the surrounding New York City community has been hard hit.  

On this record, the Petitioners have not established a clear or
substantial likelihood that prison officials have violated the
Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to substantial
risks of serious harm at the MDC.  They are therefore not entitled
to the extraordinary relief they seek: a preliminary injunction at
the outset of the case that would release hundreds of prisoners and
subject many aspects of the facility's operations to judicial
control.

Because the Petitioners have not shown a clear or substantial
likelihood that they will prevail on their Eighth Amendment claim,
the Judge does not address whether the Petitioners have satisfied
any of the other requirements for obtaining a preliminary
injunction.  Nor does she address the parties' arguments regarding
the scope of relief available in such an injunction.  These include
the Petitioners' contention that class-wide relief should be
granted before formal class certification and the Respondent's
argument that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 would
prohibit an individual judge from ordering the release of inmates
as a remedy.  The Petitioners, of course, remain free to develop
the record further and to renew their requests for injunctive
relief if warranted based on additional facts.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kovner denied the motion for a
preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/dW82bL from Leagle.com.


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: TRO Motion in Goyette Denied Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jared Goyette, Craig Lassig, and The Communications
Workers of America, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. City of Minneapolis; Medaria
Arradondo, Minneapolis Chief of Police, in his individual and
official capacity; Robert Kroll, Minneapolis Police Lieutenant, in
his individual and official capacity; John Harrington, Minnesota
Department of Public Safety Commissioner, in his individual and
official capacity; Matthew Langer, Minnesota State Patrol Colonel,
in his individual and official capacity; and John Does, 1-2, in
their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-1302 (WMW/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied without
prejudice Goyette's Motion to Certify Class and Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order.

Plaintiff Jared Goyette, a freelance journalist, filed the putative
class-action lawsuit against the Defendants, challenging the
treatment by law enforcement officers of members of the news media
reporting on the events in Minneapolis following the tragic death
of George Floyd.

On May 25, 2020, Floyd died as a result of an encounter with four
officers of the Minneapolis Police Department ("MPD").  Video of
the encounter captured by bystanders shows MPD officers placing
Floyd, who is black, in handcuffs and pinning him to the ground
face down, while then-officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck.
Floyd and several bystanders pleaded with Officer Chauvin to change
his position to allow Floyd to breath. Officer Chauvin refused and
continued to kneel on Floyd's neck for several minutes after Floyd
became unresponsive.  Video of the encounter circulated rapidly,
and hundreds of justifiably angry citizens began protesting in
Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as well as nationally and around the
world.

On May 26, 2020, despite mostly peaceful demonstrations, protesters
at the MPD's 3rd Precinct building vandalized police vehicles with
graffiti and targeted the precinct building where the officers
involved in bringing about Floyd's death were assigned.  Law
enforcement officers used foam projectiles and tear gas in an
effort to repel some of the protestors.

Again, on May 27, 2020, hundreds of people protested in
Minneapolis.  While covering the protests at the 3rd Precinct,
Goyette witnessed a projectile fired by MPD officers near the
precinct building hit a young male protester in the head.  As
Goyette was documenting bystanders assisting the injured protester,
Goyette was hit in the head with a projectile.  A moment later, a
canister of tear gas landed nearby, making it impossible for
Goyette to see.

Goyette maintains that he was clearly identifiable as a member of
the news media as he carried a large camera, monopod, and notebook.
That same evening, an auto parts store near the 3rd Precinct
building was set on fire, and other nearby stores were looted and
vandalized.  In total, the Minneapolis Fire Department responded to
approximately 30 fires related to the protests that evening, during
which some fire trucks attempting to respond were hit with rocks
and other projectiles.

On May 28, 2020, MPD officers abandoned the 3rd Precinct building,
which was set on fire by protesters.  The fire department was
unable to respond the 3rd Precinct building fire, and others
nearby, because of safety concerns.  The Saint Paul Police
Department reported dozens of fires and more than 170 damaged or
looted businesses.

On May 29, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz announce that the
state would restore order, calling on the resources of the
Minnesota State Patrol, other state agencies, and the Minnesota
National Guard. Governor Walz implemented an emergency executive
order imposing a nighttime curfew in Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
All "members of the news media" were exempted from the curfew.  The
curfew was disregarded by many, and individuals hiding among
otherwise peaceful protesters continued to commit acts of looting,
vandalism, and arson.

On May 30, 2020, the largest deployment of the Minnesota National
Guard in state history was mobilized, along with the State Patrol
and local law enforcement officers, to restore order.  They moved
aggressively to disperse protesters who remained out after the
curfew.  On May 31, 2020, law enforcement officers arrested
approximately 150 people near downtown Minneapolis for disregarding
the curfew.

Goyette filed the action on June 2, 2020, and contemporaneously
moved for a temporary restraining order and for class
certification.  His complaint asserts three causes of action
arising under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged violations of the
United States Constitution: (1) retaliation for exercising rights
protected by the First Amendment, (2) unlawful seizure and
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (3)
violations of procedural due process rights protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.

In support of his motion for a temporary restraining order, Goyette
contends that the MPD and the State Patrol have engaged in
alarming, aggressive tactics to harm and intimidate credentialed,
or otherwise identifiable members of the news media providing
on-the-scene coverage" of the events following Floyd's death.  He
alleges that several members of the news media, after identifying
themselves as members of the press, have been arrested, threatened,
shot with rubber bullets, or subjected to chemical irritants.  As a
result of these encounters, Goyette argues that members of the news
media have a reasonable fear that Defendants will continue to carry
out their unconstitutional customs or policies of deploying
less-lethal projectiles and chemical irritants without
constitutionally adequate warning.

According to Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer, the
Minnesota State Patrol has not used chemical irritants or
less-lethal munitions to try to maintain order and safety since May
31, 2020.  Langer also declares that the Minnesota State Patrol
does not have a practice or policy of targeting or harassing
members of the news media.  And, according to Langer, the Minnesota
State Patrol gave dispersal orders before deploying chemical
irritants or less-lethal munitions during its attempts to secure
any area.

Likewise, MPD Commander Scott Gerlicher declares that no tear gas
or less-lethal munitions have been used by the MPD since May 31.
Gerlicher asserts that he did not approve the use of threats,
intimidation, or force against any member of the news media
specifically because the individual was a member of the news media,
nor did any other incident commander.  MPD officers have discretion
to use "marking rounds" or "foam rounds," but only in situations in
which there is an imminent threat to life or safety. If individuals
claiming to be members of the news media were arrested in the
process of controlling crowds, the MPD released them once they were
identified as members of the news media.  The Defendants assert
that, from June 1, 2020 through June 5, 2020, there have been no
major incidents of rioting, vandalism, looting, or arson.

Before the Court are Goyette's Motion to Certify Class and Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order.  Goyette seeks to prevent the
Defendants from taking certain actions against individuals who have
identified themselves as a member of the news media or when it is
reasonably clear that the individual is engaged in news gathering
activities.  

Goyette seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking the following
actions against such individuals: (1) the use of a chemical agents
including but not limited to mace, pepper spray, and tear gas; (2)
the use of any physical force, including but not limited to
non-lethal projectiles; (3) the arrest, detention, or taking into
custody of any person except as justified by probable cause for
arrest; and (4) the use of threating language or gestures to harass
or intimidate.  The prohibitions that Goyette seeks would not apply
to circumstances in which members of the news media present an
imminent threat of violence or bodily harm to persons or damage to
property.

Goyette moved for a temporary restraining order on June 2, 2020,
seeking to enjoin Defendants from arresting and threatening members
of the news media, and from using chemical irritants or physical
force, including less-lethal munitions, against members of the news
media. But Goyette does not allege that any of the conduct that he
seeks to enjoin -- occurring over a five-day period of
unprecedented civil unrest -- has occurred since May 31, 2020, or
facts that plausibly demonstrate that such conduct is likely to
recur imminently.  

Judge Wright finds that Goyette has asserted extensive allegations
of egregious conduct by law enforcement directed at members of the
news media.  Several members of the media were allegedly threatened
or subject to unlawful arrests.  Others sustained severe, permanent
injuries while reporting on events of intense public concern.  They
deserve better.

Indeed, Governor Walz has publicly condemned some of the conduct
highlighted by Goyette.  The Minneapolis City Council voluntarily
entered into a TRO with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
that accelerates the review of officer conduct and requires the
Chief of Police or his designee to expressly authorize any use of
crowd-control weapons, such as chemical agents and marking rounds,
during protests and demonstrations.  And the Defendants concede
that any member of the media that has been injured by the unlawful
conduct of law enforcement has a right to seek redress in court.

But Goyette has not established that the "extraordinary" equitable
relief he seeks is necessary at this time.  Accordingly, Goyette's
motion for a temporary restraining order is denied without
prejudice.  

Goyette also moves for an order certifying the following class:
All members of the news media, as the term is used in Emergency
Executive Order 20-69, who intend to engage in news gathering or
reporting activities in Minnesota related to the protest activities
that followed the death of George Floyd and the law enforcement
response to those protests.

Judge Wright holds that a class action may only be certified if the
trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.  At this time, she
is unable to conduct the rigorous analysis before determining
whether Goyette's claims can be resolved on a classwide basis.
While Goyette's claims may ultimately be suitable for class-wide
resolution, he concludes that fact discovery is necessary to
determine whether the Rule 23 requirements can be satisfied.  The
conclusion is particularly warranted in light of the amended
complaint the Plaintiffs filed on the morning of the hearing, after
the parties had fully briefed the pending motion for class
certification.

Based on her foregoing analysis and all the files, records and
proceedings, Judge Wright denied without prejudice (i) Goyette's
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and (ii) Goyette's Motion
for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/yR3NQK from Leagle.com.


MY DAILY CHOICE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Daily Choice, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. My Daily Choice, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07391 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

My Daily Choice is in the health, wellness and fitness
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Hoxha Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Rezarta Hoxha, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04167 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc., provides customer relationship and
accounts receivable management services. The Company offers
outsourcing, including contingency collections, first and third
party, customer relationship management, attorney network, and skip
program services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


NEONODE INC: Rosenblatt Sues Over Private Placement's False Proxy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEONODE INC., ULF ROSBERG, PETER LINDELL, PER
LOFGREN, MATTIAS BERGMAN, LARS LINDQVIST, and URBAN FORSSELL, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
disseminating materially incomplete proxy statement in connection
with Neonode's August 5, 2020 private placement.

The Plaintiff owns Neonode common stock.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have omitted material
information when they filed the Proxy Statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2020. The Plaintiff contends
that the information is important to the Company's stockholders in
deciding whether to approve or not the issuance of shares of common
stock underlying Preferred Stock sold to directors and an officer
of Neonode in the Private Placement.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement failed to disclose:

     -- the financial projections and/or analyses that the
        Individual Defendants considered and relied upon in
        connection with the Private Placement;

     -- the Company's financial and/or other advisors in
        connection with the Private Placement and the terms of
        their engagements;

     -- a fair summary of the process and negotiations leading up
        to the Private Placement, as well as the approval process
        of the Private Placement;

     -- the roles Individual Defendants Rosberg, Lindell, and
        Forssell played in the process leading up to the Private
        Placement and its approval; and

     -- the nature of any alternatives to the Private Placement
        that were considered by the Company's officers and
        directors.

According to the complaint, the omission of the material
information renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

Neonode Inc. develops optical touch and gesture control solutions
for human-machine interface with devices and remote sensing
solutions for driver and cabin monitoring features in automotive
and other application areas. Ulf Rosberg is Chairman of the
Company's Board of Directors. Peter Lindell, Per Lofgren, Mattias
Bergman, Lars Lindqvist, and Urban Forssell are directors of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          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: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  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


NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Bid for FLSA Collective Status Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HODGE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and DIVISION OF ADULT
CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, Case No. 5:19-CV-478-D (E.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge James C. Dever, III has entered an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the following
      collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
      EDNC Local Rule 7.1.:

      "all current and former hourly-paid Correctional Officers
      and Correctional Sergeants who work or worked for the
      North Carolina Department of Public Safety or Division of
      Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice ( collectively
      "DPS"), at any correctional  facility operated by- DPS
      from [three years before date of certification order]
      through the present";

   2. approving the form of notice, including the Notice of
      Pending Lawsuit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
      ("Notice") and the Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff
      ("Consent") form;

   3. requiring the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs'
      counsel with information from the Defendants' Integrated
      HR-Payroll System for putative collective action members
      within 14 days of the date of this Order, including: (i)
      first and last name and middle name or initial where
      available, (ii) last four digits of their social security
      number, (iii) date of birth,(iv) last known mailing
      address, and (v) all known email addresses (including
      personal and work addresses) (the "Opt-In List"). The Opt-
      In List will include all individuals who meet the
      Collective definition and will be transmitted to
      Plaintiffs' Counsel in a Microsoft Excel file;

   4. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of
      receiving the Opt-In List, to send or cause to be sent the
      Notice and Consent to each individual on the Opt-In List,
      other than those who have already filed a Consent to Join
      Form with the court, via U.S. Mail and email. Individuals
      may execute a Consent via electronic signature service
      "DocuSign." The Plaintiffs will incur the cost of issuing
      the Notice.; and

   5. approving the Parties' proposed timeline for notice. The
      time-period for opting into this action will be 60 days
      from the date that the Plaintiffs' counsel mails the
      Notice and Consent.

