/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200921.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 189

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Delays Market Entry of Generic Bystolic, Cook Alleges
ABBVIE INC: Fraternal Order Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Drug
ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Market for Nebivolol HCl, Maffei Claims
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Closed

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
AETNA INC: Plan Participants Hit Share Drop from Merger Deal
AIR METHODS: Cowen, et al. File Motion for Class Certification
AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Can Compel Arbitration in Hidalgo Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Faulty Lithium-Ion Batteries, Crosby Claims

AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Gude Suit Over Unlawful Subrogation Claims
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Security Officers Seek OT Pay, Reimbursements
AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Webb-Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANALOG DEVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hong Suit Alleges
APEX SYSTEMS: McDaniel Seeks Pay for Missed Breaks, Rest Periods

APTDECO INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
ASSET MARKETING: Sosa Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
ATM RESPONSE: Faces Culver FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AU CAPITAL: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York

B CHIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Unused Vacation Pay, Carroll Claims
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Data, Estes Suit Alleges
BLACKBAUD: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
BLINK CHARGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 23 Deadline

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Data Incident Suit
BRUNEL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Townley Suit Alleges
C.R. BARD: Master Complaint Filed in Defective IVC Filters Suit
C2 FINANCIAL: Franco Balks at Unlawful Credit Report Inquiries
CAMERON MUTUAL: Scott Craven DDS Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri

CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
CAROLINA HERRERA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Brooks Says
CELINE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
COAST ALUMINUM: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
CONCORDE CAREER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Davis Suit Claims

CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Peebles Sues Over Missing Paystubs, Unpaid Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks KCFA's Subpoena Compliance in Corker Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Behboudi Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
CWI INC: Milligan Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
DOLGEN MIDWEST: Wadding Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages

ENVESTNET: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
EXAGEN INC: Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
FANATICS INC: Fails to Timely Notify Staff on Layoff, Calero Says
FOGO DE CHAO: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Garcia-Alvarez FLSA Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Ventrice-Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes

GOOGLE LLC: Apps Record Audio Data Without Consent, Brekhus Says
GOOGLE LLC: Sued by Carr for Monopolizing Mobile App Downloads
GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Nieman Says
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Joyce Suit
GUADAMUZ CONCRETE: Matus Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

H&R ACCOUNTS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Garcia-Martinez Claims
HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Shortchanges Vehicle Reimbursements, Neal says
HCC SPECIALTY: Escape Room Operators Slam Denied Insurance
HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action
HOSPITALITY BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ewald Says

HY-LOND HOME: Estrada Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
INDEGENE INC: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Adjourned to Oct. 15
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Pollack Balks at Proposed $900MM NexPoint Sale
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over NexPoint Merger Deal

JMI REPORTS: Misclassifies Field Inspectors, Snow Suit Alleges
KENOSHA, WI: Akindes Challenges Arrest of Peaceful Protesters
KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit
KLX ENERGY: Quintana Energy Services Merger-Related Suits Nixed
KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Sues Over Mislabeled Maxwell House Coffee

LAFISE CORP: Guevara Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
LEGACY TRANSIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, McCurry Claims
LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes
LUCKY STORES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Beasley Suit

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
MCM PRODUCTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
MDO2 FITNESS: McKee Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline

MH SUB I: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Rattler Suit Denied
MONEY STORE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Claims Dismissal in Piatt Suit
MS PIMA: Lozada Sues Over Wrongful Termination & Disability Bias
NCAA: Aldrich Suit Moved From N.D. California to S.D. Indiana
NEW HILL TOP: Han Suit Challenges Unlawful Employment Policies

NEW MEXICO: Class Action Calls for Coronavirus Safety in Prisons
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Felix in Gulino Bias Suit
NEWTON CITY, MA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Carresi Says
NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending

NY TEX CARE: Use of Proposed FLSA Notice in Francisco Modified
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP: Decof Files Suit in California
ON DECK: D&Os Faces Doaty Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Enova
OREGON MUTUAL: Thai Restos Slam Denied Insurance Claims
PERFORMING ARTS: Marroquin Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation

PRECISION DIRECTIONAL: Ferron Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages
PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Sanofi Sale Filings Lack Info, Hawkins Says
PRODUCTION RESOURCE: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 27 Deadline
PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline

PSCU INC: Gibbons Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay for Call-Center Workers
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Sharpe Suit
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Manta Files Class Action in Massachusetts
RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins EFTA Suit Removed to District of Nevada
S.R. INTERIORS: Fails to Pay Brick Layers' OT Wages, Delgado Says

SALT SPRINGS: Dismissal of Williams Suit Under FCCPA Reversed
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Romero Suit Has Prelim Approval
SERCO INC: Removes Bernal Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline

SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Complaint Amended in Securities Litigation
TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
TELIGENT INC: Generic Drug Price-Fixing Suit in Canada Ongoing
TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing
THS GROUP: Faces Campo Class Suit Arising From Unsolicited Calls

TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
U.S. BANK: Yousefi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
UBER: New Contracts Won't Allow Drivers to Join Class Action
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: May Directly Mail Notice to Hilaire Class
UNITED STATES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Worker, Maloney Says

UNITED STATES: Harrington Sues USPS Over Merging of Post Offices
VYSTAR CORP: LaChapelle Class Suit vs. Rotmans Furniture Ongoing
WAITERCOM INC: Moreno Sues in California Over Untimely Wages
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Whitaker Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Calif.

XEROX BUSINESS: Must Face Call Center Workers' Class Action
YAYYO INC: Vanbecelaere Securities Suit Moved to C.D. California
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Securities Action in New Jersey Dismissed

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Delays Market Entry of Generic Bystolic, Cook Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NINA M. COOK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES
HOLDINGS, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD.; and FOREST
LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07352 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9,
2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for conspiracy,
monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, unfair
methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts in violation
of state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants knowingly and
intentionally conspired to monopolize the Bystolic and AB-rated
bioequivalent nebivolol hydrochloride (HCl) products market in the
United States. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
accomplished this scheme by, among other things, (1) engaging into
a series of unlawful reverse-payment agreements with potential
generic competitors by sharing monopoly profits with them to induce
them to delay the entry of generic Bystolic until September 2021 in
order to lengthen the period in which the Defendants' brand
Bystolic could monopolize the market and make supracompetitive
profits; and (2) raising and maintaining prices so that the
Plaintiff and Class members would pay for Bystolic at
supracompetitive prices.

As a result of the Defendants' monopolistic scheme and concerted
monopolistic conduct, they unlawfully maintained, enhanced, and
extended its monopoly power and the Plaintiff and Class members
were harmed and suffered overcharge damages as they would have been
able to purchase less expensive generic Bystolic instead of branded
Bystolic at artificially inflated prices, the Plaintiff asserts.

AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its
corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago,
Illinois.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a
global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care,
neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast
enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.  Allergan Sales,
LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that provides eye care, medical
aesthetics and dermatology, gastroenterology, women's health,
urology, and anti-infective therapeutic diseases related products,
headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Allergan USA, Inc., is a
pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medicines for
overactive bladders, urinary tract infections, and menopause
symptoms, well as urinary analgesic-antiseptic products, with its
principal place of business located in Madison, New Jersey.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located at 909 Third Avenue, in New
York City. Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical
company with principal place of business located in Hamilton,
Bermuda. Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical
company with a place of business at Clonshaugh Industrial Estate,
in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a pharmaceutical
company with its principal place of business located in Parsippany,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
         Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
         Jacob Onile-Ere, Esq.
         MOTLEY RICE LLC
         777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 577-0040
         Facsimile: (212) 577-0044
         E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                 mclerkin@motleyrice.com
                 jonileere@motleyrice.com

                - and –

         John Alden Meade, Esq.
         MEADE YOUNG LLC
         909 Poydras St., Suite 1600
         New Orleans, LA 70112
         Telephone: (504) 799-3102
         Facsimile: (504) 717-2846
         E-mail: jam@meadeyoung.com


ABBVIE INC: Fraternal Order Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE, INC.,
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST
LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, FOREST LABORATORIES
HOLDINGS, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-07304 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), alleges that Defendants
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the branded drug
Bystolic.

Bystolic, the brand name for nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol
HCl, is a "beta blocker" used for the treatment of high blood
pressure.

According to the complaint, Forest engineered a series of unlawful
reverse-payment deals pursuant to which each of the generic
competitors agreed not to compete with Forest or enter the market
prior to September 17, 2021, unless another generic competitor
entered the market earlier. These generic competitors include
Hetero Labs Ltd. and Hetero USA Inc.; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
and Torrent Pharma Inc.; Alkem Laboratories Ltd.; Indchemie Health
Specialties Private Ltd.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark
Generics Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Amerigen
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Watson
Pharma, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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

Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance
Trust Fund is a governmental plan established and funded through
contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who
are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami
Police Department and their dependents.

Abbvie Inc., Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA,
Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings,
Ltd., and Forest Laboratories, LLC are pharmaceutical companies in
the U.S. Forest Laboratories Ireland, Ltd. is a Dublin,
Ireland-based pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          52 Duane Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Market for Nebivolol HCl, Maffei Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA MAFFEI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES
HOLDINGS, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD.; and FOREST
LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8,
2020), asserts claims for conspiracy, monopolization and
monopolistic scheme, unfair methods of competition and unfair and
deceptive acts, in violation of state consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated entities or individuals, alleges that the Defendants
knowingly and intentionally conspired to monopolize the Bystolic
and AB-rated bioequivalent nebivolol hydrochloride (HCl) products
market. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants accomplished
this scheme by, among other things, (1) entering into a series of
unlawful reverse-payment agreements with potential generic
competitors to delay the entry of generic Bystolic in the United
States until September 17, 2021, and to lengthen the period in
which the Defendants' brand Bystolic could monopolize the market
and make supracompetitive profits; and (2) raising and maintaining
prices so that the Plaintiff and Class members would pay for
Bystolic at supracompetitive prices.

As a result of the Defendants' monopolistic scheme and concerted
monopolistic conduct, they unlawfully maintained, enhanced, and
extended its monopoly power and the Plaintiff and Class members
were harmed and suffered overcharge damages as they would have been
able to purchase less expensive generic Bystolic instead of branded
Bystolic at artificially inflated prices, according to the
complaint.

AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its
corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago,
Illinois.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a
global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care,
neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast
enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Based in Madison,
New Jersey, Allergan Sales, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that
provides eye care, medical aesthetics and dermatology,
gastroenterology, women's health, urology, and anti-infective
therapeutic diseases related products.

Allergan USA, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract
infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary
analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business
located in Madison, New Jersey.

Forest Laboratories, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located in New York City. Forest
Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company with
principal place of business located in Hamilton, Bermuda. Forest
Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a place
of business in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a
pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located
at in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
         Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
         E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                 elechtzin@edelson-law.com

                - and –

         Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
         GRABAR LAW OFFICE
         1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 507-6085
         Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
         E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that court entered an order of dismissal
without prejudice on the putative class action suit initiated by
Robby Brown,.

On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Western District of Missouri.

The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any
part of a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs sought compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble,
and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to
proceed. On October 29, 2019, defendants filed an answer to the
complaint.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 11, 2020. The
court entered an Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice on May 13,
2020.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Putative Class Suit Closed
-------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit
initiated by Magana has been closed by the court.

On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive
statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University
degree.

Plaintiffs asserted claims under the California Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of
material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 11, 2020.

The court closed the case on May 13, 2020.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Robinson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit
initiated by  T'Lani Robinson has been dismissed.

On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of
a DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs sought compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble,
and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019.
On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court
dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment
without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs' to file an amended
class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order. The court
allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief to
proceed.

On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to
the amended class action complaint.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action on May 12, 2020. The
court dismissed the case on May 13, 2020.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


AETNA INC: Plan Participants Hit Share Drop from Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Marion and Raymond Radcliffe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 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,  Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01274 (D.
Conn., August 28, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages,
monetary and appropriate equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are participants in Aetna 401(k) Plan, which on November
28, 2018 was converted into the CVS 401(k) Plan after Aetna and CVS
signed a merger agreement on December 3, 2018. Aetna Stock Plan
401K participant's Aetna stock units were exchanged into CVS stock
units upon closing of the merger.

Plaintiffs allege that CVS stock price became inflated after its
acquisition of Omnicare in 2015, touting the potential boost to its
earning from the Omnicare operations since that acquisition.
However, the Omnicare acquisition did not contribute to CVS in
anywhere near the predicted levels of accretive earnings causing
CVS stock price to drop more than 20%.

In late February 2019, CVS announced a multi-billion-dollar
impairment charge to its Omnicare-related goodwill, citing
"operational challenges" as a basis. The price of CVS share value
had declined over 13% relative to healthcare-related funds causing
substantial loss and damage to Plan assets and participants
accounts' who had/were invested in Aetna stock units.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Oren Faircloth, Esq.
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     Email: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
            ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com


AIR METHODS: Cowen, et al. File Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY SCARLETT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-02723-RBJ (D. Colo), the Plaintiffs Cowen, Kranhold, Hughes
O'Neal, and Armato ask the Court for an order certifying a class
consisting of:

   "all persons who have been charged or to whom charges have
    been submitted by Defendants for air medical transportation
    by the Defendants from a location in (a) Arizona, (b)
    Missouri, and/or (c) Alabama."

According to the complaint, the experiences of the Cowen Plaintiffs
were all part of the same uniform practice, and the Defendants have
admitted that the same forms and procedures and practices were
employed for "every patient" it transports. As such the evidence
regarding contract formation is common to all transported patient
and the contract at issue is the same.

The Defendants allege that all transported patients are obligated
to pay "whatever" the Defendants charge for air ambulance
transportation, which charges are not constrained by
reasonableness. In fact, the reasonableness of the Defendants rates
cannot be litigated because the reasonableness of its rates is
subject to federal preemption under the FAA, 49 U.S.C. section
41713 (ADA). The Defendants have no legal entitlement to payment as
the common law remedies for payment in the absence of contract are
unavailing by virtue of the broad sweep of ADA preemption.

Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to 70,000-100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48
states and Haiti. Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC provides air medical
transportation services utilizing a fleet of helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft.

A copy of the Cowen Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c0QBCQ at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cowen and Armato, et al., are:

         Richard J. Burke, Esq.
         Jamie Weiss, Esq.
         Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
         QUANTUM LEGAL, LLC
         513 Central Ave., Suite 300
         Highland Park, IL 60035
         Telephone: (847) 433-4500
         Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
         E-mail: richard@qulegal.com
                jamie@qulegal.com
                zach@qulegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

         Jessica J. Smith
         Matthew J. Smith
         HOLLAND & HART LLP
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200
         Denver, CO 80202
         E-mail: JJSmith@hollandhart.com
                 MJSmith@hollandhart.com

              - and -

         David A. King, Esq.
         Amy D. Fitts, Esq.
         POLSINELLI PC
         900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         E-mail: dking@polsinelli.com
                 afitts@polsinelli.com

AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Can Compel Arbitration in Hidalgo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY HIDALGO, Plaintiff, v. AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION
OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10545 (JGK)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge John G. Koetl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's (i) motion to
compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to stay the action pending
arbitration.

Plaintiff Hidalgo brought claims for common law negligence,
negligence per se, and breach of implied contract, as well as for
statutory violations of the New York General Business Law, and the
Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  All the Plaintiff's
claims arise out of a data breach that allegedly resulted in
financial losses, identity theft, and other injuries to people,
like the Plaintiff, who had personal information, including credit
card and debit card information, stored with the Amateur Athletic
Union of the United States ("AAU").

The AAU is a non-profit, volunteer-based, multi-sport event
organization that promotes and develops amateur sports and physical
fitness programs for youths and adults.  Individuals may apply to
become members of the AAU as athletes or non-athletes; the latter
category includes coaches, administrators, managers, instructors,
and officials.  Individuals may apply for AAU membership by filling
out an online application at https://aausports.org.  The AAU online
membership application contains many questions that require the
applicant to answer.

Before submitting the application by clicking the green "Continue"
button in the bottom right corner, an applicant must, among other
things, check a box that appears to the immediate left of the words
"I understand and agree to all terms and conditions listed."  The
check box and the accompanying text appear at the bottom of a
yellow box in the application immediately below the bold heading
"Terms and Conditions - Digital Signature.

The blue text is a hyperlink that takes the applicant to a separate
"AAU Code Book" screen.  The resulting page that a user is taken to
displays the table of contents of the AAU Code Book.  On the table
of contents page, is a button to the complete PDF version of the
AAU Code Book.  The AAU Code Book screen also contains hyperlinks
to each chapter contained within the AAU Code Book, one of which is
titled "Policies."  In the "Policies" section of the table of
contents, the first subheading is labeled "Membership Policy" and a
sub-subheading below the "Membership Policy" subheading is labeled
"Binding Arbitration."  Upon clicking on the hyperlink labeled "AAU
National Policies of the AAU," which contains the "Binding
Arbitration" provision, which appears in bold text and in capital
letters.

On May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for membership with the AAU
by filling out an application on the Website.  He used his debit
card to pay the $32 fee for a coach's certificate at the time he
submitted his application.  He applied for membership by accessing
the Website on the Safari web browser application on his iPhone.
When the Plaintiff applied for membership he necessarily checked
the box in the "terms and conditions."  His membership was accepted
by the AAU on May 29, 2019, roughly two weeks after he applied, and
the Plaintiff thereafter became eligible to participate in the
AAU's youth program as a coach or other kind of volunteer.

Private information, including credit and debit card information,
of individuals who conducted transactions on the Website between
Oct. 1, 2018 and July 2, 2019, including that information from the
Plaintiff, was subject to a data breach that the AAU publicly
disclosed in September 2019.  The Plaintiff generally alleged in
the Complaint that the AAU failed to take reasonable steps to
employ adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive
payment Personal Information and that in the aftermath of the
breach, AAU's actions in remedying the injuries of victims of the
breach were inadequate.

On Nov. 13, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the case as a class action
on behalf of all residents of the United States whose Personal
Information was compromised as a result of the data breach first
disclosed by AAU in September 2019.  He brought claims for
common-law negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Rhode Island
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the New York
General Business Law.

The Defendant moved pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, to
compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims and stay the case
pending arbitration.  The first question is whether the Plaintiff
and the Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to
arbitrate.  With respect to this question, the parties dispute only
whether the Plaintiff had "reasonable notice" of the arbitration
provision contained in the AAU Code Book sufficient for him to
manifest assent to the terms of the arbitration provision by virtue
of completing the AAU membership application and becoming a member
of the AAU.

Judge Koetl finds that the Plaintiff has failed to raise any issue
of triable fact as to whether he had "reasonable notice" that he
would be bound by the arbitration provision contained in the AAU
Code Book upon completing his application for membership in the
AAU.  There is therefore no dispute that he assented to the
arbitration provision when he checked the box on the AAU membership
application page indicating his agreement with all the terms and
conditions listed and then submitted the membership application.

The next question is whether the particular claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendant are within the scope of the
arbitration provision.  The Plaintiff argues principally that
because his payment information was stolen from AAU's website when
he applied for membership on May 16, 2019, 13 days before his AAU
membership began, the dispute between the parties in the case does
not arise out of or during the term of membership.