The North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an umbrella
agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement,
emergency response and homeland security functions. The department
was created in 1977 as the Department of Crime Control and Public
Safety. The Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice is
responsible for the care, custody and supervision of all adults and
juveniles sentenced after conviction for violations of North
Carolina law.

A copy of the Court's Order granting Conditional certification
dated Sept. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kvObzt at no extra charge.[CC]

NUTREX RESEARCH: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrex Research, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nutrex Research, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07393 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Nutrex Research develops sports nutrition supplements, including
fat burners, amino acids, protein powders, pre-workouts and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHIO NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cook Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN COOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OHIO NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION; OHIO
NATIONAL EQUITIES, INC.; OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3984 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court granting Ohio National's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, is a licensed securities
representative for Triad Advisors LLC, a broker dealer.  Triad,
through its representatives such as Plaintiff, sold certain
variable annuities issued by Defendants Ohio National Life
Insurance Co., Ohio National Life Assurance Co., Ohio National
Equities, Inc., and Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. pursuant
to a "Selling Agreement" between Ohio National and Triad.  The
Defendants are all Ohio corporations.

The Plaintiff was not a party to the Selling Agreement, but he
asserts that he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the
Selling Agreement.  He alleges that Ohio National breached the
Selling Agreement by ceasing to pay so-called "trail commissions"
on previously sold variable annuity contracts after Ohio National
terminated the Selling Agreement without cause.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
representatives, seeks to enforce Section 9 of the Selling
Agreement, which involves the payment of commissions from Ohio
National to Triad.  Specifically relevant to the Plaintiff's
underlying claim against Ohio National for breach of contract,
Section 9 states that the terms of compensation will survive this
Agreement unless the Agreement is terminated for cause by Ohio
National.  The Plaintiff alleges that Ohio National breached the
provision in Section 9 because it ceased paying commissions under
the Selling Agreement after it allegedly terminated the Selling
Agreement without cause.

The Plaintiff initiated the case as a class action, and seeks to
represent a Rule 23 class of securities representatives.  The class
certification is not at issue in the appeal.  He asserts claims
against Ohio National for (1) breach of contract; and (2) unjust
enrichment.  Ohio law controls interpretation of the contract.
Ohio National moved for dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff,
as a nonsignatory to the Selling Agreement, lacked standing to
bring claims arising from a contract to which he is not a party.

The magistrate judge, relying primarily on dicta in a footnote from
a Massachusetts case concerning an arbitration clause, issued a
Report and Recommendation concluding that the Plaintiff was an
intended third-party beneficiary of the Selling Agreement between
Ohio National and Triad, and recommended denying the motion to
dismiss.  Ohio National filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the Plaintiff opposed those objections.

The district court rejected the Report and Recommendation, and
instead found that the Plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of
the agreement between Triad and Ohio National.  It also found the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed as well.
Ohio National's motion to dismiss was granted.  The appeal
followed.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ohio National breached the
Selling Agreement by ceasing to pay certain commissions after it
terminated the Selling Agreement without cause.  The only issue on
appeal is whether the Plaintiff, as a nonsignatory to the Selling
Agreement, can enforce the terms of the Selling Agreement between
Triad and Ohio National.  The Plaintiff's claim is dependent upon a
finding that he, as a Triad securities representative, can enforce
the Selling Agreement between Triad and Ohio National because he is
an intended third-party beneficiary of the Agreement.

The Sixth Circuit finds that many companies enter into contracts
where they utilize representatives, agents or employees of one of
the contracting parties for the benefit of the other, but it does
not make the representatives intended third-party beneficiaries to
the contract.  Section 16 of the Selling Agreement explicitly
states that both Triad and its representatives are independent
contractors with respect to Ohio National.  Likewise, the Selling
Agreement is enforceable by Triad, not its representatives, such as
the Plaintiff, who provided the service of soliciting the sales of
variable annuity contracts.  Ohio National did not hire the
representatives, was not their employer, and did not pay them
compensation.  The plain language of the Selling Agreement makes it
clear that the Plaintiff is not an intended third-party beneficiary
under the Agreement, and he therefore does not have standing to
maintain a breach of contract action against Ohio National.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit finds that the Selling Agreement
expressly covers the same subject giving rise to the Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim -- the payment of commissions by Ohio
National on previously sold variable annuity contracts.  Section 9
of the Selling Agreement unambiguously directs Ohio National to pay
commissions to Triad.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff is precluded from
bringing an unjust enrichment claim against Ohio National.

The Plaintiff urges the Court to rely on Reisenfeld & Co. v.
Network Group, Inc.  But Reisenfeld is distinguishable from the
facts of the instant case.  In that case, the plaintiff, a broker,
had an agreement with a second broker to receive a portion of any
commissions paid to the second broker by a third party.  The Court
held that the plaintiff could recover from the third party under a
quasi-contract theory despite the lack of privity between the
plaintiff and the third party because the third party was relieved
of its obligation to pay commissions to the second broker.  In the
instant case, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he cannot recover
commissions from Triad.  That distinction bars his claim.

Accepting the factual allegations as true and construing them in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Sixth Circuit
concludes that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is anything
more than an incidental beneficiary to the Selling Agreement, or
that he can recover under a theory of unjust enrichment.  The Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 9, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/pjjCwH from Leagle.com.

Stephen Cook, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by B. Nathaniel Garrett, Helmer,
Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A., Jennifer Lynn Lambert, Helmer,
Martins, Rice & Popham, Joseph Gentile, Sarraf Gentile LLP, pro
hac
vice, Robert M. Rice, Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., Ronen
Sarraf, Sarraf Gentile LLP & James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Helmer
Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A.

The Ohio National Life Insurance Company, Ohio National Life
Assurance Corporation, Ohio National Equities, Inc. & Ohio
National
Financial Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Christopher
J.
Hogan -- hogan@litohio.com -- Zeiger Tigges & Little LLP & Marion
H. Little -- little@litohio.com -- Zeiger Tigges & Little LLP.


OMNI HOTELS: Charbonnet Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nantille Charbonnet, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated individuals v. Omni Hotels and Resorts, Omni
Hotels Management Corporation, DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
37-02020-00026981-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 10,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01777-CAB-DEB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Omni Hotels & Resorts is an American privately held, international
luxury hotel company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
          23901 Calabasas Rd., #2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 225-9040
          Fax: (818) 225-9042
          Email: starrlawadam@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Sandler, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 500-4600
          Fax: (310) 500-4602
          Email: jsandler@bhfs.com


OPENSIDED MRI: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opensided MRI of
Denver, LLC. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Opensided MRI of Denver, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02746-DDD (D. Colo., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Opensided MRI Of Denver, LLC, is a diagnostic testing facility in
Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERRIGO: Two Fla. Pension Funds Unqualified to Lead Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hansen, writing for Law360, reports that two Florida pension
funds are unqualified to lead a class action against Irish
drugmaker Perrigo because they aren't taking an active role in the
litigation, company attorneys told a New York federal court. [GN]



PILOT TRAVEL: Fortney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FORTNEY, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04646-JLG-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its
employees overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not fully and
properly paid during his employment with the Defendant in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA for all of his
compensable hours worked because the Defendant automatically
deducted 30 minutes from his daily hours worked for a meal break
that he did not take or that was interrupted by having to perform
work duties. The conduct resulted in the Plaintiff not being fully
and properly paid for all of his hours worked in violation of the
FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

The Defendant also unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment
in retaliation for filing a claim for workers' compensation
benefits, receiving workers' compensation benefits, and taking
medical leave, the complaint added.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the
Defendant as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts in the position
of maintenance technician beginning in July 2017 until his
termination in June 2020.

Pilot Travel Centers LLC is a foreign limited liability company
that owns and operates a variety of truck stops throughout the
State of Ohio and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


QUALCOMM INC: Appeal Court Victory Doesn't Block Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Graham, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Qualcomm
Inc.'s recent appeals court victory over the Federal Trade
Commission doesn't preclude some 250 million cell phone purchasers
from moving forward as a class, their attorney said.

"Nothing in the FTC decision suggests this case is not suitable for
class treatment," Kalpana Srinivasan --
ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey LLP said in a
Aug. 14 letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The decision "confirms and does not undermine" the lower court's
determination that facts pertaining to the class predominate over
those pertaining to each individual, she said. Whether the case
would win on the merits isn't a consideration in whether it should
be a class action at all, she said.

The class, certified in 2018 by Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, is accusing Qualcomm
of stifling competition and raising prices for cell phone headset
chips. Koh ruled in both that case and the FTC case that Qualcomm
violated antitrust law by inflating the chips' prices.

The Ninth Circuit Aug. 11 reversed the ruling in the FTC case.
Qualcomm's chip licensing tactics don't undermine competition, and
Koh's ruling "went beyond the scope" of antitrust law, the appeals
court held.

The similarities between the two cases mean a loss for the FTC
would "undermine the foundation for antitrust liability" in the
class action, Qualcomm told the Ninth Circuit during oral arguments
in the consumer case in 2019.

But potential liability has nothing to do with the propriety of
certifying a class action, Srinivasan said in her letter to the
appeals court. In fact, the appeals court's findings in the FTC
case would apply on a classwide basis if they were made in the
consumer case, she said.

The case is Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 9th Cir., No. 19-15159,
letter filed 8/14/20. [GN]


RAYTHEON CO: Court Dismisses N.R. ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, N.R., by and through his parents and guardians, S.R.
and T.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of the Raytheon Health
Benefits Plan, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY; RAYTHEON HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN;
and WILLIAM M. BULL, Civil Action No. 20-10153-RGS (D. Mass.),
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allowed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

N.R. is the named Plaintiff in the putative class action brought
against Defendants Raytheon Health Benefits Plan, an employee
benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"); Raytheon Co., the Plan Sponsor; and William
M. Bull, the Plan Administrator.  N.R. brings four claims under
ERISA, each of which is predicated upon an allegation that the
Defendants' exclusion of coverage for non-restorative speech
therapy as an autism spectrum disorder ("ASD") treatment violates
the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008 ("MHPAEA").

Specifically, N.R. alleges that the Plan's exclusion of coverage of
speech therapy that is non-restorative, its exclusion of
non-restorative Applied Behavior Analysis speech therapy in
particular, and its exclusion of habilitation services, is
specifically aimed at eliminating coverage of speech therapy and
other services for developmental mental health conditions.  N.R.
argues that these exclusions are a proxy for disability
discrimination, and improperly exclude coverage of medically
necessary services to enrollees with developmental mental health
conditions.

Raytheon administers the Plan, an employer-sponsored health
insurance plan.  T.R., an employee of Raytheon, is a plan
participant.  N.R., who is five years old, is a dependent of T.R.
and S.R.  In 2017, a physician diagnosed N.R. with ASD and
recommended that N.R. receive speech therapy services to treat his
ASD.  A licensed speech pathologist provided speech therapy to
N.R., to treat N.R.'s identified diagnoses of ASD, Mixed
receptive-expressive language disorder, and phonological disorder.
N.R. sought coverage for the pathologist's services totaling
$1,790, but was denied coverage by United Healthcare -- the Claims
Administrator for the Plan, explaining that the service is not
covered for the diagnosis listed on the claim.

In April 2019, N.R.'s parents appealed United Healthcare's denial
of coverage.  United Healthcare rejected the appeal.  It concluded
that because the claim(s) for the service(s) was processed
according to the plan provisions, the original determination
remains unchanged, and is upheld.  The response did not address
N.R.'s parents' Parity Act argument.