In light of the broad delegation to the arbitrator of issues of
arbitrability, the Plaintiff's argument that his claims are not
covered by the arbitration provision because the claims do not
arise out of or during the term of membership is an argument that
must be submitted to the arbitrator in the first instance.
Therefore, all of the Plaintiff's claims must be submitted to
arbitration as provided for in the arbitration provision contained
in the AAU Code Book.  It will be for the arbitrator to decide
whether any of the Plaintiff's claims are beyond the scope of the
arbitration agreement.

The Defendant requests that the Court stay the case pending
arbitration if it grants its motion to compel arbitration.  In the
case, all claims have been ordered to be submitted to arbitration,
therefore, the case is stayed pending the outcome of the
arbitration.

Juduge Koetl has considered all of the arguments of the parties.
To the extent not discussed, the arguments are either moot or
without merit.  The motion to compel arbitration is granted.  The
motion to stay the action pending the outcome of arbitration is
granted.  The parties should report back to the Court promptly at
the conclusion of the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mwGSsS from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Faulty Lithium-Ion Batteries, Crosby Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CROSBY and CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-08003 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Washington
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, allege that the Defendant is engaged in false
and deceptive advertising, marketing, and selling of defective
lithium-ion 18650 batteries. The Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendant failed to disclose material information about the quality
and dangerous nature of lithium-ion batteries and products
containing them, including their energy capacity, the absence of
protective circuits and voltage cutoffs, and the risks associated
with their use.

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiffs say they and Class members have been, and continue
to be, exposed to false information regarding the quality and
dangerous nature of lithium-ion 18650 batteries.

Amazon.com Inc. is a multinational technology company that focuses
on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence, with its principal place of business at 410 Terry
Avenue, in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       

         Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
         Eric J. Buescher, Esq.
         Kelsey J. Moe, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                 ebuescher@cpmlegal.com
                 kmoe@cpmlegal.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Gude Suit Over Unlawful Subrogation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DORIS GUDE v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-01168-RLW (E.D. Mo., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated arising from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct of presenting "subrogation
claims" against another insurance company that issued policies to
third-party tortfeasor, without the consent of the Plaintiff
insured and despite Missouri law, which does not permit such
activity.

On July 1, 2019, the Plaintiff was involved in an automobile
accident with a third-party tortfeasor not named in this action. As
a result of the collision, the Plaintiff made a claim to the
Defendant for property damage. The Defendant paid only a portion of
her claim to and the amount that the she received was less than the
damages she was entitled to, the Plaintiff avers.

According to the complaint, after paying a portion of the property
damage covered by the Plaintiff's policy, the Defendant made a
"subrogation claim" directed to the tortfeasor's insurance company,
Geico Casualty Company, which Geico paid. The Defendant and Geico
privately negotiated and/or arbitrated the "subrogation claim" and
together came to an agreement regarding inter alia, who was at
fault, the amount of damages or loss involved, whether any
discounts should be applied, and other matters affecting the rights
of the Plaintiff, without the Plaintiff's knowledge and/or
consent.

As a result of the conduct, the Plaintiff was damaged when, because
of the Defendant's illegal "subrogation claims" directed at
third-party tortfeasors' insurance companies, the Plaintiff
recovered less than she otherwise would have recovered from third
party tortfeasors, or their insurance companies, due to the third
party insurance companies having already paid over monies to the
Defendant without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, according
to the complaint. The Defendant has been unjustly enriched to the
extent that the Defendant withheld payments it received from Geico,
as reimbursement for payments it made to the Plaintiff pursuant to
the Defendant's "subrogation claim" when in fact, the amount
received by the Plaintiff from or on behalf of the thirdparty
tortfeasors did not exceed the Plaintiff's "uninsured losses."

American Family Insurance Company is a Wisconsin-based foreign
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          Anthony R. Friedman, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  afriedman@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Stokes, Esq.
          Gonzalo A. Fernandez, Esq.
          DEVEREAUX, STOKES, NOLAN, FERNANDEZ & LEONARD
          133 S. 11th Street, Suite 350
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-3743
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5705
          E-mail: lori@stltriallawyers.com
                  gonz@stltriallawyers.com


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Security Officers Seek OT Pay, Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryson McCaskill and Carlitos McTizic, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Public
Defense Inc., Lewis Brown, Valencia Brown, Ernest Jackson and Juan
Batalla, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05097 (N.D. Ill., August 28,
2020), seeks overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty in
a workweek, wages and final compensation for hours worked,
including, hours logged but not paid, required travel time, wait
time and meetings, reimbursement for necessary expenditures or
losses required in the discharge of their employment duties and for
unauthorized deductions from wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment
Collection Act.

McCaskill and McTizic worked as a security officers for American
Public Defense. They claim that they were deducted for uniforms,
fines, infractions and rule violations without obtaining their
written consent. They also claim to be not compensated for all of
the hours that they worked during their shifts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antonio DeBlasio, Esq.
      David M. Gower, Esq.
      DEBLASIO & GOWER LLC
      2001 Midwest Road, Suite 100
      Oak Brook, IL 60523
      Tel: (630) 560-1123
      Fax: (630) 364-4206
      Email: deblasio@DGLLC.net
             gower@DGLLC.net


AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Webb-Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARA L. WEBB-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-04361 (E.D. Penn., Sept. 4, 2020), challenges the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as Grievance Coordinator
from August 2017 until her separation from employment on January 7,
2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that she regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week. However, the Defendant did not properly compensate her at
one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Allegedly, the Defendant
denied her of overtime compensation due to the Defendant's policy
and practice of misclassifying its Grievance Coordinators as
employees exempt from overtime compensation.

Amerihealth Caritas Services, LLC, provides health care
solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: 267-273-1054
          Fax: 215-525-0210
          Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


ANALOG DEVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hong Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ANALOG DEVICES, INC.; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV369017 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 7, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation, to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to
provide accurate wage statements, and to reimburse necessary
business expenses.

Plaintiff Hong was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Analog Devices, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets integrated
circuits used in analog and digital signal processing. The
Company's products are used in communications, computer,
industrial, instrumentation, military, aerospace, automotive, and
high-performance consumer electronics applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Philip Song, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


APEX SYSTEMS: McDaniel Seeks Pay for Missed Breaks, Rest Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivey McDaniel and Jay Perry, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Apex Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06073, (N.D. Cal.,
August 28, 2020), seeks monetary damages and restitution,
penalties/premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution
and restoration of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, payment of final wages
upon termination, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under California labor
code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

Apex operates a consulting business and directly employ workers on
a contractual basis. McDaniel and Perry worked for Apex as
hourly-paid employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Areen Babajanian, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259

             - and -

      Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
      STEPHANIE E. YASUDA, Esq.
      Rian G. Lee, Esq.
      YOON LAW, APC
      One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      Email: blee@yoonlaw.com


APTDECO INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVELINA CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APTDECO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06497-MKV (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.aptdeco.com/, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

AptDeco, Inc., is a peer to peer marketplace for buying and selling
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSET MARKETING: Sosa Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Marketing Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Marketing Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07129 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).

Asset Marketing Services, LLC operates as a private distributor of
precious metal coins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.; ASTRAZENECA
UK LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01096, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware on September 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01201-UNA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing and foreclosing
competition in the market for Seroquel XR, quetiapine fumarate
extended-release tablets, in the United States.

KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., is an
operator of retail and online pharmacies, with headquarters in
Gouverneur, New York.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a pharmaceutical company, with a
principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, in Wilmington,
Delaware. AstraZeneca LP is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike, in Wilmington,
Delaware. AstraZeneca UK Limited is a pharmaceutical firm, with its
principal place of business at 15 Stanhope Gate, in London, United
Kingdom.

Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with a
principal place of business at 1732 N. 1st Street, Suite 200, in
San Jose, California. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge
Road, in Chestnut Ridge, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
         Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
         Karen S. Halbert, Esq.
         Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
         Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
         William R. Olson, Esq.
         ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
         20 Rahling Circle
         Little Rock, AR 72223
         Telephone: (501) 821-5575
         Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
         E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
                 karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
                 stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
                 sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
                 williamolson@robertslawfirm.us

                - and –

         Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
         NASTLAW LLC
         1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Telephone: (215) 923-9300
         Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
         E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


ATM RESPONSE: Faces Culver FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CULVER, THOMAS HEAPE, ROY THOMAS EIDSON, ANASTASIA COX,
CORDELIA GOBER, and JOSHUA LAWSON, individually and on behalf of
all similarly-situated persons v. ATM RESPONSE, INC., and CLAYTON
BRASWELL, Case No. 1:20-cv-03551-TWT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act relating to the misclassification of all current or
former non-exempt employees as independent contractors and
depriving them of overtime wages.

According to the complaint, in violation of the FLSA and as a
regular and routine practice, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and similarly-situated persons overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, during the
relevant time period, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated as independent contractors and paid
them straight time for all on-the-clock hours worked, including all
recorded time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Culver from approximately 2005 to
August 2020 as route manager; Plaintiff Heape from approximately
August 1, 2016, to August 7, 2020, as assistant vault manager;
Plaintiff Eidson as an ATM service technician from May 2017 to
March 5, 2020; Plaintiff Cox as an ATM service technician from
December 2018 to February 2020; Plaintiff Gober as an ATM Service
Technician from August 2019 to August 21, 2020; and Plaintiff
Lawson from approximately 2010 to December 28, 2019, as field
training officer and supervisor.

Based in Duluth, Georgia, ATM Response Inc. is in the business of
servicing and maintaining automatic teller machines, as well as
providing other cash services to clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Michael David Forrest, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com


AU CAPITAL: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
AU Capital Management, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AU Capital Management, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07126 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).

AU Capital Management is engaged in the business of buying and
selling rare coins and precious metals. .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B CHIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. B CHIC FASHIONS INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01711-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.,
Aug. 26, 2020), seeks to secure redress against the Defendants for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Web
site to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Because the Company's Web site, https://www.bchicfashions.com/, is
not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the Defendants violate the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that their Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
B Chic Fashions Inc. is a Belmont, California-headquartered
company, which provides to the public important goods and services.
The Company's Web site provides consumers with access to a
collection of women's specialty dresses including bridesmaid
dresses, evening/long dresses, prom dresses, cocktail dresses,
shoes and other products and services, which are available online
and in store for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Unused Vacation Pay, Carroll Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-07133 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 7,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay unused vacation
pay, and to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Carroll was employed by the Defendants as staff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91301
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Data, Estes Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAMIE ESTES and SHAWN REGAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08275 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), is brought for negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract,
and violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California
Consumer Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated clients of Blackbaud, allege that the Defendant failed to
protect their sensitive personal information following the
ransomware attack and data breach of several schools, healthcare,
non-profit companies, and other organizations, whose data and
servers were managed, maintained, and secured by Blackbaud, in May
2020. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant failed to
provide timely and adequate notice to them and other Class Members
that their information had been subjected to the unauthorized
access of an unknown third-party, failed to identify all
information that was accessed, and also failed to provide them with
any redress for the data breach.

As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft.

Blackbaud, Inc., provides cybersecurity services with its principal
place of business located in Charleston County, South
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          

         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
         E-mail: astraus@whitfieldbryson.com

                - and –

         Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
         Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
         Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com
                 harper@whitfieldbryson.com
                 matt@whitfieldbryson.com


BLACKBAUD: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
---------------------------------------------------------
Mathew J. Schwartz, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that
filing a class action lawsuit against a business that has suffered
a data breach is a common occurrence.

Increasingly, however, ransomware is becoming part of the mix,
owing to gangs first exfiltrating data and then threatening to leak
it if victims don't pay a ransom.

Ransomware adds a further wrinkle to the data breach discussion and
potential legal ramifications for breached organizations: A growing
number of organizations hit by ransomware have said that they were
able to wipe and restore systems from backups, but they paid a
ransom to their attackers anyway in return for a promise that they
would delete all of the stolen data and not provide or sell it to
anyone else first.

Can thieves be trusted to honor such promises? That's one question
posed by a lawsuit seeking class action status filed against South
Carolina-based Blackbaud. The publicly traded firm, which provides
cloud-based marketing, fundraising and customer relationship
management software used by thousands of charities, universities,
healthcare organizations and others, suffered a data exfiltration
and ransomware attack in May.

Questions persist about the Blackbaud breach because the company
detected the intrusion in May but only notified customers beginning
in July. The list of victims includes organizations in Europe,
meaning Blackbaud must comply with the EU's General Data Protection
Regulation, which requires that regulators be informed within 72
hours of any breach about the details of what happened and what was
stolen. Blackbaud has yet to respond to Information Security Media
Group's request to clarify when it first notified European
regulators (see: Blackbaud's Bizarre Ransomware Attack
Notification).

'We Paid the Cybercriminal's Demand'
In its breach notification, Blackbaud notes that it paid a ransom
to secure a promise from attackers that they would delete all
stolen data.

"Prior to our locking the cybercriminal out, the cybercriminal
removed a copy of a subset of data from our self-hosted
environment," Blackbaud states in its breach notification. "The
cybercriminal did not access credit card information, bank account
information or Social Security numbers. Because protecting our
customers' data is our top priority, we paid the cybercriminal's
demand with confirmation that the copy they removed had been
destroyed."

Following the breach notification, Blackbaud was hit on Aug. 12 by
a lawsuit seeking class action status, filed by Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP on behalf of U.S. resident William Allen, whose "private
information was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the
data breach."

The lawsuit seeks, in part, seven years of prepaid identity theft
monitoring for victims. It alleges that the company's security
defenses were inadequate and that attackers may have compromised
massive quantities of PII, including Social Security, credit card
and bank account numbers.

One of the firm's attorneys, Matthew Lee, tells ABC affiliate WFTS
in Florida that tens of thousands of individuals could have had
their PII compromised and may thus be at life-long risk of identity
theft.

The lawsuit also calls out the company's mention of paying
attackers as a way to try and safeguard victims. "To believe
basically a criminal who's hacked into your system that they have
stood by their word and deleted the information, I don't think that
cuts it," Lee told WFTS.

Most Data Breach Lawsuits (Still) Fail
Many data breaches trigger lawsuits alleging that the breached
organization had poor security controls and that victims are due
compensation. But at least in the U.S., very few of these lawsuits
succeed. Legal experts say that's because many courts have held
that victims must suffer harm, and such harm can only be
demonstrated by financial loss (see: Why So Many Data Breach
Lawsuits Fail).

"In pure privacy violations, courts have been reluctant to find
compensable harm to data breach victims as the result of mere
exposure of certain types of personal information, because the
victim can't show any actual harm as a result, as opposed to
theoretical harm -- fear that at some point in the future, I might
have my identity stolen," says attorney Mark Rasch, who's of
counsel to the law firm of Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz, who is not
involved in the case.

"If you look at the history of data breaches, the early breaches
were of credit card information, and the harm was that someone
would steal money from the account and you'd be liable for it," he
tells Information Security Media Group.

States' data breach notification laws are designed to ensure
affected consumers are notified so they can take steps to safeguard
their PII.

But banks or credit card companies are now often the first ones to
spot a breach -- because they see a series of unusual charges
across cards -- after which they'll cancel cards and issue new
ones. Card issuers will typically reimburse any fraud that results.
"So the mitigation has already happened before the breach
notification," Rasch says.

Many breached organizations will also offer at least a year of
prepaid identity theft monitoring services, if credit card, Social
Security numbers or other data that might be used for identity
theft purposes was exposed.

That doesn't stop numerous lawsuits from alleging privacy
violations. But in the U.S., harm requires showing a financial
loss, and privacy has no dollar value.

"The fact that we don't assign a dollar value to privacy [means] we
don't value privacy," Rasch says.

Blackbaud Focused on Mitigation
What about the lawsuit's strategy of attempting to blame Blackbaud
for paying a ransom to attackers to try to safeguard stolen data?
Rasch says that action might actually work in Blackbaud's favor
because it shows the company took deliberate steps to try to manage
the incident and mitigate its impact, rather than something
nefarious, like trying to cover it up.

"They didn't . . . pay the hackers for their silence; they paid the
hackers to delete and wipe and validate the deletion and wiping of
the data -- and that's not necessarily an unreasonable thing to
do," Rasch says. "I don't know how much you can believe them or
credit them, but even so, you know you're not paying for silence;
you're paying for mitigation." [GN]


BLINK CHARGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Blink Charging Co. (NASDAQ: BLNK)
between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Blink investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Blink class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1931.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected,
non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (2) Blink's
purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were
overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company's network has
been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1931.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

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


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Data Incident Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative
class action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR.

In fiscal 2018, the company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that may have
resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment
card data. Based on investigation by the company's third-party
forensic experts, the company believe most Company-owned Chili's
restaurants were impacted by the malware during time frames that
vary by restaurant, but the company believes in each case began no
earlier than March 21, 2018 and ended no later than April 22,
2018.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No.
18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR  relating to the cyber security incident
described above.

In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from
the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. On January 4, 2019, we
filed a Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims asserting that
plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the lawsuit and that
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.

On August 1, 2019, the court granted the company's Motion to
Dismiss for lack of standing as to two plaintiffs and denied the
motion as to the remaining plaintiffs. On January 28, 2020, the
court granted in part and denied in part the remaining portion of
the company's Motion to Dismiss.

On March 5, 2020, the court granted the company's Motion for
Protection in its entirety.

On April 15, 2020 the court entered a first phase scheduling order
establishing August 31, 2020 as Plaintiffs' deadline to file their
motion for class certification and November 19, 2020 as the date
for hearing Plaintiffs' motion. The parties selected a mediator and
the discovery process has resumed.

Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue
defending the Litigation. As such, as of June 24, 2020, we have
concluded that a loss, or range of loss, from this matter is not
determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related
to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based
on new information as it becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


BRUNEL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Townley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TOWNLEY, individually and for others similarly situated v.
BRUNEL ENERGY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03115 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 4,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failing to pay overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Instrument
Commissioning Supervisor from March 2018 until May 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid the Defendant overtime
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek
despite routinely working 50-60 or more hours a week. Instead, the
Defendant paid him the same hourly rate for all hours worked.

Brunel Energy, Inc., provides staffing solutions to projects
ranging from energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, and mining
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


C.R. BARD: Master Complaint Filed in Defective IVC Filters Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case styled IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC, filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona a master complaint
against Defendants C.R. BARD, INC. and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR,
INC., on September 1, 2020.

The lawsuit is brought for strict products liability, negligence,
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, loss
of consortium, wrongful death, and violations of state consumer
fraud and unfair deceptive trade practices in the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
manufacturing and selling of defective Bard Inferior Vena Cava
(IVC) Filters. The Defendants failed to apply design changes to
improve the safety of the Bard IVC Filters despite being aware of
the product's design and manufacturing defects. Results from
adverse event reports (AERs) also showed that the Bard IVC Filters
are more prone to failure than other similar IVC filters for
fracture, perforation, migration, and death.

As a result of the Defendants' negligence and omissions, the
Plaintiffs say they and all other individuals implanted with the
Bard IVC Filters have suffered permanent and continuous injuries
and damages.

C.R. Bard, Inc., is a medical device manufacturer with its
principal place of business in New Jersey. Bard Peripheral
Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of
Defendant C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at 1625
West Third Street, in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       

         Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
         LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
         100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 812-5771
         E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

                - and –

         Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
         GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
         2575 East Camelback Road
         Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
         Telephone: (602) 530-8000
         E-mail: rwb@gknet.com


C2 FINANCIAL: Franco Balks at Unlawful Credit Report Inquiries
--------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY FRANCO, OCTAVIO DAVILA, ABRA DAVILA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. C2 FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation, PARTNERS CREDIT AND
VERIFICATION SOLUTIONS LLC., an Illinois LLC., and DOES 1 through
100, Inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01754-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 8,
2020), arises from the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful credit
inquiries in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs refinanced their home loans with Defendant C2, on
multiple occasions. At the time they refinanced, the Plaintiffs
assert that they did not authorize the Defendants to run any
subsequent credit inquiries after each refinance period.

According to the complaint, C2 engaged--without prior
authorization--in an unauthorized credit report inquiries, through
Defendant PCVS, to all three major credit bureaus, which included
Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. The Defendants violated FCRA by
using the Plaintiffs' consumer reports for impermissible uses that
fall outside the scope of the law. The Defendants' practices were
carried out in the manner that their actions were willful under the
provisions of FCRA because they were aware of the prohibitions on
pulling consumers' credit reports.

The Plaintiffs say they suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest when the Defendants accessed their highly confidential
personal information on their credit reports at a time when the
Defendants had no right to do so, which was an invasion of their
right to privacy.

C2 Financial Corporation is a California-based residential mortgage
broker. Partners Credit and Verification Solutions, LLC, is a
credit-related service provider based in California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Rosenberg, Esq.
          Chad F. Edwards, Esq.
          ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC
          A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL CORPORATION
          Bernardo Heights Corporate Center
          10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 232-1826
          Facsimile: (619) 232-1859

               - and -

          Malte Famaes, Esq.
          Christina Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (700) 942-9430
          Facsimile: (760) 452-4421
          E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com
                  clucio@farnaeslaw.com


CAMERON MUTUAL: Scott Craven DDS Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SCOTT CRAVEN DDS PC, and MET BUILDING LLC,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
Missouri Citizens v. CAMERON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
20CY-CV06381, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, Clay
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on September 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00715-NKL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
denying the Plaintiffs' coverage claims under the Business Income,
Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor provisions of
Cameron's insurance policy.

Cameron Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Cameron, Missouri.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                

         Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
         Robert M. Thompson, Esq.
         Cassandra R. Wait, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         One Kansas City Place
         1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Telephone: (816) 374-3200
         Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
         E-mail: rjhoffman@bclplaw.com
                 rmthompson@blcplaw.com
                 cassie.wait@bclplaw.com

                - and –

         Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         One Metropolitan Square
         211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Telephone: (314) 259-2000
         Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
         E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com


CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that a
proposed class action has been filed against the Canada Revenue
Agency (CRA), accusing both the agency and the federal government
of negligence and breach of privacy over the recent data breach
incidents that rocked the revenue service.

The lawsuit was filed August 24, 2020 in Federal Court in
Vancouver, CBC News reported. If given approval, the lawsuit will
seek financial compensation for all victims to cover damage to
credit ratings, costs for credit monitoring, and for mental
distress.

It is alleged in the lawsuit that several "failings" by the
government and the CRA allowed at least three cyberattacks to take
place -- they occurred from mid-March to mid-August. But news of
the attack was not publicly disclosed until CBC News broke the
story in August.

The lawsuit further alleges that due to the delay in detecting the
breaches, the number of victims whose data was compromised grew to
at least 14,500.

"The actions of the [CRA] are reprehensible," the claim stated.
"and showed a callous disregard for the rights of [victims]."

In addition, the lawsuit purported that the CRA's conduct was "a
deliberate . . . departure from ordinary standards of decent
behaviour, and as such merits punishment."

CRA announced that it was "a vulnerability in security software"
that led to the online breaches, and that it was not aware of the
first cyberattack until August 07.

CBC News reported that both the CRA and the federal government have
yet to file a response to the lawsuit. [GN]


CAROLINA HERRERA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Brooks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAROLINA HERRERA LTD., a Delaware limited company; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01724-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.,
Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is
accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at
https://www.carolinaherrera.com/us/en, denying her of full and
equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public on Company's website, and
its prior iterations.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Carolina Herrera Ltd. is a New York-headquartered company whose Web
site provides consumers with access to a collection of designer
ready to wear women's apparel including dresses, tops, shirts and
gowns; accessories, including scarfs and belts; makeup including
lipsticks, highlighter, powder and mattifiers; makeup accessories,
including tassels, lipstick caps, compact cases, charms, bangles,
powder brushes and lip brushes; body care including body cream, deo
sticks, deodorant and shower gel. The Web site also provides
consumers with access to a collection of fragrances for women and
men along with a bridal collection and other products and services,
which are available online and in store for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELINE INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CELINE INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01722-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., Aug. 27,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is
accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at
https://www.celine.com/en-us/home, denying her of full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public on Company's website, and its
prior iterations.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Celine Inc. is a Paris, France-headquartered company whose Web site
provides consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to
wear apparel for men and women. The Company's website also provides
consumers with a fragrance collection, which is available for
online and in store for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COAST ALUMINUM: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAHSAAN COLEMAN, as an individual, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v. COAST
ALUMINUM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RG20071694 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 26,
2020), challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment
practices that violate the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in California accurate,
itemized wage statements whenever overtime wages were paid.
Whenever overtime wages were paid, the pay rate shown on the wage
statements consistently identified the pay rate as the regular or
base hourly rate of pay, rather than an overtime rate.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in January 2019 as a
shear operator.

Coast Aluminum, Inc., is a California-based company, which
distributes steel and other primary metals and metal products.[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


CONCORDE CAREER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Davis Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. CONCORDE CAREER COLLEGES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02674 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 4, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time,
hourly-paid instructor.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or
more hours per week for the Defendant. However, the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff the applicable overtime compensation at
one and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., provides health care and dental
professional training at its various colleges in the U.S.,
including one in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


CONCOURSE VILLAGE: Peebles Sues Over Missing Paystubs, Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Peebles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Concourse Village, Inc. and Firstservice
Residential New York, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06940 (S.D.
N.Y., August 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate Concourse Village, a New York City housing
community located in Bronx, New York and contains over 1,800
apartment units where Peebles was employed in the maintenance
department. He claims that the time clocks were rounded down and
artificially reduced the amount of time worked, automatically
deducted time for meal breaks despite having worked through said
breaks and that he was denied appropriate pay rate acknowledgement
forms and weekly wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
      Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
      McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
      260 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
      Email: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
             bgallaway@mclaughlin.com
             jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Seeks KCFA's Subpoena Compliance in Corker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CORKER, et al. v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash., Aug.
27, 2020), the Defendants filed a motion to enforce and compel
compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum served on respondent Kona
Coffee Farmers Association.

The subpoena arises out of the said putative class action lawsuit
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington before Judge Robert Lasnik.

Despite the Defendants' efforts to compromise with the KCFA, it has
produced only 59 documents in response to the Subpoena, according
to the Motion. The KCFA has refused to search for, identify, or
produce documents falling within the following three categories of
documents: (1) any documents dated prior to 2015; (2) any documents
the KCFA believes are "already publicly available"; and (3) any
documents within the possession of its officers and directors.

Because each of these categories of documents is directly relevant
to the Defendants' laches defense, an order compelling the KCFA to
produce documents falling within these three categories is
appropriate, the Defendants tell the Court.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, doing business as Costco, is an
American multinational corporation, which operates a chain of
membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jaime Drozd Allen, Esq.
          Sarah Cox, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Robbins, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: jaimeallen@dwt.com
                  sarahcox@dwt.com
                  benrobbins@dwt.com

               - and -

          Kelly G. Laporte, Esq.
          Nathaniel Dang, Esq.
          CADES SCHUTTE, A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
          Bishop Street, 12th Floor
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 521-9200
          Facsimile: (808) 521-9210
          E-mail: klaporte@cades.com
                  ndang@cades.com


CVS PHARMACY: Behboudi Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AMIR BEHBOUDI, an individual, for himself and
all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. and DOES 1-50
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585042, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06333 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide meal and
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely
pay all wages earned in violation of California Labor Code and for
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., is a retail company that distributes
pharmaceutical products. CVS is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                

         Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
         Jessica Dent, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
                 Jessica.dent@morganlewis.com


CWI INC: Milligan Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KAYLA MILLIGAN, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CWI, INC. d/b/a CAMPINGWORLD and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2013999, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on September 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01847 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages
earned in violation of California Labor Code and for violation of
California Business & Professions Code.

CWI, Inc., d/b/a CampingWorld, is a company that offers sporting
equipment, bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories, with its
principal place of business in Bowling Green, Kentucky.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                      

         Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
         Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq.
         Laura E. Schneider, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 W. Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
         E-mail: Raragon@littler.com
                 Hnalbandyan@littler.com
                 Lschneider@littler.com


DOLGEN MIDWEST: Wadding Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE WADDING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DOLGEN MIDWEST, LLC and DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01996 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the
Plaintiff and other employees frequently work in excess of 40
without proper overtime wages.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution Article II Section 34a, the Ohio overtime compensation
statute, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as either a keyholder
or an assistant manager from March 2016 until May 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and other
similarly situated employees lawful overtime pay of not less than
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40. She adds that the Defendants intentionally
and willfully circumvented federal and state wage-and-hour laws by
designing their scheduling, timekeeping, and payroll policies and
practices in an attempt to reduce employees' paid hours.

Dollar General Corporation is one of the largest discount retailers
in the U.S. Dolgen Midwest, LLC, is a subsidiary of Dollar
General.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITLE & PERLMUTER LAW FIRM
          4106 Bridge Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: 216-308-1522
          Fax: 888-604-9299
          Email: scott@titlelawfirm.com

                - and –

          Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
          THE FUCHS FIRM LLC
          14717 South Woodland Road
          Shaker Heights, OH 44120
          Tel: 216-505-7500
          Email: josh@fuchsfirm.com


ENVESTNET: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet and its subsidiary finance data aggregator, Yodlee, were
sued in a class-action complaint in the Northern District of
California over their alleged failure to protect consumer data by
selling and sharing it via unencrypted files, which the plaintiff
claimed left her and the class vulnerable to fraud and identity
theft.

Yodlee's business "focuses on selling highly sensitive financial
data, such as bank balances and credit card transaction histories,
collected from individuals throughout the United States." The
plaintiff averred that Yodlee "surreptitiously collects such data
from software products that it markets and sells to some of the
largest financial institutions in the country," including Bank of
America, Merrill Lynch, and Citibank, as well as wealth management
firms and digital payment platforms like PayPal.

These financial companies use Yodlee's software to, for example,
connect their systems to each other. In return, Yodlee obtains
individuals' financial data when they interact with the financial
companies' systems; however, according to the plaintiff, "these
individuals often have no idea they are dealing with Yodlee," which
is allegedly "by design."

Reportedly, Yodlee seamlessly integrates with a financial company's
current website or mobile app "in a way that obscures who the
individual is dealing with and where their data is going." For
instance, when a person connects his bank account to PayPal, he
will be prompted to log in to connect, the login screen will
replicate what would be shown if the individual "directly logged
into (his) respective bank's website." The bank's logo is
"prominently displayed on each of the screens" an individual
interacts with and the consumer uses the same login credentials
used for their bank.

The plaintiff alleged that an individual is not "prompted to create
or use a Yodlee account." Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that
people are "not given accurate information about what Yodlee does
or how it collects their data." For example, plaintiff Deborah
Wesch stated that while PayPal notes that Yodlee is involved in
order to connect the bank accounts it does not give the full extent
of said involvement.

Additionally, the plaintiff proffered that Yodlee stores login
information for bank accounts and then "exploits this information
to routinely extract data from that user's accounts without their
consent." Wesch asserted that when she was connecting her bank
account to PayPal using Yodlee she did not receive adequate
disclosure in violation of several privacy laws.

Envestnet and Yodlee have been accused of "mishandling the data
they collected from individuals without authorization by
distributing it in unencrypted plain text files." The plaintiff
alleged that since Yodlee has failed to take steps to safeguard
this sensitive data, the plaintiff and the class are "at a
significant risk of fraud and identity theft." According to the
plaintiff, this threat is heightened by Yodlee's data reselling
practice because those accessing this sensitive data could be using
it "for nefarious purposes."

The plaintiff claimed that she and the class have suffered economic
damages, loss of control over valuable property, and increased risk
of identity theft and fraud. Wesch also asserted that she and the
class had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that Yodlee does
not have adequate safeguards for the data.

In sum, the claims of relief for the aforementioned conduct
include: common law invasion of privacy – intrusion upon
seclusion; violations of the Stored Communications Act, various
California Civil Code provisions, the California Unfair Competition
Law, California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act,
California's Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff has sought to certify the class and appoint
themselves as class representative; declaratory, injunctive, and
equitable relief; and an award for damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Robins Kaplan LLP and Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C. [GN]


EXAGEN INC: Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
MT. LOOKOUT CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. EXAGEN INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01757-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited advertisements
by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to the Plaintiff and
the Class in violation of the TCPA, including the facsimile
transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on July 3, 2018. The
Fax promotes the availability and quality of the Defendant's
property, goods, or services by advising the recipients that its
laboratory continues to remain fully operational and confirming the
various services it offers. The Defendant faxed the same and other
unsolicited facsimiles without the required opt-out language to the
Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients. The Plaintiff insists
that the Defendant's facsimile did not display a proper opt-out
notice as required by TCPA.

Plaintiff Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Center, Inc., is an Ohio-based
chiropractic clinic.

Exagen Inc. operates as a commercial-stage diagnostics company
based in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Habashy, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW, PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (800) 581-3603
          Facsimile: (888) 373-2107
          E-mail: john@lexiconlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


FANATICS INC: Fails to Timely Notify Staff on Layoff, Calero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA CALERO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., and FANATICS RETAIL GROUP
FULFILLMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02114 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 9,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide the Plaintiff
and other workers with 60-day advance written notice before
terminating them as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

According to the complaint, due to COVID-19, the Defendants will
likely claim exemption from this requirement under the
unforeseeable business circumstance exception of the WARN Act.
However, the Defendants were still mandated by the WARN Act to give
the Plaintiff and the putative class members as much notice as is
practicable. As soon as it is probable that a mass layoff will
occur, the employer must provide notice as soon as is practicable.
Here, the Defendants likely knew near the end of March, or in very
early April, that a mass layoff was reasonably foreseeable.

Despite all of this, rather than notifying her and the putative
class members that the mass layoff was reasonably foreseeable, from
March 20 through August 24, 2020, the Defendants led them to
believe they would soon return to work through various e-mail
correspondences, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and the class members did not
seek other employment as they erroneously assumed that they would
be brought back to work.

The Plaintiff worked as a shipping clerk for the Defendants at the
Fanatics facility located at 8221 Eagle Palm Drive, in Riverview,
Florida, until she was furloughed on March 20, 2020.

Fanatics, Inc., is an American online retailer of licensed
sportswear, sports equipment, and merchandise. Fanatics is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Fanatics Retail Group
Fulfillment, LLC, is an online retailer of officially licensed
sports merchandise based in Jacksonville.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
         Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
         WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
         1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 224-0431
         Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
         E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 gnichols@wfclaw.com


FOGO DE CHAO: Bid to Dismiss Filed in Garcia-Alvarez FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2020, in the case
styled CHRISTIAN GARCIA-ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01345-CB (W.D. Pa.).

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure and refusal to
pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated servers,
bartenders, and carvers proper minimum wages for time worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

The other Defendants are FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (KING OF
PRUSSIA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PHILADELPHIA) LLC, FOGO DE
CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PHOENIX) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (CA
HOLDINGS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (CALIFORNIA) LLC, FOGO DE
CHAO CHURRASCARIA (EL SEGUNDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA
(IRVINE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LOS ANGELES) LLC, FOGO DE
CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN DIEGO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN
FRANCISCO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SAN JOSE) LLC, FOGO DE
CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DENVER) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PARK
MEADOW) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (WASHINGTON, D.C.) LLC, FOGO
DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (JACKSONVILLE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA
(MIAMI) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ORLANDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (SUNRISE FLORIDA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA
(ATLANTA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DUNWOODY ATLANTA) LLC,
FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (NAPERVILLE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (CHICAGO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (OAK BROOK
ILLINOIS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (OLD ORCHARD) LLC, FOGO DE
CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ROSEMONT) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA,
(INDIANAPOLIC) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (NEW ORLEANS) LLC,
FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BALTIMORE) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (BETHESDA) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BOSTON)
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BURLINGTON) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (TROY) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (MINNEAPOLIS)
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (KANSAS CITY) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (ST. LOUIS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LAS VEGAS)
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (SUMMERLIN) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (LONG ISLAND) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO 53RD STREET, NEW YORK
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (WHITE PLAINS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (PORTLAND) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (AUSTIN)
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LEGACY PLANO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (DALLAS) LLP, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (DALLAS) LLC,
FOGO DE CHAO (HOLDINGS) INC., FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HOLDINGS)
LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HOUSTON) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (SAN ANTONIO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (TEXAS
GP) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (TYSONS) LLC, and FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (BELLEVUE) INC.,

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Pittsburgh) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (King of
Prussia) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Philadelphia) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Phoenix) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Phoenix,
Arizona. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (CA Holdings) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
headquartered in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(California) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De
Chao steakhouse restaurant headquartered in Plano, Texas.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (El Segundo) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in El
Segundo, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Irvine) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Irvine, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Los Angeles) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De
Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Los Angeles, California. Fogo
De Chao Churrascaria (San Diego) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San
Diego, California. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Francisco) LLC is
a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in San Francisco, California. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (San Jose) LLC is a company that owns and operates the
Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in San Jose,
California.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Denver) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Denver,
Colorado. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Park Meadow) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
located in Park Meadow, Colorado. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Washington, D.C.) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo
De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Washington, D.C.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Jacksonville) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Jacksonville, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Miami) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Miami, Florida. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Orlando) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in Orlando, Florida. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (Sunrise Florida) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Sunrise,
Florida.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Atlanta) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Atlanta,
Georgia. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Dunwoody Atlanta) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Dunwoody Atlanta, Georgia.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Naperville) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Naperville, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Chicago) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Chicago, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Oak Brook Illinois) LLC is a company that owns and operates the
Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Old Orchard) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Old
Orchard, Illinois. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Rosemont) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Rosemont, Illinois.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria, (Indianapolis) LLC is a company that
owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (New Orleans) LLC
is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (Baltimore) LLC is a company that owns and operates
the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Baltimore,
Maryland. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Bethesda) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
located in Bethesda, Maryland.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Boston) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Boston,
Massachusetts. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Burlington) LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Burlington, Massachusetts. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (Troy) LLC is a company that owns and operates the
Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Troy, Michigan.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Minneapolis) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Kansas City) LLC
is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Kansas City, Missouri. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (St. Louis) LLC is a company that owns and operates
the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in St. Louis,
Missouri. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Las Vegas) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Summerlin)
LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Summerlin, Nevada.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Long Island) LLC is a company that owns
and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Long
Island, New York. Fogo De Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC is a
company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in New York. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (White
Plains) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in White Plains, New York. Fogo De
Chao Churrascaria (Portland) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in
Portland, Oregon.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Austin) LLC is a company that owns and
operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Austin,
Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Legacy Plano) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
located in Plano, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Dallas) LLP is
a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in Dallas, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Dallas) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in Dallas, Texas. Fogo De Chao
(Holdings) Inc. is a holding company that operates a chain of Fogo
De Chao steakhouse restaurants. It is headquartered in Plano,
Texas.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Holdings) LLC is a holding company that
operates a chain of Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurants in the
United States. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Houston) LLC is a company
that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant
located in Houston, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (San Antonio)
LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao steakhouse
restaurant located in San Antonio, Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Texas GP) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in Texas. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria
(Tysons) LLC is a company that owns and operates the Fogo De Chao
steakhouse restaurant located in Tysons, Virginia. Fogo De Chao
Churrascaria (Bellevue) Inc. is a company that owns and operates
the Fogo De Chao steakhouse restaurant located in Bellevue,
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
         GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
         3634 California Ave.
         Pittsburgh, PA 15212
         Telephone: (412) 766-1455
         Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
         E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