When N.R.'s parents lodged a second-level appeal in August 2019,
they provided United Healthcare with additional evidence supporting
their contention that speech therapy for N.R. was medically
necessary. United Healthcare denied the second-level appeal in
September 2019, without addressing the issue of medical necessity
or the ramifications of the Parity Act.  Rather, United
Healthcare's Medical Director, Dr. Meenakshi LaCorte, iterated what
had been said before.

The Complaint sets out the following four claims: Count 1 -- breach
of fiduciary duties under ERISA Sections 404(a)(1), 502(a)(2), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1104(a), 1132(a)(2); Count 2 -- recovery of
benefits under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B); Count 3 -- equitable remedies under ERISA Section
502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3); and Count 4 -- sanctions
for alleged violation of ERISA disclosure requirements.

The Defendants move to dismiss all Counts.  Judge Stearns allowed
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Judge dismissed with
prejudice Counts 1 and 2, and dismissed without prejudice Counts 3
and 4.

The Judge finds that N.R. does not allege any facts to suggest that
the Plan itself suffered losses because of the fiduciaries' actions
in the case.  On the contrary, N.R. alleges that the Defendants'
refusal to cover speech therapy benefits for N.R. and other
autistic children -- allegedly in violation of the MHPAEA --
resulted in the Plan's unjust retention of funds that should have
been used to provide therapy to N.R. and other class members.  It
follows that N.R. has not alleged facts that would establish a
basis that would entitle the Plan (as opposed to him personally) to
relief.  The Judge therefore dismissed Count 1 with prejudice.

N.R. advances only Parity Act arguments; he does not separately
characterize the denial of coverage for his speech therapy as a
misrepresentation of the actual language of the Plan.  Rather, N.R.
essentially argues that the outpatient speech therapy to treat ASD
sought by N.R.'s parents would have been covered, but for the
Plan's application of its blanket 'Non-Restorative Exclusions.'
Accordingly, N.R.'s MHPAEA challenge does not allege any right to
benefits under the terms of the plan.  As such, relief under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) is unavailable, and the Judge
dismissed Count 2 with prejudice.

N.R. appears to allege -- although in the murkiest of prose -- both
facial and as-applied Parity Act violations.  The Judge addresses
N.R.'s alleged facial violation as best as it can be discerned.
However, he cannot make out from the opaque pleadings the precise
nature of N.R.'s as-applied Parity Act claim.  Neither the Plan's
non-restorative speech therapy exclusion nor the habilitative
services exclusion purports on its face to address only mental
health benefits.  

While N.R. highlights the existence of Plan language expressly
acknowledging that the "habilitative services" exclusion applies to
mental health (including ASD services)/substance-related and
addictive disorders, the Plan's simultaneous presentation of
generically applicable habilitative services and non-restorative
speech therapy exclusions does not support N.R.'s allegation that
the Plan facially excludes benefits for non-restorative speech
therapy only for mental health conditions.

Finally, N.R. seeks sanctions under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(A)
for up to $110 per day for the Defendants' failure to produce or
ensure the production of the medical necessity criteria for both
medical/surgical benefits and mental health and substance use
disorder benefits, as well as the processes, strategies,
evidentiary standards and other factors used to apply the
Non-Restorative Exclusion.  

Because N.R. has not pled facts sufficient to suggest that his
document requests were directed to the true Plan Administrator, the
Judge declines to address the merits of N.R.'s statutory penalties
argument.  N.R.'s Plan designates Defendant Bull as the "Plan
Administrator (For All Benefits Except the Disability Plans)."
N.R. does not allege that he requested the documents he seeks from
Bull -- rather, he alleges that N.R.'s parents, through counsel,
contacted Raytheon and United Healthcare to request documents
relevant to his Parity Act claim.  N.R. then directs the court to
Dkt # 1-8 -- a letter addressing a request for information sent
only to United Healthcare, the Plan's Claims Administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/QR47O8 from Leagle.com.


REGIONS BANK: $2.8MM Settlement in Swaney Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUEANN SWANEY, Plaintiff, v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 2:13-CV-00544-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, (i) granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and (ii) granted in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses,
and for Service Award to Class Representative.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on Dec.
20, 2019, and notice was given to all the members of the Settlement
Class under the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order.  

Upon consideration of the Motions, the Settlement Agreement and the
exhibits thereto, and the record in the case, Judge Proctor
certified the following Settlement Class, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:   All persons who (a) received a text message
from Regions between Jan. 24, 2011 to present, (b) without their
prior express consent in that the called (i.e. texted) party was
not the intended recipient or the recipient had previously informed
Regions that it had the wrong number.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (i) Sueann Swaney is
appointed as Class Representative; and (ii) John Allen Yanchunis,
Sr. of MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP at 201 N Franklin
St 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602, with Telephone: (813) 275-5272, as
Class Counsel.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to
pay $2,805,200 to create the Settlement Fund.  Amounts awarded to
the Class Counsel and a Service Award to the Class Representative
will be paid from the Settlement Fund.  The Claims Administrator
has received 3,542 Claims.  Of the Claims processed by the Claims
Administrator ("ALCS"), 3,496 (or 98%) are valid.  The Estimated
First Distribution amounts to $548.71 per Allowed Claim.  The
Claims Administrator anticipates the amount of unallocated funds
remaining in the Settlement Fund after amounts awarded to the Class
Counsel, a Service Award to the Class Representative, and the
initial distribution to Settlement Class Members with valid Claims
will total $22.33, due to rounding.  The Judge concludes that the
proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Class Counsel request approval of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $841.560, payable from the Settlement.  The Class Counsels'
requested fee represents 30% of the award to the Settlement Class.
The Judge concludes that the Class Counsel's requested fee should
be 25%, and expressly finds that to be the reasonable fee.  First,
he believes the fee awarded in the case should fall in the middle
of the 20% to 30% range.  Second, he has considered the Johnson
factors, given that the fee request is above the mean benchmark of
25%.  A 30% award has produced realized hourly rates that are much
higher than the customary fees in the legal community.

Thus, the Judge approved the following payments to Class Counsel:
(1) the amount of $701,300 in attorneys' fees, and (2) the amount
of $35,327.51 in costs and expenses.  These amounts will be paid
from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

As part of the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Expenses, and for Service Award to Class Representative, the Class
Counsel ask the Court to award Class Representative Swaney an
incentive payment in the amount of $10,000.  The Judge approved a
Service Award in the amount of $7,500 for Class Representative
Swaney.  The amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/jHWwu3 from Leagle.com.


RIMPORTS LLC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RIMPORTS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07165 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
2, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software, and a member of a protected class of individuals under
the ADA and the regulations implementing ADA and NYCHRL. She
asserts that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Web site, http://www.scentsationals.com,to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Additionally, the
Defendant allegedly used standards, criteria or methods of
administration that have the effect of discriminating or
perpetuating the discrimination of others.

The Plaintiff claims that when she visited the Defendant's Web site
in August 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase, she was
denied access and a user experience similar to that of a sighted
individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred her from being able to
enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.

Rimports, LLC, is a scented candle manufacturing company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Tel: (929) 324-0717
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Tobacco Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Haughey, writing for The Center Square, reports that the
Florida Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding
damages levied against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for
smoking-related deaths that could have profound implications
nationwide.

The cases stem from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court ruling, which
green-lighted the filing of thousands of "Engle progeny" lawsuits
against tobacco companies.

The court's 2006 ruling upheld a Third District Court of Appeals
dismissal of a $144.8 billion liability verdict awarded by a
Miami-Dade County jury in a 2000 class-action lawsuit against
tobacco companies--the largest punitive damage claim in
history--filed by the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium on behalf of
700,000 state smokers.

The Third District Court of Appeals determined a class-action
lawsuit was not the "proper vehicle" for such an action, reversing
its own 1996 ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group Inc.

Significantly, however, the state high court's 2006 ruling upheld a
number of findings from the Miami-Dade jury ruling in the original
class-action lawsuit, including that tobacco companies were
negligent, conspired to hide information about the dangers of
smoking and sold defective products.

While dismissing the class-action lawsuit, the state Supreme Court
said Engle litigants could pursue individual lawsuits against
tobacco companies for compensatory damages in which juries could
assign a percentage of the blame on plaintiffs.

Altria Group Inc., the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds,
whose brands include Winston, and Lorillard Inc. since have settled
more than 400 individual Engle claims, paying more than $100
million in compensatory damages.

More than 225 other Engle lawsuits have gone to trial, with 144
resulting in judgments for plaintiffs. Tobacco companies had paid
about 56 Engle judgments awarded by juries, totaling $380 million
by 2017.

As many as 8,000 Engle lawsuits remain in the litigative
pipeline--some nearing 40 years old.

The state Supreme Court agreed to take up an Engle case in which a
divided 1st District Court of Appeals tossed out a $6.4 million
compensatory claim against R.J. Reynolds issued by a Duval County
jury in 2016 to the estate of John C. Price.

In a 2-1 ruling last October, an appellate panel dismissed the
award and ordered a new trial because, it ruled, the Duval County
Circuit judge did not properly instruct the jury about allegations
R.J. Reynolds conspired to conceal fraudulent information about
smoking.

The jury found R.J. Reynolds to be 40 percent at fault and
attributed 60 percent fault to Price, who began smoking at age 12
and smoked up to three packs a day from age 16 to 58, when he quit.
Before dying at age 74, he filed the suit.

Attorneys representing Price's estate and R.J Reynolds asked the
court to remedy vagaries defining the standard of proof in
determining whether smokers relied on misleading information from
tobacco companies about the health dangers of cigarettes.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a dispute about a $5 million
punitive award issued by an Orange County jury to the estate of
Valton Sheffield, who died of lung cancer in 2007.

The 5th District Court of Appeals overturned the award last year
because the pre-1999 version of the state's punitive damages law
was applied to the case, which, R.J. Reynolds' lawyers argued
shields it from paying punitive damages.

Attorneys representing Sheffield's estate asked the Supreme Court
to clarify conflicting opinions about punitive-damage tobacco
awards being issued by appellate courts.

"Unless the Court accepts jurisdiction and resolves the conflict,
there will be two sets of punitive damages rules and remedies that
apply to wrongful death cases brought pursuant to Engle, if the
class member died after Sept. 30, 1999," Sheffield attorneys wrote.
"Recent history suggests that is a substantial number of cases."
[GN]


SALESFORCE: Faces Class Action Over GDPR Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Sarah Coble, writing for Info Security, reports that a consumer
privacy campaign group has filed a lawsuit against American
companies Salesforce and Oracle over an alleged breach of the EU's
General Data Protection Regulation laws.

The Privacy Collective claims that the companies collect users'
personal data without proactive user consent and then auction it
off to other companies without users' knowledge. The group has
claimed that the suit could cost the California-based companies up
to $10bn in fines.

On Aug. 14, the class-action lawsuit was filed in Amsterdam,
becoming the biggest class action to be lodged over an alleged
violation of GDPR in the history of the Netherlands. The suit asks
for a EUR500 payment for each user who has not consented to the use
of their sensitive personal data.

A similar claim was set to be filed last month by the Privacy
Collective at the High Court in London.  

Salesforce is an American cloud-based software company
headquartered in San Francisco. Oracle Corporation is an American
multinational computer technology corporation that operates from
headquarters in Redwood Shores.

The Privacy Collective alleges that the two tech companies used
third-party cookies Bluekai and Krux to misuse consumers' personal
data. The cookies, which are hosted on multiple websites including
Ikea, Twitch, Dropbox, Booking.com, and Comparethemarket, are used
for dynamic ad pricing services.

The privacy campaign group alleges that Oracle and Salesforce held
on to personal data that consumers had not proactively consented to
share and took an inconsistent approach to securing sensitive
information. The suit further accuses the companies of facilitating
sales using harmful ads.

According to the Privacy Collective, both companies sell profiles
created from the personal data they have gathered from users to
other companies via real-time bidding without the knowledge or
consent of the users.

Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley said: "Oracle has no direct
role in the real-time bidding process, has a minimal data footprint
in the EU, and has a comprehensive GDPR [privacy] compliance
program."