                - and –

         Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
         THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
         631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
         Winter Park, FL 32789
         Telephone: (407) 574-4999
         Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
         E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com

                - and –

         Richard Celler, Esq.
         RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
         10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
         Davie, FL 33314
         Telephone: (866) 344-9243
         Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
         E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


GEICO GENERAL: Ventrice-Pearson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit In re: GEICO General Insurance Company,
Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Cindy
Ventrice-Pearson and Poonam Subbaiah will move the Court on January
21, 2021 for an order:

   1. granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
      (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the
      following Actual Cash Value (ACV) Regulatory Fees Class:

      "all individual insureds under a California policy issued
      by GEICO covering a vehicle with private-passenger auto
      physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision
      coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four
      years of the date the lawsuit was filed through the date
      of a certification Order, that was determined by GEICO to
      be a covered claim and where GEICO did not pay to repair
      the damage to the vehicle (total-loss) and where GEICO did
      not include all ACV Regulatory Fees in the total-loss
      claim payment(s)";

   2. appointing themselves Class Representatives of the ACV
      Regulatory Fees Class;

   3. granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
      (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the
      following ACV Sales Tax Class:

      "all individual insureds under a California policy issued
      by GEICO covering a leased vehicle with private-passenger
      auto physical damage coverage with comprehensive or
      collision coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed
      within four years of the date the lawsuit was filed
      through August 27, 2020, that was determined by GEICO to
      be a covered claim and where GEICO did not pay to repair
      the damage to the vehicle (total-loss) and where GEICO did
      not include complete ACV Sales Tax in the total-loss claim
      payment(s)";

   4. appointing Plaintiff Subbaiah as Class Representative of
      the ACV Sales Tax Class; and

   5. appointing their counsel, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Edelsberg
      Law, PA, Kirtland & Packard LLP, Normand PLLC, and Shamis
      & Gentile, P.A., as Class Counsel for the Classes.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim is susceptible to common proof because GEICO provides
private-passenger property damage auto coverage to insureds in
California under a uniform form Policy.

Geico operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle,
property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general
liability, and pet insurance.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iPLAQn at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

GOOGLE LLC: Apps Record Audio Data Without Consent, Brekhus Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BREKHUS and JON HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-05488 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants' Google Home product violated privacy rights of the
Plaintiffs and the class by recording audio data without consent.

Google markets and sells a popular line of voice-activated hardware
device that enables consumers to get information regarding a range
of topics, like the time, weather, status of traffic, and current
news. Consumers can also use these devices to play music, to play
alarms at particular times, and to control smart devices in their
homes, like light bulbs, thermostats, and security systems. These
devices, which include the Google Home, Google Home Hub, Google
Home Mini, and Google Nest (collectively, "Google Home" or
"Product"), utilize the Google Assistant platform, which enables
the devices to engage in two-way conversations with listeners.

According to the complaint, the Google Home contains a sensitive
microphone that can pick up sound throughout much of a user's home.
To allay privacy concerns and increase sales of the device, Google
has consistently represented to consumers that it will not record
or process their conversations or other audio unless they use a
specific activation phrase, such as "Hey Google" or "Ok Google."
Google's representations left consumers with the impression that
their conversations and other audio would not be recorded and/or
sent to Google without their authorization.

Google, in fact, configured the Google Home to record, retrieve,
and process audio throughout users' homes--even when users did not
do anything to activate it, the Plaintiffs allege.

Google LLC is a global technology company that specializes in
internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com


GOOGLE LLC: Sued by Carr for Monopolizing Mobile App Downloads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE
LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT
CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-05761 (Aug. 16, 2020), alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Google erected
contractual and technological barriers that foreclose Android
users' ability to utilize app distribution platforms other than
Google Play Store. She contends that this ensures that the Google
Play Store accounts for nearly all the app downloads from app
stores on Android devices. Google, thus, maintains a monopoly over
the market for distributing mobile apps to Android users
(hereafter, the "Android App Distribution Market"), she adds.

According to the complaint, Google also enforces anticompetitive
restrictions against app developers. Specifically, Google
contractually prohibits app developers from offering an app through
the Google Play Store that is, in turn, used to download other
apps. Additionally, Google forces app developers to distribute
their apps through the Google Play Store to take advantage of
advertising channels controlled by Google, such as ad placements on
Google Search or YouTube that are specially optimized to advertise
mobile apps. Because Google also has a monopoly in internet
searches, app developers have no choice but to acquiesce to
Google's anticompetitive restrictions on Google Play.

Google stifles or blocks consumers' ability to download alternative
app stores and apps directly from developers' Web sites, according
to the complaint. Downloading apps on an Android device outside of
Google Play requires multiple steps that require the user to, among
other things, change default settings and click through multiple
warnings. Even if a user runs this gauntlet and manages to install
a competing app store, Google protects the Play Store's competitive
advantage by blocking the alternative store from offering basic
functions, such as automatic "background" updates of the kind
seamlessly available for apps downloaded from the Google Play
Store.

Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathon D. Byrer, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com
                  jbyrer@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Jamie Boyer, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                  jboyer@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com
                  cokeefe@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq.
          Glen E. Summers, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK LLP
          1801 Wewetta St. Suite 1200,
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 592-3100
          Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
          E-mail: karma.giulianelli@bartlitbeck.com
                  glen.summers@bartlitbeck.com

               - and -

          Ann Ravel, Esq.
          MCMANIS FAULKNER
          Fairmont Plaza, 10th Floor
          50 West San Fernando Street
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 279-8700
          Facsimile: (408) 279-3244
          E-mail: aravel@mcmanisfaulkner.com


GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Sends Unwanted Marketing Texts, Nieman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GROVE COLLABORATIVE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08224 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2020),
alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent text messages to
the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated consumers using automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt to advertise and promote their products
without prior express written consent.

The Plaintiff contends that together with the proposed class
members, they were harmed by the Defendants' acts, including
causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce
cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and
invading their privacy.

Grove Collaborative, Inc., is an e-commerce company that offers a
direct-to-consumer e-commerce platform for natural home and
personal care products, headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       

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


GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Joyce Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a settlement agreement has been entered in
Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB.

On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc.,
filed a putative class action against Absolute and the company,
Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB,
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiff and certain other employees were
not properly compensated for overtime hours that they worked. The
Company has been dismissed from the case, but Absolute intends to
vigorously defend this litigation with the Company's assistance and
support.

Absolute has entered into a settlement agreement as of August 17,
2020 and, pending court approval, anticipates the probable
conclusion of this matter to be dismissal of the case in exchange
for Absolute's payment of a settlement amount and fees totaling
$861 thousand.

The Company has provisioned for this amount in its financial
statements for the period ended June 30, 2020. Certain terms of the
settlement agreement would require Absolute to pay up to $639
thousand in additional claims that may be asserted, for a total
potential liability not to exceed $1.5 million, however no other
claims are known at this time.

Absolute continues to deny the allegations and defend the case.

The Company has asserted an indemnification claim related to this
litigation against the sellers of Absolute, which holds
approximately a $1 million escrow balance.

GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering
solutions to the power and process industries in the United States,
Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry
Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland.


GUADAMUZ CONCRETE: Matus Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RUDDY ISMAEL MATUS MORALES and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. GUADAMUZ CONCRETE
FINISHI, INC. and AROLDO GUADAMUZ, Case No. 2020-016646-CA-01, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
September 1, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-23648-UU to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

Guadamuz Concrete Finishi, Inc., is a provider of concrete pumping
services based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          

         Ena T. Diaz, Esq.
         ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.
         999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 720
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 377-8828
         Facsimile: (305) 356-1311
         E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com


H&R ACCOUNTS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Garcia-Martinez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA GARCIA-MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. H&R ACCOUNTS, INC., d/b/a AVADYNE HEALTH,
Case No. 4:20-cv-04188-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, despite working in excess of 40 hours
per week, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated telephone-dedicated employees all earned regular
and overtime pay for all time they worked. Additionally, the
Defendant failed to maintain true and accurate time records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt telephone-dedicated employee from October 2018 to March
2019.

H&R Accounts, Inc., doing business as Avadyne Health, is a debt
collection agency that manages, controls and operates call
centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Tel: (312) 726-3400
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

                - and –

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: (312) 201-0575
          Emails: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Shortchanges Vehicle Reimbursements, Neal says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Neal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hallsons of Lebanon, Inc., Hallsons
Enterprises Inc., Robert Hall, Jr., Doe Corporation 1-10, John Doe
1-10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00672, (S.D. Ohio, August 27,
2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendants operate multiple LaRosa's Pizza locations in the
Cincinnati area, including stores in Blue Ash and Lebanon. Neal
worked for Hallsons as a delivery driver. He claims to be paid
minimum wage minus a tip credit for the hours worked but says that
his mileage allowance does not cover his exact expenses in
delivering pizzas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
     Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
     Nathan J. Spencer, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45236
     Telephone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
            pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
            lroselle@billerkimble.com
            nspencer@billerkimble.com
     Website: www.billerkimble.com


HCC SPECIALTY: Escape Room Operators Slam Denied Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
R&J Entertainment LLC and Trapped! LLC, on behalf themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HCC Specialty
Insurance Company and Houston Casualty Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06035 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate,
attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of
contract.

R&J operates two "escape room" game businesses in Upland, CA and
San Dimas, CA while Trapped! operates a similar business in Las
Vegas, Nevada. Both purchased all-risk commercial property
insurance policies from HCC Specialty Insurance and Houston
Casualty for protection in the event of property loss and business
interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were denied
coverage despite that their respective policies do not contain
exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP
      777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 229-1000
      Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
      Email: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Victor J. Jacobellis, Esq.
      Daniel J. Veroff, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP
      1160 Battery St East, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 851-2300
      Facsimile: (415) 960-3882
      Email: vjacobellis@merlinlawgroup.com
             dveroff@merlinlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
      Howard Bushman, Esq.
      THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
      2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 479-5508
      Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
             adams@moskowitz-law.com
             howard@moskowitz-law.com


HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Honda Canada has reached an agreement to resolve Takata airbag
inflator class action litigation in Canada. The settlement will
further enhance Honda Canada's significant efforts to reach and
encourage customers to bring their vehicles to authorized dealers
for a free airbag inflator replacement.   

As part of the settlement, Honda Canada will continue its
comprehensive recall efforts. Honda Canada has taken unprecedented
steps to reach owners, in order to expedite the replacement of
recalled Takata airbag inflators. Honda Canada will continue to
take steps to replace recalled inflators in every vehicle on the
road that is affected by a Takata airbag inflator recall in an
ongoing effort to better assure the safety of vehicle operators and
passengers. An ample supply of replacement airbag inflators is
readily available to service remaining affected vehicles.

The proposed class action settlement also makes provision for the
reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Honda
Canada customers, as a result of the recall. The agreement also
sets out continued activities by Honda Canada to recover recalled
airbag inflators from scrap sellers through its Takata airbag
inflator re-purchase program.

The proposed settlement agreement covers recalled Honda and Acura
vehicles (automobiles and Goldwing motorcycles) with Takata airbag
inflators. The proposed class action settlement also provides
additional service/repair coverage for defective materials or
workmanship in non-Takata replacement airbag inflators installed in
recalled vehicles.

Honda continues to urge owners of Honda and Acura vehicles affected
by the Takata airbag inflator recalls to bring their vehicles to
authorized dealers for the recall service as soon as possible.
Honda vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at
www.honda.ca/recalls or www.motorcycle.honda.ca/safety/recalls, or
by calling Honda Canada Customer Relations at 1-888-946-6329. Acura
vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at
www.acura.ca/recalls, or by calling or Acura Canada Client Services
at 1-888-922-8729.

For more information on the class action settlement, visit
www.hondaairbagsettlement.ca

                    About Honda Canada

Honda Canada Inc. was founded in 1969 and is the parent company for
both Honda and Acura vehicle brands in Canada. Since 1986, the
company has produced Honda engines and more than nine million cars
and light trucks at its Alliston, Ontario manufacturing facilities,
where the Honda CR-V and Honda Civic are currently built. Honda
Canada has invested more than $4.7 billion in Canada, and each year
it sources nearly $2.1 billion in goods and services from Canadian
suppliers. Honda Canada has sold more than five million Honda and
Acura passenger cars and light trucks in Canada. For more
information on Honda Canada, please visit www.hondacanada.ca. [GN]


HOSPITALITY BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ewald Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK EWALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. HOSPITALITY BUILDERS, INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Case no.
7:20-cv-07267 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by
failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Site Superintendent
between approximately May 2018 and December 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite working in excess of 40 hours
per week, the Defendant did not pay him and other similarly
situated Site Superintendents overtime wages at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate time
records.

Hospitality Builders operates a construction business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (212) 905-0509
          Fax: (212) 905-0508
          Email: okurtz@gardylaw.com

                - and –

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Tel: (305) 901-1379
          Fax: (561) 288-9031
          Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


HY-LOND HOME: Estrada Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARIA ESTRADA, ADRIAN ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and for all similarly situated persons, and the general
public v. HY-LOND HOME, RSCR CALIFORNIA INC., and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01126121-CU-OB-CXC, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on September 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01703 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay missed meal and
rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay all wages earned, failure to maintain accurate
payroll records and produce personnel file, and failure to pay
wages owed upon separation from employment in violations of
California Labor Code and for violations of California Business and
Professions Code and Penal Code.

Hy-Lond Home offers assisted living facilities located in Garden
Grove, California. RSCR California Inc. offers healthcare services
for mentally retarded persons in California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                  

         Phil J. Montoya, Jr., Esq.
         HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP
         445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651
         Telephone: (213) 486-8000
         Facsimile: (213) 486-8080
         E-mail: pmontoya@hpylaw.com

                - and –

         David A. Wimmer, Esq.
         Emily Camastra, Esq.
         SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW & WIMMER,
         A Law Corporation
         9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 828
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 288-3980
         Facsimile: (424) 281-2575
         E-mail: ecamastra@swerdlowlaw.com
                 dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com


INDEGENE INC: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Adjourned to Oct. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB
CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, v. INDEGENE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, INDEGENE ENCIMA, INC., INDEGENE WINCERE,
INCORPORATED, and INDEGENE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-10106-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E. Arpert
entered an order that:

   -- the time of the Defendants to answer, move or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is extended October 15, 2020; and

   -- the plaintiff's motion to certify class is adjourned to
October 15, 2020.

Indegene is a company offering research and development and
management services to healthcare and pharmaceutical enterprises.
It was founded in 1998 and is based in Bangalore, India.

A copy of the Court's Order on Stipulation Extending Time to Answer
dated Sept. 3, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35HbeD4 at no extra charge.[CC]


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. (IGC) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit entitled, Tchatchou v. India
Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03396
(U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), is still
pending.

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

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

The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading
statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press
release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink
Space" and related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had
"executed a distribution and partnership agreement" for the
sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related
public statements.

The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount of
damages they seek.

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

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

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

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

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


JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Pollack Balks at Proposed $900MM NexPoint Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD POLLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., JOHN A. GOOD, MARK O. DECKER,
JAMES DONDERO, HOWARD A. SILVER, HARRY J. THIE, and REBECCA OWEN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07160 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger and acquisition of Jernigan by
NexPoint Advisors, L.P., in an all-cash transaction valued at
approximately $900 million, including debt and prefers stock to be
assumed or refinanced.

The Company's shareholders stand to receive $17.30 in cash for each
share of Jernigan stock they own pursuant to the Merger Agreement.

The Plaintiff owns Jernigan Capital common stock. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and
misleading FORM PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on August 20, 2020, in
connection with the proposed transaction.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information, concerning the financial
projections for Jernigan, as well as the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Jernigan's financial advisor,
Jefferies LLC, which are important for shareholders to make an
informed decision whether or not to approve the proposed merger.

Jernigan Capital, Inc., is a commercial real estate company that
invests primarily in new or recently-constructed and opened
self-storage facilities located predominately in dense urban
submarkets within the top 50 United States metropolitan statistical
areas. John A. Good is Jernigan's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board. Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A.
Silver, Harry J. Thie and Rebecca Owen are directors of
Jernigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Emails: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over NexPoint Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., John A.
Good, Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J.
Thie, Rebecca Owen, Jernigan Capital Operating Company, LLC,
Nexpoint Re Merger, Inc. and Nexpoint RE Merger OP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01141 (D. Del., August 27, 2020), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Jernigan Capital, Inc. by affiliates of NexPoint Advisors, L.P.,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the transaction, Jernigan's stockholders will receive $17.30
in cash for each share of Jernigan common stock they own.

According to the complaint, the August 20, 2020
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the deal
lacked all line items used to calculate EBIT and Unlevered Free
Cash Flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.
This provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by Jeffries LLC
in support of its fairness opinion.

Jernigan is a real estate investment trust that provides debt and
equity capital to private developers, owners and operators of
self-storage facilities.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
             bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


JMI REPORTS: Misclassifies Field Inspectors, Snow Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN SNOW, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
JMI REPORTS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01999 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 4,
2020), alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly classified by the
Defendant as independent contractor and not as an employee, in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

As a result, he was not paid overtime at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular hourly rate for the hours he worked over
40 each workweek, according to the complaint. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate records of the
unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
field inspectors.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field inspector since
March 2019.

JMI Reports, LLC, provides risk management assessment services on
residential, industrial, and agricultural property for insurance
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: 216-696-5000
          Fax: 216-696-7005
          Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


KENOSHA, WI: Akindes Challenges Arrest of Peaceful Protesters
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADELANA AKINDES, OSCAR WALTON, DANICA GAGLIANO-DELTGEN, and VICTOR
GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CITY OF KENOSHA and KENOSHA COUNTY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01353-JPS
(E.D. Wis., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the First Amendment and Equal Protection rights of
peaceful demonstrators.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated residents in the city and county of Kenosha, Wisconsin,
allege that the Defendants violated their rights to peaceful
protest against police brutality following the arrest of over 150
peaceful demonstrators by the Kenosha City Police Department and
the Kenosha County Sheriff's Department in August 2020. The arrest
was due to the protesters' alleged violation of the county-imposed
curfew order.