A spokesperson for Salesforce said: "Salesforce disagrees with the
allegations and intends to demonstrate they are without merit. Our
comprehensive privacy program provides tools to help our customers
preserve the privacy rights of their own customers." [GN]


SARA LEE FROZEN: Briley Initiates Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sara Lee Frozen
Bakery, LLC. The case is styled as John Briley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sara Lee Frozen Bakery,
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-07276 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sara Lee Frozen Bakery manufactures and supplies wholesale frozen
baked goods and desserts for foodservice establishments and
restaurants, grocery stores and in-store bakeries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


SC EDISON: Faces Britt FLSA Class Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON BRITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
25, Case No. 2:20-cv-08023 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its alleged systemic pattern of wage and
hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked with the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee in the past three years, alleges that the Defendant failed
to properly compensate him and other non-exempt employees for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant also failed to
correctly calculate or pay the correct overtime rate because it
failed to include all Class Members' shift differentials, "meal
allowances," all hourly rates during a pay period, commissions,
bonuses, and any other non-discretionary incentive pay and/or wages
in determining the regular rate of pay of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were also not paid
accurate minimum and overtime wages because the Defendant required
them to input their scheduled start and end times of their shifts
into the timekeeping system instead of the actual times they start
and end their workdays.

Southern California Edison Company operates an electric supply
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Tel: (213) 358-7046
          Email: Jon@lebelaw.com


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Wiretapping
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maine Monitor reports that Maine lawyers filed a class-action
lawsuit against Securus Technologies alleging the company illegally
intercepted confidential phone calls between attorneys and inmates
at county jails in violation of state and federal wiretapping
laws.

Attorneys Jeremy Pratt, Robert Ruffner and John Tebbetts were named
in the lawsuit filed on Aug. 13 in the U.S. District Court in
Bangor. But there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs, including
lawyers and inmates whose calls may have been illegally intercepted
by Securus Technologies at 13 county jails.

"I think that there's a can of worms that has been opened up here,"
said Tebbetts, a Presque Isle defense attorney named as a plaintiff
in the lawsuit.

Securus Technologies' automated phone system recorded Tebbetts 304
times speaking with at least 50 inmates in the past year at the
Aroostook County Jail, according to call records obtained by The
Maine Monitor. Multiple law enforcement agents also downloaded or
played back Tebbetts' calls, documents filed with the class action
show.

"It's bad enough if they're in the cloud somewhere and just sitting
there--that's not appropriate," Tebbetts said. "But it's
significantly more alarming [that] law enforcement agents actually
are downloading phone calls between me and my client."

Communications between an attorney and client are confidential and
protected under what is known as attorney-client privilege. State
law bans any interference in these conversations. But, an
investigation by The Maine Monitor found that those calls were
recorded between at least 161 inmates and lawyers from 34 firms in
a 12-month span by jails that contract with Securus Technologies.

Securus Technologies is a national provider of phone and video
software for correctional facilities. Thirteen of Maine's fifteen
county jails contract with the Texas-based company to manage inmate
phone calls, video visits and tablet rentals--including phone
calls, text messages and emails exchanged with attorneys.

Securus Technologies did not respond to an emailed request for
comment in time for publication.

The class action alleges that the company illegally intercepted,
recorded and released to third parties recordings of phone
conversations between attorneys and clients. The lawsuit asks the
court to order Securus Technologies to cease recording inmate phone
calls unless it can screen out conversations between attorneys and
clients. It also asks for copies of all the recorded calls to be
released to affected counsel and destroyed.

"I think that a lawsuit is the only thing that's going to wake
Securus up," said Pratt, a defense lawyer on Maine's midcoast who
was the first to publicly report that his calls were being recorded
by a jail in April.

Pratt stopped investigating the release of his calls after he
settled his clients' case with the Office of the Attorney General.
But he was "surprised by the vast scope" of attorney-client calls
that have since been discovered at other jails, Pratt said on Aug.
14.

The Office of the Attorney General disclosed to Tebbetts in early
May that a detective possessed calls between him and an inmate.

Marc Malon, a spokesman for Maine's attorney general's office,
confirmed in a written statement on Aug. 17 that the Cumberland
County Jail had "inadvertently" sent the calls to a detective. Upon
discovering the calls, the detective did not listen to more of the
recordings, Malon said.

Prosecutors handed over the recordings to Tebbetts, but did not
specify which calls the detective had heard. Identifying which
conversations the detective may have listened to is an enormous
task with even bigger consequences.

Portland-based criminal defense attorney Robert Ruffner is a
plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed on Aug. 13 against
Securus Technologies. The lawsuit alleges that the
telecommunications company illegally recorded protected calls
between Maine attorneys and county jail inmates, including Ruffner
and his clients.

The client — identified only as "John Doe" in the lawsuit —
faces "extremely serious" felony charges and decades in prison if
convicted. Tebbetts had significant conversations about every
aspect of his case over the phone, after the inmate was transferred
from Aroostook to Cumberland County Jail, five hours away from
Tebbetts.

"There's 500 phone calls. I'm looking for a needle in the haystack,
and they're unlabeled," Tebbetts said.

The attorney general's office intends to continue to pursue its
case against the unnamed inmate despite the release of confidential
calls between him and his attorney.

This is the second batch of privileged attorney-client calls known
to be released to the Office of the Attorney General in the past
year. The Maine Monitor, previously Pine Tree Watch, reported in
May that a call between Pratt--another plaintiff in the class
action suit--and an inmate at the Somerset County Jail was
discovered by a prosecutor after it was sent to the attorney
general's office. Somerset County contracts with another phone
vendor, GTL - Global Tel Link.

Additional legal action against GTL or government agencies is still
being considered, said Bob Cummins, a Portland attorney and one of
three co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the class action.

"The lawyers have an interest as do the inmates, and it's not
unlikely that there might be additional actions," Cummins said on
Aug. 14.

The attorney general's office did not answer whether it had
discovered any additional privileged recordings in 2020 or whether
it would change any policies to prevent the future disclosure of
confidential phone calls from the jails.

"We stand by the statement we provided you, which was responsive to
your inquiry. As I noted earlier, prosecutors and detectives are
not entitled to communications between attorneys and their clients
and do not want such communications," Malon said in response to
follow up questions on Aug. 17.

Malon directed The Maine Monitor to a letter sent by the Maine
Prosecutors Association to sheriffs and jail administrators on July
13 stating that prosecutors cannot legally listen, nor do they want
to obtain, the recordings of phone calls between defense attorneys
and their clients. The letter said it is "imperative that all
attorney contact information is obtained by the jail" to prevent
disclosure of attorney-client calls.

But the total number of protected attorney-client calls that were
recorded by Securus Technologies in Maine remains unknown. Multiple
counties have not yet released call records to the state or press.

The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office has so far refused to
release public records on how many calls Securus Technologies
recorded at its jail. Kennebec, Knox, Penobscot, Piscataquis,
Washington and York counties have also not released any records.

Waldo, Oxford and Two Bridges Regional Jail reported to the state
that they had found no recordings of attorney-client calls.

Cumberland County Jail Administrator Maj. Tim Kortes said the
sheriff's office would not comment on an ongoing criminal
prosecution. He said the jail relies on lawyers to register their
phone numbers with the jail's automated system so that their
conversations will not be recorded. As a second layer of protection
there is an announcement that the call is being recorded, and
Kortes advised lawyers and inmates to hang up if they do not want
to be recorded.

"We can always do better of course, and we are exploring with our
vendor additional safeguards that may be possible," Kortes said in
a written statement.

Records obtained by The Maine Monitor through the Freedom of Access
Acts in Aroostook, Androscoggin and Franklin counties revealed that
at least 837 phone calls between state defense attorneys and
inmates were recorded at the three county jails in a 12-month
span.

Pratt said that based on the trends in these counties, he found it
hard to believe that attorney-client calls were not also being
recorded at the other county jails that have not yet released call
records.

Nearly all phone calls made by inmates are recorded by Securus
Technologies, but jail administrators are contractually obligated
to manage exemptions for confidential communications with lawyers,
medical personnel and clergy, according to a review of multiple
contracts by The Maine Monitor.

Tebbetts believes he provided his phone number to Securus
Technologies and the Aroostook County Jail and instructed both not
to record his calls. Yet, the recordings appear to have gone on for
years, he said.

Tebbetts said he appreciated that Aroostook County Sheriff Shawn
Gillen released all information the county jail had on his calls.
The remaining counties' refusal to do the same is what prompted the
class action.

"This is why we had to file a lawsuit. To figure out the extent of
the problem and what to do about it," Tebbetts said. "I'm not sure
why they're hiding things here. Eventually it's going to come out.
I'm disappointed that they decided that they are buttoning up and
not turning over things as freely as they should."

Securus Technologies will have 30 days to file a response after it
is served the lawsuit. [GN]


SIMMONS PREPARED: Smith Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02158-PKH (W.D. Ark., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee in its chicken factory from August 2019 to February 2020,
and was misclassified by the Defendant as non-exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA and the AMWA.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid improper overtime
rate to the Plaintiff because it failed to include the value of the
bonuses and the rent credit that it provided to the Plaintiff and
other hourly employees when calculating overtime rate.
Additionally, the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff for
the time spent working during lunch breaks because the Plaintiff
was required by the Defendant to clock out for lunch but was
regularly required to work through his lunch break.

Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc., is a supplier of poultry, pet and
ingredient products based in Siloam Springs, Arkansas.[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: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ST MARY PARISH: Class Recertification Bid OK'd in Boudreaux Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, ET AL., v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF ST MARY PARISH, ET AL., Case No.
6:65-cv-11351-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Robert R.
Summerhays entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Recertification;
      and

   2. certifying a class for injunctive relief pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) consisting of:

      "(1) all Black students currently enrolled or who will in
      the future enroll in schools operated by the St. Mary
      Parish School Board; (2) all Black students who previously
      attended the foregoing schools and would remain eligible
      to attend such schools, but for the fact they were
      expelled from such schools due to discriminatory policies
      of the St. Mary Parish School Board; and (3) the custodial
      biological or custodial adoptive parents of the foregoing
      students".

The class claim alleges violation of the class members' rights
under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

St. Mary Parish School Board is a school district headquartered in
unincorporated St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, United States.

A copy of the Court's Order for Class Recertification dated Sept.
8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mqo9Pw at no extra charge.[CC]

STANDARD SALES: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Sales, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Standard Sales, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07431 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Standard Sales, Inc., was founded in 1956. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of sporting and
recreation goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE FARM: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, LOUIS NAIMAN, and BLAKE COOLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-08012 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by unlawfully contacting the Plaintiffs on their
cellular telephones.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiffs
to purchase the Company's products or services, the Defendants
contacted the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone numbers. The
Defendants allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system"
to place its calls without the Plaintiffs' prior express consent"
to receive such calls using an ATDS or prerecorded voice on their
cellular telephones.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sells
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


SUNDER ENERGY: Abboud Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ABBOUD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. SUNDER ENERGY LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03076 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 2,
2020), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she received an unsolicited pre-recorded
telemarketing call to her cellular telephone number ending in 3670
on May 6, 2020, that is allegedly from the Defendant attempting to
encourage her to sign up and enter into a contract for its
services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant makes pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and the Class members'
cellular telephone number without their prior express written
consent, thereby, causing them harm and damage.

Sunder Energy LLC offers solar and energy services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Tel: 817-416-5060
          Fax: 817-416-5062
          Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com

                - and –

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


THREEBYONE USA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Threebyone USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Threebyone USA, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07392-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Threebyone USA, LLC (trade name New Denan Roller's Jeans) is in the
apparel accessories business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIGER BRANDS: To Sell Processed Meat Division Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Whitworth, writing for Food Safety News, reports that Tiger
Brands is to sell its processed meats division, which includes the
business implicated in the Listeria outbreak in South Africa in
2017 and 2018.

The transaction includes two separate deals -- Molare Proprietary
Ltd. will buy the abattoir business at Olifantsfontein and Silver
Blade Abattoir Proprietary Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Country Bird Holdings, will acquire the meat processing businesses
at Germiston, Polokwane and Pretoria.

Molare, a major supplier of pigs to the abattoir business, will pay
117 million Rand ($6.7 million) for this deal while Silver Blade
has agreed a 311 million Rand ($17.8 million) purchase for the meat
processing businesses and all the inventories with the transaction
expected to be effective beginning in November this year.

Listeria outbreak
The value added meat products (VAMP) business units operate from an
abattoir and three meat processing facilities in South Africa,
where they produce and package products such as polony, viennas,
bacon and sausages.

The listeriosis outbreak began in 2017 and was declared over in
September 2018 with 1,065 confirmed cases and 218 deaths and is now
the subject of a class action law suit. It was traced in March 2018
to a ready-to-eat processed meat product called polony made at the
plant in Polokwane and run by Enterprise Foods, which is owned by
Tiger Brands.

Country Bird operates the Supreme Chicken brand, which provides
frozen chickens for households, Nutri Feeds brand, which is active
in animal nutrition, Opti Agri brand supplying day old chicks into
the poultry market, Country Bird Logistics brand which provides a
wholesale branch to Country Bird´s operations and poultry related
operations in eight other African countries.