The Plaintiffs contend that there were also pro-police protesters
and militias at that time but not a single one of them was
arrested. The Defendants use the curfew ordinance to silence the
voices of those who peacefully demonstrate against police brutality
while allowing pro-police activists and militias to roam the
streets without fear of arrest, the Plaintiffs assert.

The City of Kenosha is a municipality incorporated in the State of
Wisconsin. Kenosha County is a county located in the southeastern
corner of the U.S. state of Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          

         Kimberley Cy. Motley, Esq.
         MOTLEY LEGAL
         2206 Bonnie Butler Way
         Charlotte, NC 28270
         Telephone: (704) 765-4887
         E-mail: inquiries@motleylegal.com

                - and –

         E. Milo Schwab, Esq.
         ASCEND COUNSEL, LLC
         3000 Lawrence Street
         Denver, CO 80205
         Telephone: (303) 888-4407
         E-mail: milo@ascendcounsel.co


KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class
action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to Federal
Court, Central District of California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations. Kirkland’s denies the material allegations in the
complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally
compliant with California law.

The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff
has until November 9, 2020, to file for class certification.

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

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

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KLX ENERGY: Quintana Energy Services Merger-Related Suits Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8,
2020, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that litigation
related to the company's merger deal with Quintana Energy Services
Inc. have been voluntarily dismissed.

On July 28, 2020, KLX Energy Services, Krypton Intermediate, LLC,
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of KLXE, Krypton Merger Sub,
Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of KLXE (“Merger
Sub”), and Quintana Energy Services Inc. ("QES"), completed the
previously announced acquisition of QES, by means of a merger of
Merger Sub with and into QES, with QES surviving the merger as a
subsidiary of KLXE (the "Merger"). On July 28, 2020, immediately
prior to the consummation of the Merger, the Reverse Stock Split
Amendment became effective and thereby effectuated the 1-for-5
Reverse Stock Split of the Company's issued and outstanding common
stock.

On June 9, 2020, a putative class action was filed by a purported
KLXE stockholder in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned Eric Sabatini v. KLX Energy
Services Holdings, Inc., et. al. (the Sabatini Complaint).

On June 18, 2020, an individual action was filed by a purported
KLXE stockholder in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Joey Zurchin v. KLX Energy
Services Holdings, Inc., et. al. (the Zurchin Complaint).

On June 24, 2020 an individual action was filed by a purported KLXE
stockholder in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, captioned David Cajiuat v. KLX Energy Services Holdings,
Inc., et. al. (the Cajiuat Complaint and, together with the
Sabatini Complaint and the Zurchin Complaint, the KLXE Complaints).


The plaintiff in the Sabatini Complaint purported to bring the
litigation as a securities class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of KLXE. The Sabatini Complaint named as defendants
KLXE, the KLXE Board, certain of KLXE's subsidiaries and QES; the
Zurchin complaint named as defendants KLXE and the KLXE Board; and
the Cajiuat complaint named as defendants KLXE and the KLXE Board.


The KLXE Complaints alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as, in
the case of the individual defendants, QES and KLXE's subsidiaries
named as defendants, the control person provisions of the Exchange
Act.

The Zurchin Complaint also alleged, in the case of the individual
defendants, breach of the duty of candor/disclosure under state
law. The KLXE Complaints alleged that the Company's registration
statement on Form S-4, originally filed on June 2, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"), omitted material information with
respect to the Merger, which rendered the Registration Statement
false and misleading.

In particular, the KLXE Complaints alleged, among other things,
that the Registration Statement omitted details with respect to
information regarding KLXE's and QES's financial projections, the
analyses performed by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs"),
in the case of the Sabatini Complaint, any prior work performed by
Goldman Sachs for QES and, in the case of the Cajiuat Complaint,
the sales process leading up to the Merger.

The KLXE Complaints sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with the Merger, awards of the plaintiffs' costs of the action,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further
relief as the court may have deemed just and proper.

In addition, each of the Sabatini Complaint and the Cajiuat
Complaint sought rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if
the Merger was consummated and a declaration that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9, and the Sabatini Complaint sought an order directing the
defendants to disseminate a registration statement that is free
from material misstatement and omissions.

The KLXE Complaints were subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the
claimants.

KLX Energy Services Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides oil field services
which includes tools, technologies, and equipment facilities. KLX
Energy Services Holdings serves clients in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.


KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Sues Over Mislabeled Maxwell House Coffee
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD BROWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01540-JM-WVG
(S.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendant's false and
deceptive advertising and labeling of their Maxwell House ground
coffee products.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant had
grossly exaggerated the number of cups of coffee that certain
varieties of Maxwell House ground coffee products (the "Products")
can make in order to induce consumer purchases and to charge
consumers more for these products.

The Defendant has sold the Products to consumers based on the
representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to
a specific number of servings (e.g., "240 6 FL OZ CUPS"), according
to the complaint. However, by following the Defendant's own
definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain nearly
enough ground coffee to make the number of servings represented.

The Kraft Heinz Company produces food products. The Company
distributes dairy products, sauces, flavored milk powders, and
other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


LAFISE CORP: Guevara Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Armando Banegas Guevara and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lafise Corp., a corporation, Robert Zamora
SR, an individual and Maria J. Zamora, an individual, Defendants,
was transferred from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County,
Florida with the assigned Case No. 20-015959-CA-01 to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on
September 1, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23658-AHS.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards.

Lafise Corp. operates as an investment advisor and broker
dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Mark Nudel, Esq.
   J.H. Zidell P.A.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Email: dnudel.jhzidellpa@gmail.com

     - and -

   Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
   300 71st Street
   Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Fax: 865-7167
   Email: Zabogado@aol.com

     - and -

   Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq.
   J.H. Zidell, P.A.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Email: nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Jose Dario Vazquez, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
   333 SE 2 Ave Suite 4400
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 579-0540
   Email: vazquezjo@gtlaw.com

     - and -

   Patrick F. Martin, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
   333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
   Miami, FL 33131-1804
   Tel: (305) 579-0516
   Fax: (305) 961-5742
   Email: martinpa@gtlaw.com


LEGACY TRANSIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, McCurry Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monique McCurry, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Legacy Transit LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01335 (E.D. Wisc., August 30, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.

Legacy Transit is a privately-owned transit company headquartered
in Sussex, Wisconsin where McCurry worked as a driver. She claims
to have frequently worked in excess of forty hours per workweek
without being paid overtime premiums and claims that discretionary
bonuses were not included in the computation of overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Bailey Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS G. BAILEY, JASON J. HAYES, and MARIANNE ROBINSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LINKEDIN
CORPORATION; THE 401(K) COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
5:20-cv-05704-SVK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2020), alleges violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the class
period, the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the
LinkedIn Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the
"Plan"), by (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories.

In many instances, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost
share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the
Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan,
despite their lower fees and materially similar investment
objectives, the Plaintiffs assert.

LinkedIn Corporation operates a social networking Web site. The
Company allows members to post a profile of their professional
expertise and accomplishments on Web site. LinkedIn serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANCARE LLC, a
Virginia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying two Florida
classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and
(b)(3):

   Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Class:

   "all individuals with a Florida address who, since May 1,
   2018, paid a processing fee to LoanCare for paying over the
   phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage
   loan owned or serviced by LoanCare"; and

   Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act Class:

   "all individuals with a Florida address who, since May 1,
   2016, paid a processing fee to LoanCare for paying over the
   phone or online in connection with any residential mortgage
   loan owned or serviced by LoanCare."

Excluded from the Florida Classes are LoanCare and its officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any
governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff.

The Plaintiff brought this action seeking not only to have LoanCare
refund all of the processing fees that she and all class members
have paid -- and to pay any and all damages that she and the class
members may be entitled to -- but also a declaration from the Court
that these processing fees are not expressly authorized, an
injunction stopping LoanCare from charging these processing fees,
and recovery of attorney's fees and costs expended in this action.

According to the complaint, since May 1, 2015, LoanCare has issued
fees on homeowners for paying their mortgages by phone or via the
website, however, these fees are unauthorized by all class member
mortgages, and under Florida law. The sole purpose of these new
charges is to provide LoanCare with a secret profit center to
collect millions of dollars from their customers, the Plaintiff
contends.

Ms. Alvarez is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida, and
the owner of a house at 12034 Butler Woods Cir, Riverview, Florida
33579, which is subject to a Mortgage serviced by LoanCare.

LoanCare provides loan servicing solutions that assist the lending
industry achieve optimal asset performance.

A copy of Donna Alvarez's Motion for Class Certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iAAT41 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Adam M. Moskowitz
          Joseph M. Kaye
          Barbara C. Lewis
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com

LUCKY STORES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Beasley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK BEASLEY, Plaintiff, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07144-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine
M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re
Statute of Limitations.

The instant case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Mark
Beasley, a California citizen, as a purchaser and consumer of
Coffee-mate, a line of coffee-creamer products.  Beasley alleges
Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells
Coffee-mate; that four retailers, namely, Defendants Lucky, Save
Mart Super Markets, Save Mart Companies, Inc., and The Kroger Co.,
sold Coffee-mate at their grocery stores throughout California; and
that, during the class period, he purchased Coffee-mate from
grocery stores owned by said retailers.

According to Beasley, all flavors of Coffee-mate, other than the
Natural Bliss' line, contained, during the class period, an
artificial form of trans fat, specifically, partially hydrogenated
oil ("PHO"), and that, during the class period, Coffee-mate's
labels bore unauthorized nutrient content claims, namely, "0g Trans
Fat" and/or "IT'S GOOD TO KNOW: 0g TRANS FAT/SERV," which language,
Beasley alleges, was part of an intentional, long-term campaign to
deceptively market Coffee-mate as healthful and free of trans fat.

Based on these allegations, Beasley asserts the following four
Causes of Action: (1) Unfair Competition Law, (2) California False
Advertising Law, (3) Breach of Express Warranty, and (4) California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Beasley brings these claims both
individually and on behalf of the following putative class: All
citizens of California who purchased in California, between Jan. 1,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2014, Coffee-mate containing the nutrient content
claim '0g Trans Fat' and containing partially hydrogenated oil.

At the initial case management conference in January 2020, the
Court granted the Defendants leave to file a motion for summary
judgment on the limited issue of whether Beasley's claims are
time-barred, set a briefing and discovery schedule thereon, and
denied Beasley's request to file a cross-motion for summary
judgment as to whether "0g Trans Fat" is an unlawful nutrient
content claim.

On March 10, 2020, the counsel for the Defendants deposed Beasley,
and, shortly thereafter, the Defendants filed the instant motion.
In support of his opposition to the Defendants' motion, Beasley
filed, inter alia, deposition errata pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby he made five changes to
his deposition testimony, one of which changed his answer to a
question pertaining to when he first knew PHO is the ingredient
that is the source of artificial trans fat.

In particular, Beasly changed his answer from "I guess maybe in the
late 1990s" to "I've known trans fat was bad since I'd guess in the
late 1990s, and I learned that trans fat came from PHO in 2017."
In addition, Beasley filed a declaration, executed on April 3,
2020, in which he states he "did not know that partially
hydrogenated oil was the source of artificial trans fat in food
until 2017, or otherwise understand the connection between
partially hydrogenated oil and trans fat.

On Oct. 29, 2018, Beasley filed his initial complaint.  By the
instant motion, the Defendants argue that Beasley's claims are
barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, the longest of
which is four years, and that, although Beasley declares he first
learned that Coffee-mate contained trans fat in 2017 during a
discussion with his attorney, he is not entitled to delayed accrual
of his claims.

In response, Beasley contends he "misspoke at his deposition" when
he said he has known since the late 1990s that PHO is the source of
trans fat and that the Court should credit his deposition errata
and declaration, wherein he stated that, until 2017, he did not
know PHO is the source of artificial trans fat.

Judge Chesney concludes that there is no dispute that the phrase
"0g Trans Fat" was placed on Coffee-mate packaging and that, on
each Coffee-mate product, the Nutrition Facts panel above the
ingredient list contains the phrase "Trans Fat/Grasa Trans 0g."
Although, in any given case, a plaintiff may possess information to
alter the noted general expectation and, as a matter of law, put
such plaintiff on inquiry notice, in the instant case, even given
his knowledge about the relationship between PHO and trans fat, the
Judge finds a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Beasley,
faced with multiple clear statements about the absence of trans fat
in Coffee-mate, should have investigated the ingredient list.  For
these reasons, Judge Chesney denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/2i8RO5 from Leagle.com.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca
Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


MCM PRODUCTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MCM PRODUCTS USA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01723-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., Aug.
27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is
accessible to the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers during her numerous visits to Company's website at
https://us.mcmworldwide.com/en_US/home, denying her of full and
equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public on the Company's website,
and its prior iterations.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Company's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Company's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

MCM Products USA Inc. is a Munich, Germany-headquartered company
whose Web site provides consumers with access to a collection of
designer ready to wear apparel for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDO2 FITNESS: McKee Suit Removed to District of South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SARAH MCKEE, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated v. MDO2 FITNESS, LLC d/b/a O2 FITNESS,
Case No. 2020-CP-10-03571, was removed from the South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on September 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-03227-DCN to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated personal trainers
in violation of the South Carolina Wages Act.

MDO2 Fitness, LLC, d/b/a O2 Fitness, is a company that operates
physical fitness facilities, with its principal place of business
in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:            

         Ashley Kutz Kelley, Esq.
         WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
         Five Exchange Street
         P.O. Box 999
         Charleston, SC 29402
         Telephone: (843) 720-4679
         E-mail: Ashley.kelley@wbd-us.com

                - and –

         Theresa M. Sprain, Esq.
         WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
         555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
         Raleigh, NC 27601
         E-mail: Theresa.sprain@wbd-us.com


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-7446 (Cal. Super.,
San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to the
Plaintiff and other employees, in violation of California Labor
Code and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
operator in Tracy, California, from January 16, 2020, to July 27,
2020.

Medline Industries, Inc., is a private American healthcare company
based in Northfield, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Larry W. Lee, Esq.
         Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
         DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
         515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 488-6555
         Facsimile: (213) 488-6554   

                - 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


MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP)
between August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important October 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as
an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target
population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was
unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and
prospects for Pracinostat; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


MH SUB I: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Rattler Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIM RATTLER, Plaintiff, v. MH SUB I, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02444-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or strike a
portion of the Plaintiff's class allegations based on Fair Credit
Reporting Act's ("FCRA") statute of limitations.

Plaintiff Kim Rattler has filed a putative class action against MH
Sub I and Demandforce, Inc., alleging violations of the FCRA.  The
Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant in the state of
California.  Although the Plaintiff does not specify which
Defendant was her employer, the Defendants' motion states that the
Plaintiff applied for a Customer Services Manager position with
Demandforce on Nov. 12, 2018, and, as part of Demandforce's
application process, authorized Demandforce to run a pre-employment
background check as part of the hiring process.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer reports to
conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective,
current and former employees and use information from consumer
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance
with the law.

More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that when she applied for
employment, she was provided with "a disclosure and authorization
form" permitting the Defendants to conduct a background check.
However, the disclosures provided by the Defendants contained
extraneous and superfluous language that does not consist solely of
the disclosure as required by the FCRA and/or is not clear and
conspicuous.

In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the disclosure contained
several sections not relevant to the rights of California
applicants (of which she was one); it included sections entitled
"State of Washington applicants and employees only," "Massachusetts
and New Jersey applicants, employees, and residents only," and "New
York applicants, employees, and residents only."  She contends that
because these sections "have no bearing on the rights of California
applicants," the inclusion of such information makes the
disclosures unclear and therefore noncompliant with FCRA.  

Plaintiff further contends that the disclosure is not "clear and
conspicuous" because (1) the disclosure is not in all capital
letters; (2) the disclosure is not in boldface to set off the
required disclosure; (3) the disclosure includes multi-state
information that is not a permissible element in an FCRA disclosure
and reduces clarity as to what rights each applicant or employee
possesses; and, (4) the disclosure provisions are set out in a
dense, small font that reduces clarity.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' conduct is willful.  In
support of that allegation, Plaintiff contends that (1) the
Defendants are large entities with access to legal advice, and (2)
they required a purported authorization to perform credit and
background checks in the process of employing the class members,
which suggest awareness of and willful failure to follow the
governing laws concerning such authorizations.

On March 9, 2020, Ms. Rattler filed the putative class action
against Defendants in California Superior Court in the County of
Alameda.  The Complaint defines the class as all of the Defendants'
current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the
United States who applied for a job with the Defendants at any time
during the period for whom a background check was performed
beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending
on the date that final judgment is entered in the action.

On April 9, 2020, the Defendants removed the case to federal court.
On April 16, 2020, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss or
Strike Certain Class Allegations.

The Defendants seek to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations
that incorporate claims arising more than two years prior to the
filing of the Complaint.  They contend that those claims cannot be
certified because they are subject to individual inquiries about
whether and when each putative class member discovered the alleged
violation of FCRA.

Judge Chen holds that it is true, as Defendants point out, that
courts have dismissed class allegations where the Plaintiffs have
identified FCRA classes with exclaims extending beyond the shorter,
two-year statute of limitations.  However, in both Holman v.
Experian Info. Sols., Inc. and Molina v. Roskam Baking Co., the
court declined to certify the earlier FCRA claims at the class
certification stage.  Accordingly, these cases provide only
indirect support for the Defendants' contention that it would be
proper to strike the Plaintiff's class claims at this time and
instead appear to support the idea that the issue is better
resolved at the class certification stage, once discovery has been
completed.

Importantly, the Court has previously approved a FCRA class
settlement that reflected reduced recovery for those who might fall
outside the two-year statute of limitations.  In addition, the
Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the existence of a statute
of limitations issue does not compel a finding that individual
issues predominate over common ones.

Accordingly, Judge Chen denied the Defendants' motion to strike
portions of the Plaintiff's class allegations pursuant to Rule
12(f).  The denial is without prejudice to opposing class
certification or seeking to limit the scope thereof at the
appropriate juncture.

The Defendants also ask the Court to consider striking the class
allegations pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23(d)(1)(D).  But
this, too, is disfavored.  Accordingly, the Defendants' request to
strike the class allegations pursuant to one of these alternative
approaches is also denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen denied the Defendants'
motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/KQrZM2 from Leagle.com.


MONEY STORE: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Claims Dismissal in Piatt Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIRLEY PIATT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE
MONEY STORE; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-55780 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' individual and
putative class claims against the Defendants.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
finding that res judicata barred the Plaintiffs' claims related to
the improper collection of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Basic
principles of res judicata apply with equal force in the class
action context.  As to the elements of res judicata, the Plaintiffs
only contest whether there is "an identity of claims" between the
actions.