Noel Doyle, CEO of Tiger Brands, said almost 1,000 jobs will be
safeguarded with the sale of the business.

"This is no small matter, particularly given the escalating
unemployment in South Africa in the context of the severely
constrained environment and poor economic outlook. We felt that it
was our duty to our employees, customers and consumers to ensure
that the processed meats category--an important source of protein
to many South Africans--properly recovered after the listeriosis
outbreak," he said.

No impact on class action
Tiger Brands conducted a review in 2017 looking at selling its VAMP
business. However, the outbreak and closure of manufacturing
facilities delayed the evaluation. When the business re-opened at
the beginning of the 2019 financial year, a review was started.

In late 2019, a Tiger Brands stock market statement said the
business was "not an ideal fit within its portfolio" and that
consideration should be given to exiting the category with several
offers received.

Tiger Brands said the transactions do not impact the class action
law suit or affect its commitment to resolve the ongoing legal
process. Any potential liability under the class action will not
transfer to the new owners.

"We cannot overstate the significant and far reaching consequences
of the listeriosis crisis, particularly on the victims of the
outbreak and their families. Tiger Brands remains committed to
following due process to ensure that an equitable resolution of the
matter is reached in the shortest possible time," said Doyle.

In June, the Johannesburg Division of the Gauteng High Court ruled
in favor of Tiger Brands telling the National Institute for
Communicable Diseases (NICD), two accredited national laboratories
and some meat producers to provide epidemiological information for
the class action lawsuit.

Tiger Brands said the ruling would help provide access to
information relevant to the proceedings and enable parties on both
sides to move matters forward. The firm issued subpoenas in May
2019 to NICD and other parties requesting the information and later
filed an application to the High Court. [GN]


TIKTOK INC: C. H. Suit Moved From C.D. Calif. to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned C. H., a minor, by and through his Guardian,
Marc Halpin, inidividually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TikTok, Inc., a corporation; ByteDance Inc., a
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05036, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 4,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05213 to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

TikTok, known in China as Douyin, is a Chinese video-sharing social
networking service owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is a Beijing-based
Internet technology company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq.
          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 789-3100
          Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                 ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
                 mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 354-4134
          Email: aweibell@wsgr.com


TIKTOK INC: G. R. Suit Moved From C.D. Calif. to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned G. R., a minor by and through her guardian Mayra
De La Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TikTok, Inc., a corporation; ByteDance Inc., a
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-04537, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 4,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05212 to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

TikTok, known in China as Douyin, is a Chinese video-sharing social
networking service owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is a Beijing-based
Internet technology company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Allan Pettigrew, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com
                 ecomite@scott-scott.com
                 jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Edward K. Wood, Jr., Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
          PO Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Phone: (205) 612-0243
          Status: (866) 747-3905
          Email: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          William Anthony Baird
          BAIRD LAW FIRM
          2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
          Westlake Village, CA 91301
          Phone: (805) 267-1209
          Status: (866) 747-3905
          Email: w.baird.law@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 354-4134
          Email: aweibell@wsgr.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Amy G. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMY G. and GARY G., individually and as representative
of the class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED HEALTHCARE and UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00413-DN-EJF (D. Utah), Judge David Nuffer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah denied without prejudice
the Plaintiffs motion for class certification.

The case involves claims for benefits and equitable relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") arising from
the Defendants' denial of insurance coverage for "wilderness
therapy."  The Plaintiffs seek class certification arguing that the
Defendants improperly exclude coverage for wilderness therapy based
on a uniform policy that wilderness therapy is experimental,
investigational, or unproven.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class in the
case: Any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA in the
time frame from May 17, 2013, to the present whose health benefit
plan was administered by the Defendants, who paid for a wilderness
therapy program, and for whom the Defendants refused to authorize
or pay the wilderness therapy program claim based on an exclusion
that the wilderness therapy was experimental, investigational, or
unproven.

Judge Nuffer finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class fails to
satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and each of Rule
23(b)'s requirements.

The Judge finds that the proposed class members have different
medical conditions and participated in different wilderness therapy
programs that offered different treatments, activities, and
therapies.  And the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
Defendants should have construed and applied all the proposed class
members' benefits plans in the same manner.  The Plaintiffs fail to
establish that the Defendants' alleged conduct caused a common
injury to the proposed class members under their respective
policies.  Regardless of the existence of a uniform policy of
exclusion, the circumstances underlying the proposed class members'
claims for relief are too varied for there to be a common question
of law or fact that is capable of classwide resolution.  Therefore,
the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality
requirement.

The Plaintiffs argue that multiple lawsuits regarding the
Defendants' policy of denying coverage for wilderness therapy based
on an experimental, investigational, or unproven exclusion could
lead to inconsistent results.  However, they have failed to
demonstrate the existence of a uniform policy of exclusion.  And
regardless, they misconstrue individualized determinations as
inconsistent results.

Regarding Rule 23(b)(1)(B), the Plaintiffs acknowledge that
adjudication of one proposed class member's case will not be
binding on others not party to that case.  The Plaintiffs
nevertheless argue that because an individual case would be
persuasive authority that produces expert testimony, separate
actions would substantially impair nonparties' ability to protect
their interests in later cases.  But it is no different from any
other situation involving the existence of persuasive authority on
later filed cases and claims.  As a practical matter, requiring the
proposed class members to bring separate actions will not create a
risk of dispositive adjudications on members that are not party to
the individual adjudications.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' proposed
class fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(1).

In an attempt to broaden the declaratory and injunctive relief
prayed for in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs argue that a classwide
injunction is quite easy to envision and it would correct the
improper application of the Defendants' uniform determination.  But
the Plaintiffs make no effort to specify or describe the contents
of such an injunction, or how it would account for the myriad of
variations in the proposed class members' circumstances.  It is
insufficient to satisfy the rigorous analysis required for the
class certification.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' proposed class
fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2).

Additionally, the entirety of the Plaintiffs' discussion of
superiority consists of two paragraphs of generalized argument.
The Plaintiffs do not provide meaningful analysis of the relevant
factors or how they apply to the named Plaintiffs and proposed
class members.  Rather, the Plaintiffs improperly attempt to shift
the burden on Defendants to show that a class action is not
superior.  It is insufficient to satisfy the rigorous analysis
required for class certification.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
proposed class fails to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).

Because the Plaintiffs' proposed class fails to satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and each of Rule 23(b)'s
requirements, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is denied
without prejudice, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Memorandum
Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/JnRxo3 from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Cays Files Class Suit in Court of Federal Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Terry Cays, individually and on
behalf similarly situated individuals v. USA, Case No.
1:20-cv-01174-LKG (Fed. Cl., Sept. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Taking–Realty for Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 589-6377
          Fax: (312) 589-6378
          Email: brichman@edelson.com


UNITED STATES: Court Issues Prelim. Injunction in Rivas Suit vs. IC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02731-VC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

ICE detainees at Mesa Verde Detention Center and Yuba County Jail
filed the class action alleging the facilities were so crowded that
any kind of social distancing -- the primary available defense
against Covid-19 -- was impossible.  They also alleged that ICE had
taken virtually no meaningful steps to reduce the risk of outbreak
at either facility.  That, according to the Plaintiffs, rendered
their detentions unconstitutional.

After full briefing and a hearing, the Court provisionally
certified a class of all detainees at the two facilities and
entered a temporary restraining order.  The TRO required ICE to
give the Court and the class counsel information about all the
detainees, including any criminal history and any health
vulnerabilities putting them at heightened risk.  The TRO also
established a system for the Court to consider, on an ongoing basis
and with the assistance of briefing from both sides, whether
certain detainees should be temporarily released to help mitigate
the dangerous conditions in the facilities.  

The system contemplates that no detainee may be released unless
class counsel demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying
release while the habeas petition is pending, based on a
consideration of the following factors: (i) the likelihood that the
class will ultimately prevail on its habeas petition; (ii) the risk
posed to the detainee by current conditions at the facilities;
(iii) the likelihood that the detainee will not be a danger to the
community if released with conditions; and (iv) the likelihood that
the detainee will appear for subsequent immigration/removal
proceedings as required.

When the lawsuit was filed, governments and public health officials
throughout the country had long since recognized the urgent danger
posed by the coronavirus pandemic.  Indeed, nearly five weeks had
passed since Gov. Newsom ordered a statewide shutdown that forced
massive changes in the daily lives of virtually all Californians.
But for the ICE detainees at Mesa Verde and Yuba County Jail, it
was pretty much business as usual.  People were still sleeping in
barracks-style dorms within arm's reach of one another.  Only two
detainees had been tested for Covid-19, despite the well-known
"tinderbox" risk of jail epidemics.  It appeared that ICE had not
even made the effort to determine which of its detainees suffer
from medical conditions that put them in particularly severe danger
from the virus.

Since the TRO, substantial progress has been made.  The number of
detainees in custody at both facilities has dropped, which has
allowed for a greater degree of social distancing.  The conditions
in the facilities are hardly ideal, but they have indisputably
improved.  Subject to a few caveats discussed in the next section,
it's possible that the facilities have gotten close to the point
where keeping certain detainees there does not create an
unreasonable risk for the class in violation of due process.

However, these safety improvements came almost entirely from the
litigation: ICE acted only because it was ordered to do so, or in
response to concerns raised by the Court or the plaintiffs during
the proceedings.  Since the TRO, the parties have participated in
eight status conferences, and ICE has been required to provide the
Court and class counsel with a steady stream of information.
Throughout this process, ICE has shown disinterest and a lack of
dexterity in adjusting its conduct to respond to a global crisis,
along with obstinance in evaluating whether any of its detainees
can safely be temporarily released.

Therefore, the fact that conditions have improved at the facilities
does nothing to disturb the Court's conclusion that the
requirements for interim relief have been met, and that a
preliminary injunction is needed, at a minimum, to lock in place
the safety improvements achieved in recent weeks.

The Plaintiffs have now moved for a preliminary injunction.
Although preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, the Plaintiffs
propose judicial intervention into ICE's detention practices that
is more intrusive than necessary, at least on the current
evidentiary record.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order ICE to ensure that detainees
at both facilities be at least ten feet apart from one another
while sleeping (with detailed sub-rules regarding the configuration
of beds), and that they be able maintain a six-foot distance at
almost all other times.  They further propose that ICE be required
to develop and submit to the Court "detailed written plans" for
bringing each facility into compliance with the social distancing
goal, subject to objection from the Plaintiffs and scrutiny and
modification by the Court.  In addition, they propose that ICE
should be flatly prohibited from admitting any new people into the
detainee population until compliance with the plans is achieved,
and barred from transferring detainees out of Mesa Verde or Yuba
County Jail unless the destination facility has achieved an equal
degree of social distancing.

Judge Chhabria finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed injunction
appears based on the assumption that the government should create
conditions of confinement for immigration detainees that
approximate the level of safety achievable for people not in
detention.  Further, they often seem to assume that if that level
of safety cannot be achieved, the only answer is that more people
should be released.  But it is not what due process demands, and
the Plaintiffs' proposed injunction thus intrudes too much on ICE's
function and decision-making authority.

Of course, people subject to government detention have a
constitutional right to safe conditions of confinement.  But this
right guarantees only "reasonable safety," with the understanding
that detention will almost never be as safe as freedom.  To assess
whether safety risks rise to the level of a constitutional
violation in a particular case, courts must consider the
government's own interests, as well as the measures reasonably
available to reduce the risks.  The unfortunate reality is that a
certain degree of danger can be among the inherent incidents of
confinement in such a facility.

Against this legal backdrop, it appears possible that the
conditions at the facilities have reached, or at least are
approaching, the constitutional minimum given the health threat --
at least for detainees who pose a significant danger to the
community or otherwise should not be released.  Given the
improvements that have been achieved since the TRO was entered, for
now the primary relief to be ordered is that ICE must maintain the
status quo of safety that currently exists in the facilities.

Evidentiary gaps in the parties' presentations have left some
unanswered questions regarding whether ICE could reasonably take
additional steps to alleviate the likely due process violations in
both facilities.  In particular, there seems to be considerable
uncertainty regarding how new arrivals are actually being screened
at Mesa Verde, and whether those procedures are creating serious
and avoidable health risks.  The parties are ordered to meet and
confer about that, and report to the Court at the next status
conference.  And if the Plaintiffs believe that additional
preliminary relief is necessary to address risks to class members
who must continue to be detained, the Court will hold an
evidentiary hearing.  Any requests for additional relief, however,
must recognize that when executive officials undertake to act in
areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their
latitude must be especially broad.

ICE raises a number of legal objections to the narrower form of
injunctive relief.  But these objections do not prevent the Court
from requiring that the status quo be maintained to protect
detainees (not to mention facility staff and the surrounding
communities) from the harm that would have likely occurred if ICE
had been left to its own devices.

Lastly, in its papers and at the preliminary injunction hearing,
ICE has repeatedly claimed that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision
in United States v. Dade, establishes that COVID-19 does not
satisfy the 'extraordinary case' standard warranting release.  That
case says no such thing, and ICE's description of it is borderline
sanctionable.  In Dade, the court indicated that the pandemic does
present a "special circumstance," but held (in the criminal
collateral review context) that the petitioner was also required to
make a showing of lack of dangerousness and flight risk.  In the
instant case, which concerns civil rather than criminal detention,
the Court has granted temporary release only where it has concluded
that a detainee poses neither a danger to the community nor a
flight risk.

Judge Chhabria granted the motion for a preliminary injunction.
ICE and all of its officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, are ordered while the case is pending to maintain, at a
minimum, the status quo that currently exists as it relates to
protection from transmission of Covid-19 at the Mesa Verde
Detention Center and Yuba County Jail.  ICE must also continue to
provide information to the Court and the Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and must respond to reasonable discovery requests from
class counsel.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/BBpWQH from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Children Expulsion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Kocherga, writing for KTEP, reports that a class-action
lawsuit aims to end the Trump administration's expulsion of migrant
children who arrive at the border alone seeking refuge. Many of the
kids have been held in hotels in Texas border cities including El
Paso and McAllen before being removed from the country.

The ACLU is spearheading the lawsuit filed in Washington D.C.
along with the Texas Civil Rights Project and Oxfam America seeking
to block border officials from suspending legal safeguards for
children who arrive at the border alone.

"We filed this class-action lawsuit because the Trump
administration left us no choice, repeatedly refusing to allow its
unprecedented shadow immigration policy to be tested in the courts
in an individual case," Lee Gelernt, the lead ACLU attorney in the
case, said in a statement.

The Trump administration said it needs Title 42 expulsions to
quickly remove migrants including children on their own from the
U.S. to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

"The policy is the most extreme asylum ban yet from this
administration, ignoring all of the protections Congress has
enacted since World War II to protect children and those fleeing
danger," said Gallert.

The lawsuit filed on Aug. 14 in U.S. District Court argues Title 42
authorizes the summary expulsion of kids, "even if the children
show no signs of having COVID-19 and even if the children are
fleeing danger and seeking protection in the United States."

In the past minors were placed in the custody of the Department of
Health and Human Services as their asylum cases were decided.
Instead, a private transportation company has kept hundreds of
detained children in hotels in Texas border cities including El
Paso, McAllen and elsewhere across the U.S. until they can be
removed from the country. The lawsuit alleges at least 2000
children have been expelled under Title 42

"The transportation specialists are non-law enforcement staff
members trained to work with minors and to ensure that all aspects
of the transport or stay are compliant with the Flores Settlement
Agreement," according to a statement from an ICE official. The
Flores Settlement established standards for the care of migrant
children in U.S. Custody.

The MVM transportation company employees responsible for traveling
with the minors "are often their first line of defense," according
to ICE.

The transportation company employees previously watched over
children they transported between facilities or to HHS.  Now their
duties include caring for kids during hotel stays. The company is
not licensed for childcare.

ICE said those employees "must have at least two years of
documented experience in a field related to law, social work,
detention, corrections, or similar occupation to qualify as a
transportation specialist." And they pass background and criminal
record checks.

But during their hotel stays the children are cut off from
relatives and legal services according to immigrant advocates. A
Texas Civil Rights Project attorney was removed by force from a
Hampton Inn and Suites hotel in McAllen in July when he tried to
gain access to the young children held there to provide legal
representation.

The Hilton company which includes Hampton Inn & Suites issued a
statement after the high-profile incident was captured on video and
shared on social media.  "We understand these reservations were to
house migrants, including minors, as they were transported between
locations. This is not activity that we support or in any way want
associated with our hotels" according to a statement issued July
24thby the company.

"Our policy has always been that hotels should not be used as
detention centers or for detaining individuals. We expect all
Hilton properties to reject business that would use a hotel in this
way. We are in the process of contacting all Hilton owners and
management companies in the U.S. to remind them of our policy, and
provide guidance on identifying and preventing this type of
business."

The Associated Press first reported hotels were used to house
migrant children as young as one-year old before they were expelled
from the country. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Trump Faces Class Action Over Mail Slowdown
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas F. Harrison, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that days after President Trump confirmed that his deliberate
withholding of funds will make it harder for people to vote with
absentee ballots in the November election, he was hit on Aug. 17
with a federal class action.

Launched by four New York political candidates and a dozen would-be
absentee voters, the suit says that the mail slowdown is "all but
automatically unconstitutional," serving no legitimate public
purpose.

Trump has been vocal in his opposition to mail-in voting. "With
Universal Mail-In Voting . . . 2020 will be the most INACCURATE &
FRAUDULENT Election in history," he tweeted on July 30.

And he has been feuding with congressional Democrats over their
proposal for a new coronavirus relief package that includes
billions of dollars in new Postal Service funding in anticipation
of a slew of absentee ballots.

"If we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money,"
Trump said in an interview on Aug. 13. "That means they can't have
universal mail-in voting. They just can't have it."

Leading the latest suit against Trump in New York is Mondaire
Jones, the Democratic nominee for the 17th Congressional District,
representing parts of Westchester and Rockland counties. The
Ridgewood form Cohen&Green represents the class, along with Madison
Avenue attorney Ali Najmi.

Along with state Senator Alessandra Biaggi, Assembly candidates
Chris Burdick and Stephanie Keegan, as well as the voters, Jones
notes that the result so far of the unexplained destruction of at
least 671 mail-sorting machines across the country has reduced the
Postal Service's capacity to process mail "by more than 21.4
million pieces of mail per hour." (Emphasis in original.)

"The burden of this diminished capacity falls wildly differently
across various states and areas — and seems, at least in part,
targeted at either (1) locations in states where the general
election will likely be close or (2) major cities, likely to skew
Democratic, that will impact the national popular vote tally," the
lawsuit states.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy--a major Trump donor and
fundraiser--recently imposed a round of austerity measures
including a ban on overtime and a hiring freeze.  

Other new rules include prohibiting letter carriers from sorting
mail before leaving on their route, allowing them to park their
mail trucks in only four places per day, and requiring them to
return on time even if they haven't finished delivering mail.

As a result of these changes, "it is a virtual certainty that a
significant number of ballots received by USPS, mailed by voters in
the time permitted by law, will not be counted," the class alleges.


DeJoy said the new measures are needed to cut costs. "The Postal
Service is in a financially unsustainable position, stemming from
substantial declines in mail volume and a broken business model. We
are currently unable to balance our costs with available funding
sources," he said on July 27.

But the plaintiffs claim this is a pretext. They note that the Post
Office intends to eliminate 969 mail-sorting machines in total, or
about 20% of capacity.

"Multiple sources within the Postal Service . . .  have personally
witnessed the machines, which cost millions of dollars, being
destroyed or thrown in the dumpster," Vice News reported.

One effect of eliminating the machines is to make it more likely
that absentee ballots will not receive a proper postmark, which is
usually necessary for a ballot to be counted, the plaintiffs
allege.

Some 76% of Americans are eligible to vote by mail this year even
if they could show up at the polls. Courthouse News recently
profiled the many issues that can arise with mail-in voting even
without additional postal problems.  

The class is alleging violations of the First Amendment and Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On Aug. 14 the Arizona secretary of state asked the state attorney
general to launch a criminal probe of the slowdown.

Trump has feuded with the Postal Service before. In April he
referred to the agency as "a joke."

But the White House says the accusations in the lawsuit are
ridiculous. "The notion that President Trump asked the United
States Postal Service to slow down its deliveries to millions of
Americans across the country is baseless and absurd," White House
deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews said.  

"What the president is doing is demanding much-needed and
long-overdue change to bring efficiency, accountability and fiscal
responsibility to the USPS. These changes will save the USPS
approximately $200 million dollars a year," Matthews continued.  

On August 10--days before Trump bragged to a Fox host that
"universal mail-in voting" would be impossible without the funding
measures his administration is stonewalling--USA Today factcheckers
said it could not confirm the claim that the mail is being
intentionally slowed.

Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer suggested that if the
states want to rely on mail-in voting, it's up to them to conform
to postal necessities rather than the other way around.  

"Certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots may be incompatible
with the Postal Service's delivery standards," he said, and "to the
extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their
elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically
reflects how the mail works." [GN]


URBAN VILLAGES: Katt Sues in D. Colorado Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urban Villages, Inc.
The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Urban Villages, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02745-NRN (D. Colo., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Urban Villages, Inc., operates as a real estate development and
property management company. The Company provides assistance with
investment returns and build legacy asset portfolios. Urban
Villages offers university housing and property management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 17 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.

WINS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:WINS)

WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially 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.

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=8621&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]


VORNADO LLC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vornado, LLC. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Vornado, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07410
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Vornado is a US firm based in Andover, Kansas, that designs and
manufactures household fans and other small appliances related to
air circulation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VRBO: Motion Filed for Consolidation of Travel Insurance Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Potts Law Firm on Aug. 17 disclosed that a motion filed with the
federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is seeking
consolidation of the growing number of class action lawsuits being
filed by individuals claiming that online vacation rental company
Vrbo's exclusive travel insurance provider has unlawfully denied
their requests for reimbursement of fees paid for reservations that
were later cancelled.

The filing notes that class action lawsuits have been filed by
plaintiffs in Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, California, Ohio,
Illinois and New York alleging similar claims against a common
insurance provider, CSA Travel Protection, the American affiliate
of Italy-based Assicurazioni Generali Group.

While varying in certain details, the lawsuits allege that the
insurer has refused to honor its policies and refund thousands of
dollars in properly cancelled bookings initially made on the Vrbo
website. Typically those refund requests were due to
government-imposed travel restrictions or personal health
complications due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The lawsuits all seek
class action status to represent every affected individual across
the nation.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are requesting centralizing the
lawsuits in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, the
only federal judicial district in which multiple actions are
pending. According to the filing, consolidating the actions would
conserve resources and reduce litigation costs for all parties.

"Due to the number of cases spread across at least eight
jurisdictions indicates that, absent centralization, it may be
essentially unavoidable that all parties will be subject to
inconsistent pretrial rulings," the filing states. "Plaintiff has
reasonable belief that there are thousands of potential members in
the Class."

The filing also notes recent actions of the MDL panel that both
affirmed and denied case consolidation based on the number of
common insurance carriers that were parties to litigation. The
panel upheld a similar MDL request against the StubHub ticketing
website over refund denials to consumers, while ruling in another
matter that some COVID-19 business interruption claims should not
be consolidated as dozens of different insurance carriers were
listed as defendants.

"We are definitely seeing a trend in the travel and vacation rental
insurance industry to deny all COVID-19 related cancellation
claims, with little or no investigation or review of the claims at
all," says Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm's Houston office, who
filed the motion with the MDL panel. "In this case, the allegations
are basically the same, against one common defendant with the same
insurance policy in every case, so we believe that consolidation in
the Eastern District is both practical and proper under the law."

The motion is In Re: Generali COVID-19 Related Travel Insurance
Litigation. The next Joint Panel hearing is scheduled for September
24, 2020 in Birmingham, Alabama. [GN]


WAITR HOLDINGS: Nears Settlement of Delivery Drivers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Mosbrucker, writing for The Advocate, reports that after 18
months in the legal system, Waitr Holdings Inc. is in the final
stages of settling a class action lawsuit brought against the
company by delivery drivers who claimed they were not paid at least
minimum wage in violation of federal law.

The value of the settlement could be roughly $7.4 million and the
plan is to divvy a maximum of 1.5 million shares of the company's
stock among tens of thousands of drivers after attorneys fees and
the lead drivers are compensated.

Waitr's stock closed at $4.61 per share as of Aug. 17, down from
$5.59 in early August. It's a significant improvement from when the
stock was trading below $1 for several months in 2019 and faced
being delisted from the stock exchange.

The Louisiana technology company had its first profitable
quarter--about $10 million in net income--of its publicly traded
history this year. It has $87 million in cash on hand, records
show.