In determining whether there is an identity of claims, courts most
importantly consider the factor whether the two suits arise out of
the same transactional nucleus of fact.  The "Fee-Split Class"
claims in Mazzei v. Money Store, Inc., and the Plaintiffs' claims
related to the collection of improper attorneys' fees and expenses
arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact.  In both
actions, the class members sought to recover damages based on
attorneys' fees improperly charged to borrowers by the same
defendants under the same or similar loan documents, including on
the basis that attorneys' fees were shared with a non-attorney
entity.  Because these claims are related to the same set of facts,
they could have been conveniently tried together in the Mazzei
action.  Thus, the district court correctly found an identity of
claims between the Plaintiffs' individual and putative class claims
related to the collection of improper attorneys' fees and the jury
verdict in Mazzei.

Neither equitable tolling nor any other tolling or delayed-accrual
theory saves the Plaintiffs' otherwise time-barred claims related
to the payment of post-acceleration late fees.  First, California's
equitable tolling doctrine is not available to toll successive
class claims based on a prior class-action suit.  Second, the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts to support application
of equitable tolling to their individual late-fee claims.  Third,
the district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs failed
to allege facts sufficient to support the application of the
discovery rule.  Fourth, the district court correctly determined
that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege facts supporting
the application of equitable estoppel.  Finally, the district court
did not err in finding that the Plaintiffs failed to allege
sufficient facts to support application of the fraudulent
concealment doctrine.

The district court correctly determined that the Plaintiffs'
California unfair competition law ("UCL") claims were barred by the
statute of limitations, the Ninth Circuit opines.  To the extent
that the Mazzei action equitably tolled any putative class member's
UCL claim, any such tolling ceased when the Mazzei court declined
to certify the UCL subclasses in 2012.  Thus, the Plaintiffs' UCL
claims expired no later than 2016.  Because they did not file the
instant suit until 2018, the Plaintiffs' UCL claims are time
barred.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
the Plaintiffs leave to amend their late-fee claims where they
previously failed to cure defects in their complaint, and they made
a strategic choice not to raise their theories of equitable
estoppel, fraudulent concealment, and the discovery rule prior to
filing their SAC, the Ninth Circuit opines.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 12, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/xYzge3 from Leagle.com.


MS PIMA: Lozada Sues Over Wrongful Termination & Disability Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM LOZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MS PIMA, INC.; BP CREATIONS, INC.; PIA Y. HUH; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2QSTCV34178 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants wrongfully terminated
the Plaintiff after she requested for reasonable accommodations
following an anxiety attack. The Plaintiff claimed she suffered an
anxiety attack after the Defendants accused her of the mistake,
which they knew was made by the prior manager of the Production
Department and after Defendant Huh unfairly berated and yelled at
her due to the said mistake.

After receiving medical treatment, the Plaintiff contacted the
Defendants about returning to work. Rather than engaging in the
interactive process with the Plaintiff and discussing any
reasonable accommodations, the Defendants told her to stay home one
more day. Then, the next day, on September 10, 2018, when she
attempted to return to work, the Defendants told her not to return
to work because the owner of the Company, Defendant Huh, was upset
that she had left work because of her anxiety attack.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff says she has
suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, loss
of employment and attendant earnings and job benefits

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
since 1999 and was promoted as a production department manager
until her termination on September 10, 2018.

MS Pima, Inc., is a manufacturer of athletic apparel with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. BP
Creations, Inc., is a manufacturer of athletic apparel with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
         Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
         Milan Moore, Esq.
         Romina Tamiry, Esq.
         LIDMAN LAW, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 322-4772
         Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
         E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                 enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                 mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

                - and –

         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


NCAA: Aldrich Suit Moved From N.D. California to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIN ALDRICH, LONDA BEVINS, and JESSICA JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and JOHN REMBAO, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01733, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on September 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-02310-JPH-MPB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, breach
of contract, breach of implied contract, civil battery, assault,
false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress for their failure to implement or enforce rules
prohibiting sexual abuse, harassment, or relations between National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) coaches and
student-athletes.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from several North
American institutions and conferences, with its principal office
located in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          

         Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         Annika K. Martin, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 956-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
         E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                 akmartin@lchb.com

                - and –

         Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT, LLC
         150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-1019
         Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
         E-mail: beth@feganscott.com

                - and –

         Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT, LLC
         500 Grant St., Suite 2900
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Telephone: (412) 515-1529
         Facsimile: (412) 785-2400
         E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com


NEW HILL TOP: Han Suit Challenges Unlawful Employment Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHUNJI HAN, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. NEW HILL TOP NAILS, INC., HYUN SHUL
CHANG a/k/a TOM, and MYUNG SOOK CHANG a/k/a LEE, Case No.
3:20-cv-01322 (D. Conn., Sept. 5, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful and discriminatory employment policies
and practices, which violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Connecticut Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to:

     -- pay statutory minimum wage, as well as overtime
        compensation at rates not less than one and one-half
        times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
        excess of 40 hours in a workweek;

     -- distribute records of hours worked, earnings and overtime
        to the workers;

     -- keep records of hours;

     -- appropriately post a notice regarding wages, vacation
        pay, sick leave, health and welfare benefits and
        comparable matters;

     -- provide employees notice of the rate remuneration, hours
        of employment and wage payment schedules at the time of
        hiring; and

     -- provide 30 minutes meal period.

Moreover, the Defendants willfully and unlawfully retaliated
against the Plaintiff for complaining regarding their
discriminatory employment practice.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a manicurist from July
2006 to July 31, 2020.

New Hill Top Nails, Inc., provides nail salon services. Hyun Shul
Chang a/k/a Tom, and Myung Sook Chang a/k/a Lee are the owners,
officers, shareholders, and managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Tel: 718-353-8588
          Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


NEW MEXICO: Class Action Calls for Coronavirus Safety in Prisons
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Law Offices of the Public Defender strongly supports
the pro bono lawsuit filed Aug. 24 by local and international law
firms on behalf of people incarcerated in state prisons.

The suit seeks to improve prison coronavirus safety measures as
soon as possible to prevent further deaths of inmates and community
spread. It does not seek monetary damages.

"A huge number of incarcerated New Mexicans are current or former
LOPD clients," Chief Public Defender Bennett Baur said. "When we as
a community incarcerate people, we have a legal and ethical
obligation for their health and welfare. On behalf of all
incarcerated New Mexicans and their families, we are in full
support of legal action that might make them safer during this very
challenging time."

LOPD joined the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and
New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in April in an
emergency petition to the New Mexico Supreme Court similarly
seeking to protect individuals held in Department of Corrections'
custody from coronavirus.

That suit sought to facilitate adequate social distancing and
management of the coronavirus inside all state facilities by safely
reducing inmate populations. The Supreme Court denied that petition
for failing to establish a constitutional violation.

"Very early in the pandemic we understood the risk of an outbreak
in New Mexico prisons. Believing it an emergency, we tried to
convince the Supreme Court that the Corrections Department needed
to do more to protect people," LOPD Appellate Defender Kim
Chavez-Cook said. "It is gratifying to see that an international
firm has taken notice of the situation in New Mexico and dedicated
valuable attorney time and resources to further the cause in ways
we simply couldn't, all pro bono with no money damages in return.
It's really quite remarkable." [GN]


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Felix in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated July 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2867, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Delores Felix is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEWTON CITY, MA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Carresi Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK CARRESI; MARK WHOOTEN; ROBERT D'AGASTINO; EUGENE FARESE;
MICHAEL BARRILE; WILLIAM BERTRAND; FRANK BIANCO; PAUL BINDON; JOHN
BRYANT; MOSES BRISSON; BRAD BUTERA; BRENDAN BUTLER; DOMINIC
CAMILLI; MICHAEL CANNISTRANO; ERIK CAPOCCIA; SCOTT CARLIN; PATRICK
CARRESI; ARTHUR CARTER; E. PETER COLON; WILLIAM CONSERVO; MATTHEW
D'AGASTINO; MIKE DANIELE; ANTONIO DECARO; CLEBER DE ALMEIDA; ARBOLD
DOBSON; MATTHEW DRAKAS; JOSEPH DRISCOLL; JEFF ECCLES; ANDREW
FADDEN; JOHN FLEMING; ROBERT FLEMING; SR.; JACKSON FLORESTAL;
STEPHEN HODGDON; SETH HUMPHREYS; HENRY LANGEVIN; BEN LANGKOPF;
DONALD LEBLANC; STEVEN MAGAZY; BRIAN MALO; TIMOTHY MCDONNELL; AL
MORU; BRIAN NAPOLITANO; JEFFREY O'NEIL; DENNIS PANZA; GREGORY
PEREZ; RUI PERPETUA; CHRIS PETRIE; MATTHEW PINZONE; BRIAN QUINN;
CARLO QUILES; JOSEPH RATTA; JOSH RICHARDSON; BRIAN RIORDAN; KELVIN
SANDERS; JR.; MICHAEL SANFORD; BRIAN SAULNIER; NICK SHUBARIAN;
PETER SPINELLI; PAUL THEA; GREGORY WANSIEWICZ; KENDELL WASHINGTON;
PAUL WHELAN; JAMES WHITE; MARK WOODS; AND STEPHEN YERARDI v. CITY
OF NEWTON, Case No. 1:20-cv-11538 (D. Mass., Aug. 16, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all those similarly
situated individuals pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staffs.

Newton is a suburban city in Middlesex County, Massachusetts,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
          GLYNN, LANDRY, & RICE, LLP
          25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 200
          Braintree, MA 02184
          Telephone: (781) 964-8377
          E-mail: daniel.rice@glhrlaw.com


NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
----------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the parties in a class action lawsuit initiated
by a former employee named Ortiz have agreed to settle the dispute,
subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement and
court approval.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Following mediation in June 2020, the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit, subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement
and court approval.

If the settlement agreement is approved, the class action lawsuit
will be resolved.

Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described
above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations."

Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.


NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 26, 2020, that the company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the consolidated purported class action entitled, In
Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation.

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v.
Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as
defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities
class action was commenced in the Northern District of California,
captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783),
naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar
relief.

On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On March
12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case number
4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation.

On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint. The consolidated complaint asserts that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements related to channel
inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand
between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018.

The plaintiffs also allege that the NVIDIA executives who they
named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

On August 2, 2019, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any
claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named
defendants.

On March 16, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing the
consolidated class action complaint with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations
of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named defendants.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


NY TEX CARE: Use of Proposed FLSA Notice in Francisco Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HERLINDA FRANCISCO, on behalf of herself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. NY TEX CARE,
INC. and INSUN YUN, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1649 (PKC) (ST)
(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted in part and modified in
part the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge
Steven Tiscione on the motion to certify a collective action.

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff Herlinda Francisco initiated the
putative class action against Defendants NY Tex Care and Insun Yun
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
New York Labor Law, and the Family Medical Leave Act.

On Nov. 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
collective action under the FLSA and attached a proposed FLSA
notice to her memorandum of law.

On April 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione issued a R&R
recommending that the motion to certify a collective action be
granted in part and denied in part, that the Plaintiff should be
permitted to mail her proposed FLSA notice to all potential members
of the collective action, and ordering discovery on the identities
of members of the conditionally certified collective action.  The
Plaintiff has filed no objection to the R&R.

On April 29, 2020, the Defendants filed an objection only to the
portion of the R&R recommending that the Court adopt the
Plaintiff's proposed FLSA notice, as currently written, as its date
and scope are inconsistent with the remainder of the R&R.

Judge Chen reviewed both the record and Judge Tiscione's thorough
and well-reasoned R&R.  Judge Chen finds no clear error in Judge
Tiscione's recommendation to conditionally certify the FLSA
collective action as including all current and former "pressers"
employed by the Defendants at any time on or after March 22, 2016,
and adopts that recommendation with respect to both the scope of
employees that fit within the class definition and the time period
the class covers, including the recommendation to deny the
Plaintiff's request to apply equitable tolling and toll the statute
of limitations until the Plaintiff sends notice to the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs.  She also finds no clear error in Judge
Tiscione's recommendation on the appropriate scope of class
discovery.

However, as argued by the Defendants, Judge Chen finds that the
Plaintiff's proposed notice is inconsistent with Judge Tiscione's
first recommendation, now adopted by the Court, regarding the scope
of the collective that is being preliminarily certified.  The
notice to class members should reflect the current state of the
class.  As it is currently written, the Proposed Notice is
addressed to all "former or current non-exempt laundry employees"
who worked for Tex Care "at any time between March 22, 2013 --
i.e., six years before the filing of the lawsuit and the present.
Judge Chen, therefore, modifies Judge Tiscione's recommendation to
use the Proposed Notice as it is currently written, and
respectfully refers oversight of the revised proposed notice to
Judge Tiscione.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's June 12, 2020 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://bit.ly/32OesCI from Leagle.com.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP: Decof Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Occidental Petroleum
Corporation. The case is styled as Lee Decof, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avedick B.
Poladian, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Elisse B. Walter, Eugene L.
Batchelder, Jack B. Moore, Margaret M. Foran, Robert M. Shearer,
Spencer Abraham, Vicki Hollub and William R. Klesse, Defendants,
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Sheriff of New Castle County,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01729 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed as a Civil Miscellaneous Case.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an American company engaged in
hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and
Colombia as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United
States, Canada, and Chile. It is organized in Delaware and
headquartered in Houston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Blake Bennett, Esq.
   Cooch & Taylor Pa-Wilmington
   1000 W St 10th Fl
   Wilmington, DE 19899
   Tel: (302) 984-3889
   Fax: (302) 984-3939
   Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

     - and -

   Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Fax: 865-7167
   Email: Zabogado@aol.com

     - and -

   Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq.
   J.H. Zidell, P.A.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Email: nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Jose Dario Vazquez, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
   333 SE 2 Ave Suite 4400
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 579-0540
   Email: vazquezjo@gtlaw.com

     - and -

   Patrick F. Martin, Esq.
   Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
   333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
   Miami, FL 33131-1804
   Tel: (305) 579-0516
   Fax: (305) 961-5742
   Email: martinpa@gtlaw.com



ON DECK: D&Os Faces Doaty Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Enova
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONRAD DOATY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NOAH BRESLOW, DANIEL S. HENSON, CHANDRA DHANDAPANI,
BRUCE P. NOLOP, MANOLO SANCHEZ, JANE J. THOMPSON, RONALD F. VERNI,
and NEIL E. WOLFSON, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0763 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
September 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The case stems from the Defendants' decision to sell On Deck to
Enova International resulting in a demonstrably unfair price in
which stockholders will receive only $0.12 cents per share in cash
and 0.092 of a share of Enova common stock for each share of On
Deck held.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement filed by the
Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to
the proposed transaction contains material omissions concerning the
financial projections prepared by the Company, the Tangible Book
Value for the Company, and the confidentiality agreements entered
into by other interested parties.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have violated their
fiduciary duties because they failed to provide On Deck's public
stockholders with all material information necessary to their
decision to vote whether to approve or not the proposed
transaction.

The Plaintiff owns On Deck common stock.

Noah Breslow is the Chief Executive Officer and a director of On
Deck. Daniel S. Henson, Chandra Dhandapani, Bruce P. Nolop, Manolo
Sanchez, Jane J. Thompson, Ronald F. Verni, and Neil E. Wolfson are
directors of On Deck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 984-3889
          Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

                - and –

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Tel: (646) 300-8921
          Fax: (212) 202-7880
          Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


OREGON MUTUAL: Thai Restos Slam Denied Insurance Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Nari Suda LLC, Pakin Corporation, on behalf themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oregon Mutual Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01476 (D. Or., August 27, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at
the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief
from breach of contract.

Nari Suda LLC, operates as "Nari" while Pakin Corporation operates
as Kin Khao. They are San Francisco restaurants that infuse
traditional Thai recipes with modern California techniques and
ingredients. Both purchased all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from Oregon Mutual for protection in the event of property
loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic,
they were denied coverage despite that their respective policies do
not contain exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Bailey, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      Email: slarson@stollberne.com
             ebailey@stollberne.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
      Fabrice N. Vincent, Esq.
      Jacob H. Polin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: rnelson@lchb.com
             fvincent@lchb.com
             jpolin@lchb.com

             - and -

      Alexandra L. Foote, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA L. FOOTE, P.C.
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (786) 408-8083
      Facsimile: (415) 956-0561


PERFORMING ARTS: Marroquin Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NERY MARROQUIN, and JOSE CASTANEDA, on behalf of themselves and
other employees and on behalf of the State of California and the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2OSTCV33336
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and other security
officers appropriate wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked as security officers at the Performing Arts
Center of Los Angeles County in California from 2016. The
Plaintiffs also assert claims for failure to provide meal and/or
rest breaks, failure to timely pay all wages earned, and for
retaliation and discrimination, in violations of the California
Labor Code.

Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County, also known as the
Music Center, is a nonprofit corporation doing business in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:    

         T. Joshua Ritz, Esq.
         Laleh B. Shokohi, Esq.
         T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES, INC.
         15233 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1002
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (818) 788-1123
         Facsimile: (818) 788-1126


PRECISION DIRECTIONAL: Ferron Sues Over Improper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN FERRON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. PRECISION DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., and PRECISION
DRILLING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-03123 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 4,
2020), arises from Defendants' unlawful pay practices in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including improperly paid overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Measurement While
Drilling (MWD) field operator.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed class
members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.
However, instead of paying them one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week,
the Defendant paid them a fixed day-rate despite working at least
84 hours or more per week.

Precision Directional Services, Inc., and Precision Drilling
Corporation provide oilfield services in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 425-7100
          Fax: (713) 425-7101
          Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                 kcaminati@bchlaw.com


PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Sanofi Sale Filings Lack Info, Hawkins Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN HAWKINS v. PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA INC., DAN BECKER, PATRICK
MACHADO, ALAN B. COLOWICK, SIMEON GEORGE, SHAWN TOMASELLO, MARTIN
BABLER, SHAOLEE LIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07289 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated public shareholders of Principia arising from
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the proposed acquisition of Principia by
Sanofi.

On August 16, 2020, Principia announced that the Company had
entered into definitive agreement with Sanofi, pursuant to which
Merger Sub, Kortex Acquisition Corp., commenced a tender offer to
purchase all of Principia's outstanding common stock for $100 per
share in cash. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire on September
25, 2020.

According to the complaint, Principia filed an incomplete and
materially misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2020, wherein the statement
omits material information concerning the proposed transaction. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as Principia
stockholders need such information to make a fully informed
decision whether to tender their shares in support of the proposed
transaction or seek appraisal, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Recommendation Statement fails to
provide financial projections prepared by senior members of
Principia's and Sanofi's management in connection with the proposed
transaction; fails to provide the financial analyses and opinion of
Centerview Partners LLC concerning the proposed transaction; and
fails to provide the financial analyses and opinion of BofA
Securities, Inc. concerning the proposed transaction.

Based in South San Francisco, California, Principia Biopharma Inc.
is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
novel therapies for serious immune mediated diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRODUCTION RESOURCE: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOSE LUIS TOPETE PEREZ, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRODUCTION RESOURCE
GROUP LLC; FULL THROTTLE FILMS, LLC, d/b/a VER; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27311, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
September 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-CV-08229 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to authorize and
permit rest periods and failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code and for violation
of California's Unfair Competition Act.

Production Resource Group LLC is a provider of entertainment and
event technology solutions based in Armonk, New York. Full Throttle
Films, LLC, d/b/a Ver, is a company that provides video equipment
on rent, headquartered in Glendale, California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                  

         Julie Dunne, Esq.
         Matthew Riley, Esq.
         Vani Parti, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Telephone: (619) 699-2700
         Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
         E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
                 matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
                 vani.parti@us.dlapiper.com


PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased
Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG) common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement, as amended, issued in
connection with Progenity's June 2020 IPO (the "Registration
Statement"). Investors have until October 27, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On or about June 22, 2020, defendants conducted Progenity's IPO. In
the IPO, defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of Progenity
common stock to the investing public at a price of $15 per share,
generating over $100 million in gross offering proceeds.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered
significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock
closed at just $7.71 per share -- nearly 50% below the $15 per
share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two
months previously.

The complaint, filed on August 28, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make the necessary disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose the
following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO,
rendering numerous statements provided therein materially false and
misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government payors by
$10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially
overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations
for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration
Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund this
overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in
which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly
results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating
negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the
Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing.

If you purchased Progenity common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Progenity's
June 2020 IPO, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form.  There is no cost or obligation
to you.

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted in June 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Progenity class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Progenity had
overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early
2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings
and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods
provided in the Registration Statement; (2) Progenity would need to
refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same
quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its
quarterly results; and (3) Progenity was suffering from
accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with
respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product
pricing. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


PSCU INC: Gibbons Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay for Call-Center Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM GIBBONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PSCU, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01719-DLR (D. Ariz., Sept.
1, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other call-center employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the overtime hours, include
off-the-clock work.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a call-center
employee in Phoenix, Arizona, from June 2016 until January 2020.

PSCU, Inc., operates a call center with its principal place of
business in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       

         Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
         Bruce C. Jackson, Jr., Esq.
         Clara S. Acosta, Esq.
         LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
         349 North Fourth Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
         Telephone: (602) 234-0008
         Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
         E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com

                - and –

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


PURITAN'S PRIDE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Sharpe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARCEY L. SHARPE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PURITAN'S
PRIDE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment barring the
Plaintiffs' claims for restitution and damages under the California
consumer statutes.

The putative consumer class action challenges Defendant Puritan's
Pride's use of "buy one/get one free" ("BOGO") promotionals to sell
vitamins and health supplements.  The discounts were presented as
available for a limited time only, but the Plaintiffs allege that
the pricing was permanent and that "there has been no reasonably
substantial period of time" when Puritan's Pride sold products at
anything other than purportedly exceptional prices.

The Plaintiffs allege that they bought the Defendants' products in
reliance on the BOGO promotionals.  The operative first amended
consolidated complaint ("FACC") states claims for deceptive
marketing practices under the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA").  The Court dismissed causes of action under
the New York General Business Law, and for unjust enrichment.

The Defendants seek partial summary judgment barring the
Plaintiffs' claims for restitution and damages under the California
consumer statutes.  The motion does not challenge the merits of the
deceptive practices claims, or contest the availability of
injunctive relief should the Plaintiffs prevail.  The Defendants
argue only that the measure of restitution in the case is limited
as a matter of law to the difference between the prices the
Plaintiffs paid under the BOGO promotionals and the value they
received.  They say the Plaintiffs' proposed "expected discount"
method is not based on this differential, and so restitution is
foreclosed as a remedy.  The Defendants contend that actual damages
under the CLRA are barred for similar reasons.

The main dispute is whether the Plaintiffs can pursue restitution
under an expected discount method, or whether they are limited to
an approach based on a price/value differential, as the Defendants
contend.  Before reaching that issue, two other theories of
recovery that the Plaintiffs mention can be dismissed in short
order.  They propose to pursue legal damages under California
Business and Professions Code Section 17537, which is a provision
in the FAL that makes it unlawful for any person to use the term
'prize' or 'gift' or other similar term in any manner that would be
untrue or misleading.  Unlike other violations of the FAL, treble
damages are available.

Judge Donato holds that the problem for the Plaintiffs is that the
plain language of Section 17537 shows it does not apply to the
case.  The Defendants' BOGO promotionals were not marketed in that
manner, or as a "gift" or "prize" in the ordinary meaning of those
words.  The Plaintiffs do not cite any evidence in the record
suggesting otherwise.  Consequently, they cannot seek damages under
this statute.

The Plaintiffs' disgorgement theory is equally unavailing, the
Court opines.  While the Plaintiffs are not necessarily restricted
to a price/value method, they still have the burden of proving
entitlement to an alternative measure of restitution proper under
all the circumstances.  On the record before the Court, they have
not shown that their expected discount proposal is a viable method
of measuring restitution.  The expected discount approach focuses
in a contract-law manner on the benefit of the bargain plaintiffs
expected from buying Puritan's Pride products at an apparent
discount.  That is a far cry from the starting point of
restitution, which is the money tje Plaintiffs lost and defendants
acquired.  For this reason, the California Supreme Court has
rejected an "expectancy" measure as a proper basis of restitution.
The Ninth Circuit has also said as much in an unpublished opinion.

The Plaintiffs' suggestion that they might be able to establish the
fair market value of Puritan's Pride products sometime in the
future does not save them, the Court notes.  After the Defendants
moved for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs had the burden of
supporting their restitution claims on the record as it stands.
Rule 56 does not permit them to avoid an adverse judgment on the
promise of delivering a better argument later.  Vague references to
"numerous spreadsheets" that could be used to calculate the fair
market value of Puritan's Pride products at some point in the
future do not meet the Rule 56 requirement to cite particular parts
of materials in the record.  It is not the Court's responsibility
to scour the record for evidence on the Plaintiffs' behalf.

The Defendants seek to foreclose actual damages under the CLRA on
the same argument that the price/value differential is the
exclusive measure available to the Plaintiffs.  They say that
California Civil Code Section 3343(a), which is a general provision
on damages in fraud cases and not part of the CLRA itself, limits
CLRA actual damages to the difference between the actual value of
that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of
that which he received, which the Defendants equate to price/value
differential.

This attempt to cabin actual damages to a single formula is again
misdirected, the Court holds.  The price/value measure in Section
3343(a) is at heart a restitutionary measure, and imposing it on
the CLRA would render the separate enumeration of actual damages
and restitution redundant -- a statutory construction error to be
avoided.  No specific damages measure is prescribed in the CLRA,
and the door is open to any reasonable measure.  The Defendants'
reliance on Grace v. Apple is also misplaced.  That case involved
restitution under the UCL and not a CLRA claim for actual damages,
which is subject to entirely different standards.  It is also worth
noting that benefit-of-the-bargain damages are typically available
in a California fraud-based action, unless an exception like
Section 3343 applies.

Consequently, the Defendants are not entitled to bar a claim for
actual damages under the CLRA as a matter of law, the Court finds.
Whether the Plaintiffs ultimately establish that they are entitled
to such damages is a question reserved for subsequent proceedings.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Donato granted summary judgment for
the Defendants on damages under California Business and Professions
Code Section 17537 and restitution.  Summary judgment is denied on
actual damages under the CLRA, the Judge ruled.  Because the
Defendants filed for summary judgment before a class was certified,
the Order binds only the named Plaintiffs, and no other putative
class members.  

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HehShf from Leagle.com.


QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Manta Files Class Action in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the QuoteWizard.com,
LLC. The case is captioned as Joseph Manta, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC; and
BlueFlame Web Marketing, LLC, Case No. 9:20-mc-81424-RS (D. Mass.,
Aug. 27, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
involving review or appeal of agency decision.

QuoteWizard.com, LLC provides online insurance services. The
Company offers an insurance comparison platform for auto, home,
life, health, and renters insurances. QuoteWizard.com serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa Jill Gomberg, Esq.
          BROAD AND CASSEL
          2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Floor 21
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-9492
          E-mail: mgomberg@broadandcassel.com


RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins EFTA Suit Removed to District of Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM CARDS; CACHE VALLEY BANK; AXIOM BANK N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20 TRT 00089 1B, was removed
from the Nevada District Court, Carson City County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada on September 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00509 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and for conversion, unjust enrichment, and
unconstitutional taking.

Rapid Financial Solutions, Inc., doing business as Access Freedom
Cards, is a financial institution with its principal place of
business in North Logan, Utah.

Axiom Bank N.A. is a nationally chartered community bank with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Florida. Cache
Valley Bank is a state-chartered bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Utah.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                  

         Robert McCoy, Esq.
         Ryan M. Lower, Esq.
         Sihomara L. Graves, Esq.
         KAEMPFER CROWELL
         1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
         Las Vegas, NV 89135
         Telephone: (702) 792-7000
         Facsimile: (702) 796-7181
         E-mail: rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com
                 rlower@kcnvlaw.com
                 sgraves@kcnvlaw.com

                - and –

         George Verschelden, Esq.
         STINSON LLP
         1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (816) 691-3382
         Facsimile: (816) 412-9344
         E-mail: george.verschelden@stinson.com


S.R. INTERIORS: Fails to Pay Brick Layers' OT Wages, Delgado Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIDES E. DELGADO, JUAN ARRIAGA PABLE, LUCRECIO ROMANO, JOAQUIN
CENOBIO, JUAN DOLORES, FRANCISCO CARDENAS, ANGEL CHAFLA, OMAR
VAZQUEZ MORALES, JOSE LUIS TEPETITLA, VICTORINO TORRES, and FREDDY
DE JESUS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. S.R. INTERIORS, INC. and STEVEN P. ROBINSON,
Case No. 7:20-cv-07332 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and other brick
layers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at their workplace, and to keep accurate payroll
records.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as brick layers at
1051 Mile Square Rd., in Yonkers, New York, from around 2019.

S.R. Interiors, Inc., is a general contractor that offers a full
range of home remodeling services located in Yonkers, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:             

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


SALT SPRINGS: Dismissal of Williams Suit Under FCCPA Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATHERESA WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. SALT SPRINGS RESORT
ASSOCIATION, INC., AND BOSSHARDT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Appellees, Case No. 5D18-3913 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court
of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, reversed the dismissal of
Williams' second amended class action complaint, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

LaTheresa Williams owns a condominium in the Salt Springs Resort
condominium complex, where she is a resident and an Association
member.  Salt Springs Resort's bylaws require residents to pay
assessments, which are incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.

The Appellees, Association and its property management company,
Bosshardt Property Management, LLC, claim Williams is delinquent in
payment.  Accordingly, they publicly posted a list of over one
hundred names of condominium owners who allegedly owed the
Association money.  They also listed the amounts owed.  Williams,
whose name appeared on the list, filed a one-count class action
complaint contending the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
("FCCPA") prohibits the public posting of "deadbeat lists" to
enforce or collect a "consumer debt."

Recognizing the binding authority of Bryan v. Clayton, the trial
court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Appellees.

Williams, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
residents of Salt Springs Resort appealed the dismissal with
prejudice of her second amended class action complaint.  

In determining the merits of a motion to dismiss, trial courts must
limit their consideration to the complaint's four corners, accept
all allegations as true, and draw all inferences in favor of the
pleader.  On appeal, the appellate court applies these same
principles.

The Florida District Court of Appeal agrees with the sister court
that for the FCCPA to apply to Williams's complaint, her payment
obligation or "debt" must arise (1) from a consumer out of a (2)
money, property, insurance, or services transaction which is (3)
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.  The
purchase of a condominium is unquestionably a property transaction,
and Williams alleged her condominium purchase was of residential
property for personal, family, or household reasons.

To determine whether Williams' obligation to pay assessments "arose
out of" the transaction, the Court is guided by the Condominium
Act, which provides the only mechanism by which a condominium may
be created or operated in Florida.  Every Florida condominium
purchase subjects its purchaser to the condominium's declaration
and bylaws.  The declaration must include an obligation to pay
association assessments, which apportion liability for condominium
common areas.  A declaration operates as a contract among unit
owners and the association, outlining their respective rights and
responsibilities.

Condominium associations may collect assessments, and bylaws must
outline the manner of collection.  Regardless of how condominium
owners acquire title, they are responsible for all assessments that
become due while they own their unit.  This obligation originates
when they acquire the property, and it can extend to assessments
owed on the unit even before they purchased it.

Williams has alleged that the Association's bylaws require her to
pay annual assessments, and the Appellees have alleged she is
delinquent in her payment obligations.  Florida law therefore
dictates Williams' obligation to pay her assessments arose from the
purchase of her unit.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court recedes from the Bryan case
and concludes that Williams has sufficiently alleged that her
condominium assessment arises out of a consumer transaction to
purchase property, and that her ongoing obligation to pay
assessments is a "consumer debt" under the FCCPA.  Like the sister
court, the Appellate Court's conclusion is based on the FCCPA's
plain language.  The Appellate Court also draws support from
decisions that a home purchase is a consumer transaction under the
FCCPA, and a mortgage foreclosure proceeding is an attempt to
collect a debt.  Finally, the Appellate Court relies on numerous
federal cases decided since Bryan that support the conclusion.

In sum, the Appellate Court receded from the Bryan case, reversed
the dismissal of Williams' second amended class action complaint,
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 12, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/365yFq3 from Leagle.com.


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Romero Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH ELLIOTT on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16cv1283 JM
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement.

On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
alleging that Securus Technologies unlawfully recorded calls
between detainees and attorneys.  Securus provides inmate
communication services for correctional facilities throughout
California.  The Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal
defense attorney who used Securus' telephone systems to make calls
to and from certain correctional facilities in California and whose
calls were recorded.  After the Court partially granted two
successive motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Complaint, which alleges claims for violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), unfair competition,
violation of the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq., concealment, fraud, negligence, and unjust
enrichment.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs first moved for class
certification, seeking to represent the class under both Rule
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).  They argued there were at least 123
potential class members in San Diego, and more statewide.  On April
12, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice.  The Court allowed the Plaintiffs
to renew their motion within 90 days notwithstanding Securus'
position that it had completed its production and that the deadline
for discovery on class certification issues had passed.

On May 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the
issue of whether their CIPA claim required proof of intent.  On
July 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs also filed a renewed motion for class
certification.  On Nov. 21, 2018, the court issued an order
resolving both motions.  The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment.  However, the Court granted in part
the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

The Court certified a class for the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), but denied
class certification for each of their other claims.  

The Court certified the following class:

  Every person who was a party to any portion of a conversation
  between a person who was in the physical custody of a law
  enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and
  that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or
  requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was
  eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies,
  Inc. by means of an electronic device during the period from
July,
  10, 2008 to the applicable opt-out date, inclusive.  

The Court also appointed as class counsel the Law Office of Robert
L. Teel, the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, and Foley & Lardner.


Thereafter, the parties participated in a two-day mediation with
the Ho. Leo S. Papas (Retired), first on Oct. 3, 2018 and again on
Aug. 16, 2019.  While the mediations did not result in an immediate
settlement, the parties reportedly made significant progress and
continued to engage in direct settlement negotiations following the
conclusion of the second mediation.

On Dec. 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory request with
the Ninth Circuit to appeal the denial of their motion for partial
summary judgment, which was denied.  Additionally, the parties
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the district court's
class certification order.  The Plaintiffs sought review of the
district court's denial of class certification as to all claims
except their CIPA claim.  Securus sought review of three questions,
including whether the court could certify class claims without any
evidence that Securus had a common, class-wide intention about
recording.  It also argued that the district court erred because
the court misapplied the law governing allegations of improperly
recorded calls after 2014.  

On Feb. 27, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the Plaintiff's, but
granted Securus' petition.  On April 17, 2019, the action was
stayed in the district court pending Securus' appeal.

Following the Ninth Circuit's grant of review of Securus' petition,
the Ninth Circuit appointed a mediator.  After multiple status
conferences with the mediator, an agreement was reached.  On March
12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal without prejudice
to reinstatement for approval of the settlement by the district
court.  On May 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

The terms of the proposed settlement include only injunctive
relief, and no monetary relief, to the class members.  Under the
proposed settlement agreement, within six months of the date the
Court enters judgment granting final approval of the settlement,
Securus will: (1) make available to its current and future
California facility customers a "private call" option when dialing
approved numbers that will allow inmates to make free calls that
"will not be recorded;" (2) make available to its current and
future California customers message prompts advising them, inter
alia, that calls to non-approved numbers may be monitored and
recorded, but calls to approved numbers will not; and (3) post on
its website information on how to designate a telephone number as
an approved number.

For five years thereafter, Securus will provide the Plaintiffs'
counsel with bi-annual declarations describing Securus' compliance.


Additionally, subject to the Court's approval, Securus will pay
each Plaintiff a service award of $20,000, and attorneys' fees and
costs in the amount of $840,000.  

Only the named Plaintiffs, not the class members, will release
their claims for injunctive relief and for damages.  

Finally, upon issuance of the preliminary approval order, Securus
will engage a third-party administrator, ILYM Group, to provide
notice to class members by email, or in the event of an invalid
email address, by mail.

As a result of their settlement, the parties request that the court
amend its Nov. 21, 2018 class certification order so that it
includes only injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2).  Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs seek to modify the Nov. 21, 2018 class definition to
the following: Every person who was a party to any portion of a
conversation between a person who was in the physical custody of a
law enforcement officer or other public officer in California, and
that person's attorney, on a telephone number designated or
requested not to be recorded, any portion of which was eavesdropped
on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. by means of
an electronic device during the period July 10, 2008 through
whichever occurs first: (1) the date on which the court grants
preliminary approval of the settlement; or (2) June 16, 2020.

Based on the April 17, 2020 settlement agreement, the unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, supporting
documents, and a hearing with the parties, Judge Miller
preliminarily finds that the settlement of the action, on the terms
and conditions set forth in the agreement and the exhibits, are
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests
of the class members, taking into consideration the benefits to
class members; the strength and weaknesses of the Plaintiffs' case;
the complexity, expense and probable duration of further
litigation; and the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals,
subject to certain revisions.

The Judge approved the selection of ILYM, Inc. to be the settlement
administrator.

In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, and as set forth
in the agreement, the Defendant itself, or through its designee, is
ordered to serve written notice of the proposed settlement on the
U.S. Attorney General and the appropriate California state
official, unless such notice has already been served.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the certification of the action is
confirmed for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of
the following class members: Every person who was a party to any
portion of a conversation between a person who was in the physical
custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer in
California, and that person's attorney, on a telephone number
designated or requested not to be recorded, any portion of which
was eavesdropped on or recorded by Defendant Securus Technologies,
Inc. by means of an electronic device during the period July 10,
2008 through June 16, 2020.

The Judge confirmed the appointment of the Plaintiffs as the class
representatives; and Foley & Lardner LLP, the Law Offices of Ronald
A. Marron, and the Law Office of Robert L. Teel as the class
counsel.

The Judge approved the form, content and method of notice set forth
in the agreement.  The Defendant will provide the class list and
email addresses to the settlement administrator without delay.

The Court will conduct a final approval hearing on Sept. 28, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3mBMjH9 from Leagle.com.


SERCO INC: Removes Bernal Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SERGIO V. BERNAL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SERCO, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. Case No.
30-2020-01150203-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 27,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01639-JVS-ADS.