Waitr did not respond to repeated interview requests for this
story.

Two Waitr drivers filed a federal lawsuit which claimed the
app-based food delivery service violated labor laws by not paying
minimum wage and overtime.

Jualeia Halley and Heather Gongaware filed the collective action
suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana in February 2019. A
second lawsuit by other drivers was filed soon thereafter.

Gongaware was an independent contractor at Waitr in Baton Rouge who
began working with the company in September 2016. Gongaware claimed
she was misclassified as an independent contractor and was
underpaid by Waitr by $275 each week, according to the initial
lawsuit. Meanwhile, Halley a former driver, claimed she was
underpaid by $258 each week.

Halley and Gongaware alongside drivers Autumn Montgomery and
Nateshus Jackson stand to split potentially 3,891 Waitr stock
shares.

The lawsuit claimed that Waitr misclassified some drivers as
independent contractors and didn't pay them minimum wage for all
the hours they worked or overtime when they worked more than 40
hours a week. Rather, the company erroneously classified some
employee drivers as independent contractors and paid only a
delivery fee in addition to tips from customers, according to the
lawsuit.

Also, by not reimbursing drivers for mileage and other expenses for
using their personal vehicles, their pay fell below minimum wage,
according to the lawsuit.

Since then, the case has slogged through the court system until a
proposed settlement was sent to a judge in early summer.

A.B. Data, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company was hired for
$100,000 by Waitr to connect with former drivers has processed more
than 9,300 claims over the summer.

The drivers are represented by Anderson Alexander PLLC, Bohrer
Brady LLC and Briney Foret Corry LLP for the settlement.

Attorneys on behalf of the drivers are seeking 518,806 shares of
Waitr stock, which could be roughly $2.4 million split among them.

The attorneys are pushing for a settlement to happen soon for fear
the company might not have the cash in the future, especially if
the employees or contractors are forced into a method of dispute
known as legally binding arbitration which takes it out of the
court system.

"Waitr has consistently disputed that all of the individuals
included within the scope of the settlement agreement are able to
proceed in this forum at all and sought to compel arbitration,"
said Austin W. Anderson, an attorney at Corpus Christi, Texas-based
Anderson Alexander. "It is not clear whether Waitr will have the
ability to pay a judgment or settlement of significant magnitude in
two or three years from now when the litigation is likely to
approach a consideration of the merits of plaintiffs' claims."

Likewise, the drivers' attorneys suggest that Waitr disputes how
much drivers could be eligible to receive.

"It is Waitr's position that the potential recovery available to a
large number of the settlement class members -- if they were to
overcome the numerous procedural obstacles and succeed on the
merits -- is nominal, and for all Plaintiffs is relatively small
(i.e., typically no more than a few hundred dollars)," Anderson
said. "Plaintiffs disagree with Waitr's valuation, and instead
contend that, depending on the amount of time worked within the
relevant time period, the individual delivery driver's claims could
reach into the thousands of dollars, liquidated."

Attorneys representing the delivery drivers and legal
representation from Waitr have been working on a settlement
agreement since April when a judge approved some preliminary
decisions, court records show.

In September 2019, Waitr and the class action attorneys attended a
mediation session in New Orleans and sought to 'settle in
principle' the lawsuit, records show.

The class action lawsuit is for Waitr delivery drivers who have
worked for the company or previously worked for the business
beginning in February 2017. Payment in Waitr stock depends on how
many weeks the driver has worked at the company and it is subject
to taxes by both Waitr and the employees.

There are an estimated 33,313 individuals eligible as part of the
class action which is a mix of independent contractors and former
employee drivers. Several hundred drivers have opted out of the
class action so far, records show.

The largest pay-out in claims so far was 169 shares of Waitr's
stock and the average award was 26 shares of Waitr stock which
equates to roughly $779 and $120 respectively.

Waitr was founded in Lake Charles in 2013 and has significant
corporate operations in Lafayette. It went public in November 2018.
The company laid off thousands of employee drivers in April --
including 2,300 in Louisiana -- and has sought to hire contractor
drivers to deliver food to customers from restaurants instead.
Contract drivers are paid by the delivery and collect tips, while
employee drivers are paid by the hour and collect tips.

A final approval hearing was scheduled on Aug. 19 for the
settlement. [GN]


WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Overcharging Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a new class
action from an unhappy buyer of lemonade mix says that Walgreens
ripped him off.

Tim Carr filed his lawsuit Aug. 11 in Portland, Ore., federal court
against Walgreen Co. after he says he was charged $1.80 for
something that was marked as costing $1.

"When plaintiff learned that Walgreen had overcharged him he
complained but Walgreen refused to refund the overcharge," the
lawsuit says. "When plaintiff complained to Walgreen management,
plaintiff was told that Walgreen has collected the overcharge from
literally thousands of other customers."

Carr wants to represent a class of "every customer ripped off by
Walgreen's intentional overcharging scheme." His lawyer is Michael
Fuller of OlsenDaines in Portland.

Carr will only seek damages if Walgreens fails to cure the problem,
the lawsuit says. [GN]



WALLPAPER DIRECT: Calcano Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wallpaper Direct
Incorporated. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wallpaper
Direct Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-07259 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4,
2020).

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

Wallpaperdirect is an online wallpaper store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALLPAPERWAREHOUSE.COM LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against
Wallpaperwarehouse.com L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Marcos
Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Wallpaperwarehouse.com L.L.C., Wallpaper Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07247 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).

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

Wallpaper Warehouse provides a large selection of wallpapers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WASH PARK VINTNERS: Katt Sues in Colorado Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wash Park Vintners
LLC. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wash Park Vintners LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02747-SKC (D. Colo., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Wash Park Vintners LLC offers store services featuring wine and
wine accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEIMAN PRODUCTS: Faces Romero ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weiman Products, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Weiman Products, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07425 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020).

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

Weiman is a top specialty surface cleaning manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Fails to Cover COVID Loss, Last Resort Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAST RESORT-MOBILE LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03519-WMR (N.D. Ga., Aug. 25, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's refusal to pay its insureds, including
the Plaintiff, under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra
Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19.

The Plaintiff purchased insurance coverage from the Defendant,
including property coverage, to protect its business in the event
that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of
its control, or in order to prevent further property damage, the
complaint says. Unlike many policies that provide Business Income
coverage, the Defendant's Special Property Coverage Form does not
include, and is not subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by
viruses or communicable diseases.

The Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at its
restaurant and bar, directly losing the functionality of its
property for business purposes due to COVID-19. On March 30, 2020,
the Plaintiff submitted a claim for loss to Westchester under its
policy brought by COVID-19 and the Closure Orders.

According to the complaint, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff's
claim on April 28, 2020. The Defendant has, on a wide-scale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.

The Plaintiff owns and operates Poindexters, a bar and grill
located in Mobile, Alabama.

Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company is an insurance company
based in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris D. Glover, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          2839 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404)751-1162
          Facsimile: (855) 674-1818
          E-mail: chris.glover@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          C. Gibson Vance, Esq.
          Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  gibson.vance@beasleyallen.com
                  rachel.boyd@beasleyallen.com
                  paul.evans@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
          Frederick Longer, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, L.L.P.
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
                  lberman@lfsblaw.com
                  flonger@lfsblaw.com
                  dlevin@lfsblaw.com


WESTPAC: Insurance Customers May Be Eligible for Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Yun, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that up to 100,000
Australians who may have been slugged with excessively high
insurance fees by Westpac could be eligible for compensation,
according to Shine Lawyers.

Westpac employees regularly upsold or funnelled customers into
expensive insurance products when cheaper options were available,
according to Shine Lawyers national class actions leader Jan
Saddler.

In 2017, the law firm launched a lawsuit against Westpac with the
Federal Court, alleging that the bank breached their obligations by
charging their own customers more for Westpac products.

The average Westpac customer was overcharged between 4.5 per cent
and 10 per cent in annual premiums, according to Shine's
investigations.

Most of this conduct has gone undetected as people tend to trust
their banks, Saddler said, making this behaviour a "slap in the
face".

"We allege Westpac quietly and systematically pilfered excessive
fees from their own customers to make millions in profits at the
expense of those customers," Saddler said.

Australians who believe they may be affected should find out if
they are eligible and want to be part of the class action, she
said.

"Not only does Westpac need to be called out for its premium rort
but it also needs to compensate its customers."

A Westpac spokesperson told Yahoo Finance that it would not be
commenting as the matter was currently in legal proceedings.

Are you eligible for the class action?
If you bought insurance from Westpac Life after 21 February 2011
based on a recommendation from a financial adviser from Westpac, St
George Bank, Bank of Melbourne, BankSA or BT Advice, you may be
eligible.

And if you join the class action, you could be up for a claim of at
least $1,000, and in some cases as much as $10,000, said Saddler.

"This case allows people to fight for their money back with the
strength in numbers afforded to them by a class action."

You can register for Shine Lawyers' Westpac class action on their
website. [GN]


WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 17 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.

WINS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:WINS)

WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8621&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially 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.

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=8621&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]


WORKFORCE RESOURCES: $900,000 Deal in Jamil Suit Gets Prelim. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AHMAD JAWAD ABDUL JAMIL, AHMAD JAMSHID ABDUL JAMIL,
AHMAD FARHAD ABDUL JAMIL, individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORKFORCE RESOURCES, LLC;
BRISTOL BAY NATIVE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-27 JLS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L.
Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement.

Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul Jamil, and
Ahmad Farhad Abdul Jamil filed a putative class action complaint
against Workforce Resources in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Diego on Sept. 27, 2017.  The allegations
included failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements; and failure timely to pay wages
due at separation in violation of various provisions of the
California Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs also alleged unfair business
practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17200.  They added Bristol Bay Native Corp. as a Defendant
on Nov. 13, 2017.

The Plaintiffs removed the action to federal court on Jan. 24,
2018.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the meal and rest
break claims on Jan. 11, 2018, while the Plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the action to state court on Feb. 14, 2018, which the
District Court denied on May 21, 2018.  The Plaintiffs filed the
operative First Amended Complaint on July 20, 2018, adding a claim
for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  Because the Defendants' prior motion to
dismiss was dismissed as moot, they filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims, which the Court
denied.

The Parties attended two Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences with
the Hon. Nita L. Stormes, on April 23 and July 29, 2019, but were
unable to reach a settlement.  On Sept. 24, 2019, the Parties
attended a mediation conducted by Jill Sperber, Esq., during which
they reached the Proposed Settlement Agreement presently before the
Court.

On April 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs of a separate, related putative
class action, Abikar v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, No.
18CV1700 JLS (AGS) (S.D. Cal. filed July 25, 2018), filed a motion
to intervene and objection to proposed settlement.  They have since
withdrawn their motion and objection, leaving the instant Motion
unopposed.

The Parties have submitted a comprehensive Proposed Settlement
Agreement detailing the substantive settlement terms.  The proposed
Settlement Class is defined to include "all non-exempt employees
who worked for Workforce at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in the
position of Role Player, Interpreter, Amputee, and/or Team Lead at
any time during the Class Period," while the Class Period is
defined as "the period from Sept. 27, 2013 through and including
July 31, 2017."  The proposed Settlement Class amounts to
approximately 1,089 members.  The Class Members have the option to
opt out of the Settlement or to object to the Settlement within 60
days of the mailing of the Notice of Settlement.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will
pay a Maximum Settlement Amount of $900,000.  The Maximum
Settlement Amount will be used to pay the Plaintiffs' Class
Representative Service Awards in the amount of $10,000 each, a
Class Counsel Fees Award of $300,000, a Class Counsel Costs Award
of $15,000, Settlement Administration Costs of $35,000, and payment
to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
pursuant to PAGA.

All Participating Class Members, i.e., the Class Members who do not
submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion, will receive a
portion of the Net Distribution Fund paid on a pro rata basis based
on the numbers of shifts worked during the Class Period.  The
Plaintiffs estimate that the average net distribution to individual
members of the Settlement Class will be $470 per member, if no
Class Members opt out of the Settlement.  After disbursing
payments, any funds remaining in the Net Distribution Fund will be
donated to the State of California's Justice Gap Fund.

In exchange for the monetary consideration, all Participating Class
Members will release all "Released Class Claims" and "Released PAGA
Claims" as defined in the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  

Judge Sammartino finds that (i) certification of the Settlement
Class proper under Rule 23(b)(3); (ii) the Proposed Settlement
Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) the presumption of
reasonableness is warranted in the case given the Class Counsel's
extensive experience in employment law class action litigation and
settlements; (iv) the Class Counsel will need to show what special
circumstances exist warranting a higher percentage in their motion
for attorney's fees; (v) the named Plaintiffs must provide
documentation detailing the time and effort they expended in
pursuit of the litigation and the actions they took to benefit the
Settlement Class in its motion for final approval; and (vi) both
the method and content of the Proposed Notice comply with Rule 23.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sammartino granted the Plaintiffs'
Preliminary Approval Motion.  The Settlement Agreement is
preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the action is
preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class
action on behalf of the following Settlement Class Members with
respect to the Released Class Claims and Released PAGA Claims
asserted in this Action: all non-exempt employees who worked for
Workforce at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in the position of
Role Player, Interpreter, Amputee, and or/Team Lead at any time
during the Class Period.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Sammartino
preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiffs
Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul Jamil, and Ahmad
Farhad Abdul Jamil as the Class Representatives and Mahoney Law
Group, APC as the Class Counsel.  Additionally, Judge Sammartino
approved and appointed Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator.

The Judge preliminarily approved the form and substance of the
Proposed Notice.  As provided in the Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Administrator will provide the Notice to the Class
Members and respond to Class Member inquiries.  The Defendants is
directed to provide the Settlement Administrator with the Employee
List without delay.  The Settlement Administrator will disseminate
the Notice in the form and manner provided in the Proposed
Settlement Agreement.

Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement must be submitted by
mail to the Settlement Administrator and postmarked no later than
60 days of the initial mailing of the Notice to the Class Members.
The Class Members who do not submit a timely and valid Request for
Exclusion from the Settlement on or before the Response Deadline
will be Participating Class Members bound by all terms of the
Settlement and any Final Approval Order entered in the Action.

Objections to the Settlement must be mailed to the Court as
instructed in the Notice, no later than the Response Deadline.

Judge Sammartino set a Final Approval Hearing for Nov. 5, 2020 at
1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States
Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101.  At the Final
Approval Hearing, the Parties also will be prepared to update the
Court on any new developments since the filing of the Motion,
including any untimely submitted opt-outs, objections, and claims
or any other issues as the Court deems appropriate.  The date and
time of the Final Approval Hearing will be included in the Notice
to be mailed to all the Class Members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/eIHDO9 from Leagle.com.


WORLD WRESTLING: Judge Denies Securities Class Action Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on August 6, 2020, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a
motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a sports entertainment
company and certain of its executives.  City of Warren Police &
Fire Ret. Sys., v. World Wrestling Ent. Inc., No. 20-CV-2031 (JSR),
2020 WL 4547217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020).  Plaintiff alleged
that the company made misrepresentations about its media contracts
in the Middle East and North Africa ("MENA").  The Court held that
the complaint, "while not a model of clarity, adequately alleges an
overall claim of securities fraud," including with respect to
actionable misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation.

Plaintiff alleged that the company misleadingly assured investors
that its international media rights agreements, a number of which
were nearing expiration, would be renewed on favorable terms.  In
particular, plaintiff alleged that although the company told
investors that it was working on "renewing" its MENA region media
rights agreement, in fact the company's counterparty had terminated
the agreement nine months early and had informed the company that
it would not renew it.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiff further alleged that,
when the company disclosed the termination of this agreement three
months after it occurred, the company sought to downplay the impact
of the termination by simultaneously announcing that it had reached
an agreement "in principle" with the Saudi government for a media
rights agreement in the MENA region that would be finalized "very
soon."  Id. at *2.  But plaintiff alleged that this too was false,
because "strong circumstantial evidence" showed that the parties
were actually far apart in their negotiations at the time and
ultimately failed to reach an agreement.  Id.

The company argued that statements that it was "working on" the
"rights renewal process outside the U.S." in "key markets"
including "the Middle East," and that "[w]e want to get the
international renewals completed," were not actionable because the
term "renewals" was a term of art in the broadcasting industry and
referred to distribution rights in a particular market, but not
necessarily with any particular counterparty.  Id. at *3.  The
Court rejected this argument, finding it "extraordinary" and
facially implausible.  Id.  Moreover, the Court explained that,
notwithstanding the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b)
and the PSLRA, the Court was still bound to accept as true the
complaint's well-pleaded allegations of fact and draw reasonable
inferences in plaintiff's favor.  Thus, the Court held that it
"must assume, as the complaint asserts, that [the term 'renewal']
carries its ordinary meaning" and that therefore a reasonable
investor could have interpreted the company's statement to mean
that it was working to renew its preexisting distribution
agreement, which was its only such agreement in the Middle East.
Id. at *4.

The complaint also alleged that a disclosure in one of the
company's SEC filings about the risk to the company's "financial
outlook" if it failed to renew its distribution agreements was
misleading because the MENA agreement had already been terminated.
Id.  While defendants argued that the disclosure related to the
"potential effect" of the termination of an agreement, not the risk
of the failure to maintain an agreement itself, the Court rejected
this argument, noting that the complaint adequately alleged that
the failure to reveal the termination of the agreement adversely
affected the company's business and left the company "scrambling to
find a replacement partner," putting in "serious jeopardy" its
ability to finalize a media rights agreement for the MENA region
that year.  Id.  Moreover, the Court rejected the company's
argument that the statements were not material, concluding that the
MENA agreement was not "so obviously unimportant to a reasonable
investor that reasonable minds could not differ on the question of
[its] importance."  Id.

With respect to the company's statements that it "believe[d] it
ha[d] agreements in principle" with the Saudi government regarding
the "broad terms" for a "media rights deal in the MENA region," and
would be "announcing [the] deal very soon," plaintiff alleged these
statements could not have been true in light of statements from a
confidential witness that the company and the Saudi government were
very far apart in their negotiations at the time these statements
were made.  Id. at *5.  While the company argued that the witness's
statements were based on hearsay and indirect knowledge, the Court
held that they nevertheless could be taken into account because the
witness was adequately described in the complaint to support the
probability that a person in that position would possess the
information alleged—including that, several months after
defendants' alleged misstatements, the witness joined a company
negotiating on Saudi Arabia's behalf, did analysis specifically
related to the value of the prospective agreement, and spoke with
others about the deal.  Id. at *6.  The Court agreed that the
witness's allegations supported the conclusion that the company's
belief that it had an "agreement in principle" was false and
misleading, and that the fact that the parties had not agreed on
fundamental terms of a contract months after defendants' statement
"strongly support[ed] the inference that the defendants could not
have had a near-final agreement a few months earlier."  Id.

Defendants also argued that statements with respect to both
agreements were non-actionable expressions of opinion.  Id. at *7.
The Court acknowledged that certain alleged misstatements, at least
in part, were opinions, but nevertheless determined that they were
still actionable.  With respect to the preexisting MENA agreement,
while the company noted that the parties were still "working on"
the agreement, the Court noted that this language didn't strongly
indicate that the company was offering an opinion and that the
statement plaintiff challenged contained an embedded factual
statement, suggesting the agreement was still in place.  Id.  With
respect to the prospective agreement with the Saudi government, the
Court similarly explained that the company had stated that it
"believed" it had an agreement in principle in place, but that this
belief did not fairly align with information the company possessed
about the status of these negotiations at the time.  Id.  The Court
also summarily rejected that any of these statements were
forward-looking, and thus found that they were not subject to the
"safe harbor" provision in the PSLRA for certain forward-looking
statements accompanied by meaningful risk disclosures.  Id. at *8.

With respect to scienter, the Court concluded that a declaration
the company submitted in support of its motion to dismiss
acknowledging the preexisting agreement had been terminated
constituted an admission that the company's statements regarding
the renewal of that agreement were knowingly or recklessly false.
Id.  The Court also concluded the individual defendants' senior
positions, the alleged importance of the agreement to the company's
financials, and their statements themselves about the status of the
negotiations also led to an inference of scienter.  Id.  The Court
further determined that with respect to one executive, the
complaint sufficiently alleged scienter based on "motive and
opportunity" in the form of alleged stock sales that were
substantial and unusual compared to the executive's past trading
practices.  Id.  Moreover, with respect to the prospective
agreement with the Saudi government, the Court determined that
circumstantial evidence based on confidential witness statements,
combined with allegations of motive that defendants made their
statement regarding the negotiations in an attempt to minimize the
damage from the termination of the prior MENA agreement, "plausibly
supports an inference of scienter embracing the entire alleged
scheme."  Id. at 10.

Finally, the Court held that loss causation was also adequately
pleaded.  Id.  The Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged
that the disclosure of the company's failure to reach an agreement
with the Saudi government caused the company's stock price to
decline, and that when the company announced lower-than-expected
income projections, this reflected a materialization of risks
unknown to investors that the company would not receive revenues
for MENA distribution rights as it had under the preexisting
agreement.  Id. [GN]


YA YA CREATIONS: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ya Ya Creations, Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Ya Ya Creations, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07273 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020).

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

Ya Ya Creations, Inc., is a consumer goods company based out of the
City Of Industry, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


[*] Class Action Plaintiffs Must Offer Affirmative Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward M. Spiro and Christopher B. Harwood, writing for Law.com,
report that the named plaintiffs in a putative class action must
offer affirmative evidence -- beyond just the allegations in their
complaint -- sufficient to satisfy each of the elements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Among other things, they must show that
there are questions of law or fact common to the class, and the
claims or defenses of the named plaintiffs are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class. To gather evidence to make these
showings, the named plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery of
the defendant, and they also are subject to discovery by the
defendant. Sometimes, however, a defendant seeks discovery not only
of the named plaintiffs, but also of other members of the putative
class -- i.e., individuals who fall within the class definition,
but who did not elect to join the lawsuit, may not even know about
the lawsuit, and may not even know that they may have been wronged
by the defendant. In such circumstances, courts must address the
extent to which such absent class members should be subjected to
discovery. [GN]



[*] Ontario Amends Class Proceedings Act to Up Bar on Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Law Times, reports that while he says the
Ontario government's recent amendments to the Class Proceedings Act
are an attempt to raise the bar on class-action certification,
class-actions lawyer Michael Peerless says he will not alter the
types of files he pursues.

"It's a bit of a sad time, I'd say, for access to justice," says
Peerless, who practises exclusively in class-actions at McKenzie
Lake Lawyers LLP, in London, Ont.

"My own view is that, despite the attempt here by the government to
limit access to justice, that many of the same cases will still be
certified. And one of the questions that I've been asked before is,
will this change my own practice in terms of how I pursue these
matters. And it won't."

Peerless expects the courts, while taking the new rules seriously,
will also proceed in the best interests of fairness, access to
justice and the intent of the Class Proceedings Act, which was to
"level the playing field" and allow individuals to pursue justice
against large, well-resourced institutions, corporations and
governments, he says.

"Judges are very used to trying to make things fair. And that's
what I think that they will do here."

The Ontario Government's amendments to the Class Proceedings Act
include implementation of predominance and superiority requirements
for certification. The changes were part of Bill 161, Smarter and
Stronger Justice Act.

Under a predominance requirement, to be certified, plaintiffs will
have to show that questions of fact or law common to the class
predominate over questions affecting individual class members. For
the superiority requirement, plaintiffs must show that a class
proceeding is superior to all other reasonably available options
for solving the dispute.

Predominance and superiority requirements are also present in U.S.
class actions law, in Federal Rule 23(b)(3) of that country's Rules
of Civil Procedure. By integrating the requirements into Ontario
law, the provincial government has chosen to import only those
elements of U.S. law that make pursuing class actions more
difficult for plaintiffs, while leaving out other factors, present
in the U.S. context, which provide balance, says Peerless.

For example, U.S. class actions law allows for partial
certification. The factor or factors of the matter that are shared
by the entire class will proceed as a class action, while rest are
thrown back for individuals to pursue on their own, says Peerless.
The shared element would be a requirement for every individuals
case, but would not necessarily need to predominate, he says.

The U.S. also has a discovery process. Prior to certification,
defendants are required to submit information that assist
plaintiffs frame their case for the court in the most effective
manner, says Peerless.

"We don't get any information from the from the defendant, we just
get information we can develop on our own, which makes it much more
complicated thing to do," he says.

Attorney General of Ontario Doug Downey told Law Times that his
government did not find a consensus among the class-action bar on
what changes were necessary.

"So we made a decision to make sure that we were protecting the
interests of individuals and making sure that when something is
certified that it is meaningful," Downey says. "And under the
reforms that were in Bill 161, The smarter, Stronger Justice Act,
we put in some other tools, in terms of oversight and reporting, to
make sure that there are transparency and accountability through
that system as well." [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 ***