The case alleges Labor Code violations arising from the Defendants'
failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks and/or missed break premiums, and failure to
reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon
termination of employment, and for Defendants' engagement in unfair
competition.

Serco Inc. is the Americas division of Serco Group, PLC, one of the
world's leading service companies. Serco serves federal, state and
local governments, along with the Canadian government and
commercial customers.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neal A. Fisher Jr., Esq.
          Chris Petersen, Esq.
          Marissa M. Franco, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: nealfisher@dwt.com
                  chrispetersen@dwt.com
                  marissafranco@dwt.com


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the the company
continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California.

Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of
its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
filed with the SEC (the "Registration Statement").

Six of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo and one of these lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Federal Action").

In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, a lead plaintiff has been
appointed and the operative complaint was filed in January 2020.

In January 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2020, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss.

On May 5, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. In May 2020,
the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the
court's order for interlocutory appeal. In June 2020, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California certified
the order for interlocutory appeal.

Also in June 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2020, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals granted the petition.

The six state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and
the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court
Action"). The operative complaint was filed in the State Court
Action in December 2019. A seventh state court action was filed in
June 2020, but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July
2020.

The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the
complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020.

In August 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrers, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by October 2,
2020.

The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement.

Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging
platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their
systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure,
enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest
organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common
stock of Staar Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
STAA) between February 26, 2020, and August 10, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased STAAR securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit STAAR 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 misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (i) its
sales and growth in China; (ii) its marketing spend; (iii) its
research and development expenses; and that as a result of the
foregoing; (iv) Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR reported its
financial results for the second quarter ended July 3, 2020 filing
a form 10-Q and issuing a press release with the SEC.  In the 10-Q,
STAAR reported that "the Company's distributor in China, accounted
for 57% and 43% of net sales for the three and six months ended
June 28, 2019, respectively.

On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted by approximately
10% from an August 5, 2020 close of $61.81 per share to an August 6
close of $55.86.

Then on August 11, 2020 analyst J Capital Research published a
report in which it wrote that "[w]e think that STAAR Surgical has
overstated sales in China by at least one-third, or 21.6 mln. That
would mean that all of the company's 14 mln in 2019 profit is
fake." the report continued that "[f]ake sales [in China] come at
100% margins and therefore translate directly into profit.  That
means that roughly $21.6 mln in overstated Chinese sales in 2019
represent 152% of total company profit.  In other words, without
the fraud that we believe pervades the China business, STAAR is
losing money."

On this news, STAAR's stock price plummeted again, closing at
$48.26 on August 11, 2020, down approximately 6.2% from its August
10, 2020 closing price of $51.42.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 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 STAAR securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/staarsurgicalcompany-staa-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-292/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.

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


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: Complaint Amended in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------

An amended complaint was filed on July 13, 2020 in the case, IN RE
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 17-7173 (FLW) (D. N.J.).

The original shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in October
2017.  Defendants are Stephen G. Waldis, William J. Cadogan, Thomas
J. Hopkins, James M. McCormick, and Donnie M. Moore and nominal
defendant, Synchronoss.  Under the lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that
in December 2016, when Synchronoss divested its Activation
business, a component of the Company which provides mobile handset
activation and network services, the Synchronoss Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders
by issuing misleading public statements in connection with the
sale.  In addition to other claims, the Plaintiffs asserted that
the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to the Company's
shareholders by disseminating misleading information regarding the
accounting of revenue from a licensing transaction into which the
Company entered, contemporaneously with the Activation
Divestiture.

The Defendants initially moved to dismiss the Complaint, which was
denied by the Court on Nov. 29, 2019 (the "Prior Opinion").

Subsequently, the Defendants moved for reconsideration of the
November 2019 decision.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion.  Judge
Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Motion for Reconsideration in a June 12, 2020
Opinion, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/Br2Y0T from Leagle.com.

In its June 12 Decision, the Court opines that contrary to its
prior finding, it appears that the Plaintiffs has not alleged that
the directors other than Waldis had any involvement in making the
misleading disclosures.  Judge Wolfson finds that Prior Opinion
erroneously attributes the statements in the SEC filings and during
the press release and investor calls to all of the Defendants.
Even if it is a minor factual error, the mistake is a material one
which would result in manifest injustice if not corrected.

Because the prior ruling hinged on a factual error which was
material to the finding that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged a
breach of the duty of disclosure, the Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration was granted.

The Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that the
Directors faced a substantial risk of liability for breach of
fiduciary duty and could not have acted in a disinterested and
independent fashion in the face of demand, such that demand was
excused, the Court held.

Because granting the Motion for Reconsideration results in the
dismissal of the only remaining claim in the Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

And thus, an amended complaint in the Synchronoss Technologies Inc.
Securities Litigation in July 2020.


TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend antitrust
litigation related to the pricing of econazole nitrate
pharmaceutical products.

To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have
been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc.,
regarding the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including
econazole nitrate.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges
during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class
plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants.

The actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the
In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.


On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs'
claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21,
2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the
Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains
pending.

On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further
complaint that included additional claims against the Company based
on the Company's sales of fluocinolone acetonide.

"Opt-out" antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed against
the Company by various plaintiffs, including Humana Inc.; The
Kroger Co. et al.; United HealthCare Services, Inc.; Molina
Healthcare, Inc.; MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; Health Care
Service Corp.; Harris County, Texas; and Rite Aid Corporation.

These complaints have been consolidated into the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Each of the opt-out complaints names up to forty-seven defendants
(including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the
pricing of econazole along with up to 180 other drug products, most
of which were not manufactured or sold by the Company during the
period at issue.

The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges
for the drug products identified in the complaint during the
alleged period of conspiracy, and some also seek injunctive relief.
A motion to dismiss the Humana Inc. and The Kroger Co., et al.
opt-out complaints was filed on February 21, 2019.

A complaint has also been filed by state Attorneys General based on
pricing of topical drugs, and naming the Company as a defendant
with respect to econazole nitrate.

The Attorney General plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged
overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy. This action
has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company
is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an
estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company
believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously
defend against these claims."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TELIGENT INC: Generic Drug Price-Fixing Suit in Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company and its Canadian subsidiary,
Teligent Canada, are defendants in a putative class action suit
related to alleged generic drug price fixing.

On June 3, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Federal Court of Canada against the Company and its Canadian
subsidiary, Teligent Canada, along with over fifty other
pharmaceutical defendant companies.

The Canadian lawsuit alleges that the generic drug manufacturer
defendants conspired to allocate the Canadian market and customers,
fix prices and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada to
artificially maintain market share and higher generic drug prices
in violation of Canada's Competition Act.

In terms of the Company and Teligent Canada, without limiting the
general allegation of a general conspiracy over the generic drug
market, the lawsuit specifically asserts allegations in relation to
econzaole dating back to September 2013 and continuing to the
present.

The representative individual plaintiff seeks to represent a class
comprised of all persons and entities in Canada who, from January
1, 2012 to the present, purchased generic drugs in the private
sector (i.e. purchases made by individuals out-of-pocket and by
individuals and businesses through private drug plans).

The plaintiff is alleging aggregate damages of CDN$2.75 billion for
harm caused to class members being charged increased prices as a
result of the alleged conspiracy.

Teligent said, "The Canadian lawsuit is at a very early stage and
the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether
an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote or to provide an
estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company
believes this lawsuit is without merit and it intends to vigorously
defend against the claim."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit initiated by Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement
System.

On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma
Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and
certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc.
securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages. On June 17,
2020, the court, deeming pre-motion letters as a motion to dismiss,
granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss.


Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company
is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an
estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company
believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously
defend against these claims."

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

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


THS GROUP: Faces Campo Class Suit Arising From Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRICIA CAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THS GROUP, LLC d/b/a TOTAL HOME PROTECTION, Case No.
1:20-cv-00925 (E.D. Va., Aug. 14, 2020), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

THS Group, LLC, doing business as Total Home Protection, provides
home warranties against home system component and appliance
breakdowns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Driscoll, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANK J DRISCOLL JR., PLLC
          4669 South Blvd., Suite 107
          Virginia Beach, VA 23452
          Telephone: (757) 321-0054
          Facsimile: (757) 321-4020
          E-mail: frank@driscolllawoffice.com

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0808
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the parties in Juan
Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed
to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the
mediator.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April
2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) against the company seeking penalties
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the
same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR,
the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the
Company.

In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed.
The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
in March 2020.

Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have
agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance
of the mediator.

The court has not yet issued a trial date.

By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is
required to indemnify Tilly's for all of Tilly's losses and
expenses incurred in connection with this matter.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


U.S. BANK: Yousefi Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ATEFEH YOUSEFI, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00022823-CU-OE-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 September
9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01770-BAS-AGS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to timely pay wages due upon separation of employment, and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code and for unlawful and unfair business
practices in violation of California Business and Professions
Code.

U.S. Bank National Association is a national banking association
with its main office located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                   
   
         Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         101 California Street, 35th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 591-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
         E-mail: jfife@winston.com

                - and –

         Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
         Jason S. Campbell, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
         Telephone: (213) 615-1700
         Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
         E-mail: ewoodhead@winston.com
                 jscampbell@winston.com


UBER: New Contracts Won't Allow Drivers to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Deschamps, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. is trying to keep its Canadian drivers from
joining or starting class-action lawsuits against the company -- a
move that threatens to upend a $400-million fight from drivers
wanting to be recognized as employees, says a lawyer.

Employment lawyer Lior Samfiru, who is pursuing the case, said
drivers using the platform were asked to sign new contracts days
ago that ask them to agree not to pursue class or collective
action.

Uber, instead, wants drivers to agree to settle their issues with
the company through arbitration or on an individual basis, Samfiru
said.

"The drivers get locked out of the Uber app, unless they click
accept this new agreement," he said.

"For a driver that is trying to earn a living wage, especially
during these difficult times, what are the chances that someone is
actually going to read this in detail, understand what it means,
understand the options, and make an informed decision?"

Uber said in a statement to The Canadian Press that "with the
updated arbitration clause, dispute resolution is now more
accessible to drivers, bringing Uber Canada in line with other
jurisdictions."

Samfiru, however, worries the contract could have a chilling effect
on the class-action he started in 2017 with Ontario Uber Eats
driver David Heller.

Heller was hoping to force the San Francisco-based tech giant to
recognize drivers as employees and provide them with a minimum
wage, vacation pay and other protections under the Employment
Standards Act.

Uber fought the case and managed to have it stayed because the
company required all disputes it is involved in go through
mediation in the Netherlands, where it is incorporated. However,
Uber said it recently amended its dispute resolution protocols to
allow arbitration to occur in the province or territory where a
driver resides and ensure drivers will pay no more to start
arbitration than the filing fee to file a lawsuit in court.

Samfiru said mediation costs US$14,500, but Heller was only making
between $400 and $600 a week for up to 50 hours of work. That
amounted to $20,800 to $31,200 a year before taxes and expenses.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which sided
with the drivers and paved the way for them to fight to be
recognized as employees.

Samfiru's lawsuit seeks $200 million in compensation and $200
million in punitive damages on behalf of the tens of thousands of
Ontario residents who have driven for the ride-sharing service
since 2012.

If drivers sign Uber's contract, they'll have to stay out of his
class action unless they read some of the contract's fine print and
email the company at an address he said was provided to opt out of
the clause.

"I think (Uber) is counting on the fact that most are not going to
do that, they're not going to understand that, they're not even
going to read it," Samfiru said.

"They will then have potentially thousands of drivers across the
province and beyond who will then be prevented from participating
in a class action."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 31,
2020. [GN]


UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: May Directly Mail Notice to Hilaire Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEAN HILAIRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNDERWEST
WESTSIDE OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ.
03169 (PAE) (RWL) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered that the Plaintiffs may mail their notice of
pendency to the putative class action members directly instead of
engaging a third-party notice administrator.

In their notice of pendency, the Plaintiffs will provide putative
class action members with 90 days to file a consent to joinder
form.  Sixty days after they have mailed their notice of pendency,
the Plaintiffs may mail the putative class action members a
reminder notice.  Before any such reminder notice is mailed, the
Defendants will have the opportunity to review and comment on the
reminder notice, and the parties may bring any disagreements on the
reminder notice to the Court's attention.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/BEqon4 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Worker, Maloney Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA MALONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
State, Case No. 1:20-cv-02516 (D.D.C., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for disability discrimination, retaliation
and violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated individuals with disabilities, alleges that the Defendant
failed to accommodate her or to engage in the interactive process
in good faith after she became disabled working as a Foreign
Service Officer (FSO) for the U.S. Department of State. She
contends that the Defendant's failure resulted in substantial harms
to her career; specifically, among other things, repeated denial of
tenure and career advancement opportunities in 2019 because of
things she was unable to do absent reasonable accommodations,
despite her solid performance otherwise.

According to the complaint, the Defendant also retaliated against
the Plaintiff for her repeated accommodations requests and her
protected equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints, including
an already-pending class action suit in this Court, Case No.
18-cv-00809-ABJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
         BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
         180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 444-9300
         Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
         E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

                - and –

         Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
         Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
         Robert L. Schug, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4600 IDS Center
         80 South Eighth Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                 aprakash@nka.com
                 schug@nka.com


UNITED STATES: Harrington Sues USPS Over Merging of Post Offices
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL HARRINGTON, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States
Parcel Service, ROBERT M. DUNCAN, Chairman of the Postal Service
Board of Governors, and the UNITED STATES PARCEL SERVICE, Case No.
1:20-cv-05303 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2020), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from violating the Plaintiff's right to vote by
unlawfully consolidating post offices.

For purposes of this suit, persons similarly situated to the
Plaintiff are those persons, who have the right to vote under the
Illinois constitution and are lawful registered voters in Illinois,
who intend to vote in the upcoming November 3 election via USPS
mail. The Plaintiff wishes to vote via USPS mail due to concerns
that she could contract COVID-19 if she votes in person.

According to the complaint, Defendant United States Post Office did
not provide adequate notice of its intent to consolidate a post
office at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of the
consolidation to persons served by such post office to ensure that
such persons will have an opportunity to present their views. The
Defendants' act of removing or dismantling Delivery Bar Code
Sorting machines constitutes a consolidation of a post office under
39 U.S.C. Section 404.

The Defendants have directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff's
voting rights to be placed at risk and infringed, because the
Plaintiff's mail-in ballots may not be postmarked by November 3,
2020, or received by their election authority within 14 days after
the election, the Plaintiff contends.

United States Post Office is an independent establishment of the
executive branch of the federal government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arlo Walsman, Esq.
          ARLO LAW OFFICE
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 313-0035
          Facsimile: (312) 724-9771
          E-mail: Arlo@arlolawoffice.com


VYSTAR CORP: LaChapelle Class Suit vs. Rotmans Furniture Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Robert LaChapelle's class action complaint
against Rotmans Furniture, a company subsidiary, is ongoing.

On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans
Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including
Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior
Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay
pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the
Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and
150).

Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him
and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis
overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or
premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours
they worked on Sundays.

Rotmans is in the process of investigating these claims to
determine whether it may be liable to the members of the putative
class for unpaid overtime and Sunday pay and, if so, the
approximate amount of such amounts.

Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's
product is used in an extensive range of products including
balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives,
foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment,
sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as
condoms, surgical and exam gloves.


WAITERCOM INC: Moreno Sues in California Over Untimely Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN MORENO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. WAITERCOM, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV369926
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 26, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code by failing to timely pay all wages due
to the Plaintiff and proposed class members.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid or
non-exempt employee within the State of California.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other class members required overtime compensation,
meal and rest period premiums, minimum wages, and wages owed to
them at the time of their discharge or resignation. The Defendants
also failed to provide the Plaintiff complete and accurate wage
statements and to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and
costs.

Waiter.com, Inc., is an online restaurant delivery service
headquartered in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  agrigoryan@justicelawcorp.com


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Whitaker Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa Whitaker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Washington
University d/b/a Washington University Physicians, Defendant, was
transferred from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, MO with the
assigned Case No. 2022-CC09439 to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on September 9, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01219.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over a Diversity-Contract Dispute.

Washington University Physicians, the multispecialty group practice
of the School of Medicine, is one of the five largest academic
clinical practices in the nation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
   Husch Blackwell LLP - St Louis
   190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
   St. Louis, MO 63105
   Tel: (314) 480-1500
   Fax: (314) 480-1505
   Email: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com


WESTROCK SERVICES: Castrejon Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HUMBERTO CASTREJON, JR., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC and DOES
1 through 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-01609, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on September
1, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06162-SK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged California Labor Code
violations, including failure to pay applicable minimum wages and
overtime premium, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure
to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to pay
wages due upon discharge, and unfair business practices.

Westrock Services, LLC, is a paper and packaging manufacturing
company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:       

         Mia Farber, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
         Telephone: (213) 689-0404
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
         E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com

                - and –

         Scott P. Jang, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com

                - and –

         Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         Riverpark Tower, Suite 1625
         333 West San Carlos St.
         San Jose, CA 95110
         Telephone: (408) 579-0404
         Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
         E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com


XEROX BUSINESS: Must Face Call Center Workers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that three
companies were unable to escape a wage class action by call center
workers after a federal court in Washington said their liability
and damages could be handled on a class-wide basis despite
differences in the amount of time each worker might be owed pay
for.

Xerox Business Services LLC, Livebridge Inc., and Affiliated
Computer Services Inc. operate call centers at which agents respond
to calls for third-party clients like phone companies, airlines,
and hotels. The plaintiffs claim the companies' "achievement-based
compensation" system violates the state's minimum wage law. [GN]



YAYYO INC: Vanbecelaere Securities Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MICHAEL VANBECELAERE, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YAYYO, INC., RAMY EL-BATRAWI, JONATHAN ROSEN,
KEVIN PICKARD, HARBANT S. SIDHU, JEFFREY GUZY, CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO,
PAUL RICHTER, AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC. and DOES
1-25, Case No. 20STCV28066, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on September 1, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-07997-PA-AGR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 concerning an initial
public offering (IPO) of Defendant YayYo, Inc.

YayYo, Inc., is a company that develops and delivers a rideshare
booking and cost comparison application with its principal place of
business in Beverly Hills, California.

WestPark Capital, Inc., is a full-service investment banking and
securities brokerage firm with its principal place of business in
Los Angeles, California. Aegis Capital Corp. is a company that
provides a variety of investment banking services, with its
principal place of business located at 810 7th Ave., in New York
City.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          

         Julie E. Kamps, Esq.
         WESTPARK CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
         1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 310
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 203-2942
         Facsimile: (310) 843-9389
         E-mail: jkamps@wpcfs.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Securities Action in New Jersey Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a securities class action complaint, including
applicable appeals, had been settled or dismissed by the parties
and the applicable courts.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a
class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful
scheme to promote its stock.

The Company has been served with the Class Action Complaint. The
Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on that
analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and otherwise
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint.

Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the
Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the
District of New Jersey. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018. On January 23,
2019, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order
on February 7, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider was denied. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal with United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As of May 27, 2020, the Class Action Complaints, including
applicable appeals, have been settled or dismissed by the parties
and the applicable courts.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New
Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Paymobile Inc.



                            *********

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 ***