/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200924.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 192

                            Headlines

10UP INC: Daniele Files Class Suit in California Superior Court
3M: Faces Securities Class Action Following Stock Price Drop
70 SHERMAN DRY: Polanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
ACTION COLLECTION: Derloshon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
AMANDA LINDROTH: Holland Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Workers

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cooper Sues Over False Marketing of Drinks
APPLE INC: Class Action Suit Alleges MacBook Fraud
ARS NATIONAL: Lebovits Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
ASSURED IMAGING: Travis Files Class Suit in District of Arizona
AUSTIN, TX: Sexual Assault Survivors Appeal Class Suit Dismissal

BABYVISION INC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
BARBERTON TREE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Hall Claims
BITFINEX: Seeks Dismissal of Bitcoin Market Manipulation Lawsuit
BMW: Oil Consumption Class Action Dismissal Upheld
BNSF RAILWAY: Court Narrows Flooding-Linked Claims in Macias Suit

BOB PALERMO INC: Faces Coddington Suit in New York Supreme Court
BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attys. Discuss Aftermath of S.C. Ruling
BROWNELL INC: Faces Graciano ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BSA LIMITED: To Vigorously Defend Misclassification Class Action
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Distillery, Restos Slam Denied Coverage

CLEVELANDER OCEAN: Dalton Sues in Florida Over Violation of FLSA
COMCAST CABLE: Misclassifies Human Resource Workers, Bertot Says
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Piper Alderman Files New Class Action
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Advice
CONVERSE INC: Appeals Ruling in Madeira Labor Suit to 9th Circuit

CVS PHARMACY: Seeking Justice for Pain Files Opioid Class Action
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Karns Sues Over Data Breach
DNATA US: Moore Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDWARD MALINA: Sarkisyan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

ERIE INSURANCE: Balogh Enterprises Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
ETHAN ALLEN: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
EVERBRAND LLC: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Faces Garrett FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado
FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Flood Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Motion to Compel Filed in Iwanski Class Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FRESH MARKET: Fails to Put Nutrition Labels on Foods, Myhand Says
FTG AEROSPACE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Securities Class Action
FULL SOURCE: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

GALLS LLC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Camaro Starter
GLIK COMPANY: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Crypto Ad Ban
GS VICTOR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Katt Claims

GUAM: DOJ Wants H-2B Visa Class Action Dismissed
HDFC BANK: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
HEARST MAGAZINE: S.D. California Dismisses Arnold Consumer Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
HOTELS.COM LP: San Antonio Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court

IMPERIAL INDUSTRIAL: Monegro Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly
INTACT INSURANCE: Hair Salon Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
IRA L. GROSSMAN: Underpays Veterinary Technicians, Cordy Claims
ITO EN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Nelson Class Suit in S.D. New York
JOHN C. HEATH: Boyd Sues in D. Utah Alleging Violation of TCPA

KENZO PARIS: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
KITCHEN KAPERS: Fuchs Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
KM INDUSTRIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harris Labor Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Suit Over Maxwell House Coffee's Deceptive Ad
KRAPILS: Faces Hankes FLSA Suit Over Improper Overtime Wages

LAB TEC COSMETICS: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
LLOYD'S LONDON: Tripwire Files Class Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in DeAngelo FDCPA Class Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Shaughnessy Consumer Suit Moved to S.D. California
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Freedman Suit

MEI PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 9 Motion Deadline
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Williams Class Suit in M.D. Georgia
MEYER CORP: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Alleges
MOUNTAIN STATE: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

NATIONAL OCEANIC: Charter Boat Captains Sue Over 'Intrusive' Rule
NELNET INC: Isner-Monticello Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
NEW YORK, NY: Lady Gaga's Father Joins Restaurant Owners' Suit
NEW YORK: Staten Island Boutique Fitness Studio Owners to File Suit
ON DECK CAPITAL: Morrison Balks at Proposed $90MM Sale to Enova

OTTAWA: Agrees to Certify 2 Class Action Lawsuits
PAUL HESSE: Former Client Mulls Immigration Class Action
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Fowler Sues in Florida Over Violation of FDCPA
POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Lee's Cybersquatting Suit Tossed; Fined $1MM
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Breaches Plan Fiduciary Duties, Campbell Claims

RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Suit Moved From Massachusetts to Colorado
ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Perry Sues in D. Nevada Over Violation of FDCPA
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED: $6.6MM Settlement Reached in Rental Car Fee Suit
SCIPLAY CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
SPRAGUE OPERATING: Agudelo Files Suit in District of Rhode Island

ST. BASIL'S: Facing Class Action Over COVID Outbreak
STAR SNACKS: Andrews Files Suit in Northern District of Alabama
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Heyward Files FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
TOYOTA MOTOR: Ruiz Files Product Liability Suit in D. New Jersey
TRUSTCO BANK: Livingston Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees

UNITED STATES: Bidon Sues in Federal Claims Court Over OT Claims
UNITED STATES: Suit v. DETR Still Moving, But Judge Gives Warning
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Andrade Labor Suit Seeks to Recoup Proper Wages
US BANK: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in Thole
VICTORIA: Anti-mask Lawyers Seeking $200,000 for Class Suit

WELLS FARGO: Settles Lawsuit Over Lending Policies for Immigrants
YAYYO INC: Rung Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
[*] Greenberg Traurig Discusses Class Action Updates
[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Litigation Risks
[*] Parents File Nation-Wide Class Action Due to School Closures

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorneys Discuss PPP MDL Court Rulings

                            *********

10UP INC: Daniele Files Class Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 10UP, INC., et al.
The case is styled as Richard Daniele, Richard Goss, Steve Landi,
individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated v. 10UP,
INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE; Case No.
CGC20586506 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 11, 2020).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

10up is a leading web development and strategy agency that
emphasizes great user experiences and simple content
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Gretchen Nelson, Esq., and Matthew
Righetti, Esq.


3M: Faces Securities Class Action Following Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Kalyani, writing for Scientect, reports that 3M, one of the world's
leading industrial - chemical conglomerate that deals in
electroactive polymers, with five lines of business is facing
lawsuit. The class action is on behalf of all individuals and
entities other than Defendants who bought or acquired publicly
traded 3M securities from February 9, 2017 to May 28, 2019.

Earlier, business analyst of a leading financial services company
declared the 3M business model to be defeated. Due to this, 3M
stock price dropped to 18% below recent level only to be rated as
underweight.

Further, according to the analyst, 3M's woes are beyond simple
cyclical fluctuations related to slowing automotive and electronic
end users. Instead the problems are structural and puts forth the
question if billions spent by the company on recent restructuring
will produce material benefits in the forthcoming years.

However, realignment announced by the company a couple of months
ago will boost impression among consumers for its multiple line of
businesses. The new structure will comprise four business segments:
Transportation & Electronics, Consumer, Healthcare, and Safety &
Industrial.

Top companies operating in the global electroactive polymers market
include 3M, Konarka Technologies Inc., Panasonic Corporation,
Artificial Muscle Inc., and Earnex Corporation. [GN]


70 SHERMAN DRY: Polanco Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAN POLANCO, on behalf himself and others similarly situated v. 70
SHERMAN DRY CLEANERS INC. d/b/a FIVE STAR CLEANERS, and CHOON S.
KIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-07453 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate their business
with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff his lawfully earned
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours" premium
in direct contravention of the federal and state laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt garment
presser, handyman, porter, and delivery worker for the Defendants'
Dry Cleaner Establishment, where his job responsibilities included
ironing garments, cleaning the premises, performing any necessary
maintenance or upkeep to the store, and delivering garments to
customers.

70 Sherman Dry Cleaners Inc. owns and operates a dry cleaner
establishment, doing business as "Five Star Cleaners," located in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTION COLLECTION: Derloshon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACTION COLLECTION
SERVICE, INC. The case is styled as Ashley Derloshon, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ACTION COLLECTION
SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02381-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., Sept. 14,
2020).

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

Action Collection Service, Inc. (ACS) is an Idaho-based,
multi-state collections agency specializing in collection,
recovery, and monitoring of delinquent balances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
          SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
          6100 North Keystone Ave., Suite 620
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Phone: (317) 255-2600
          Fax: (317) 255-2905
          Email: rshea@sawinlaw.com


AMANDA LINDROTH: Holland Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HOLLAND and NATALIE RESTREPO v. AMANDA LINDROTH CORP., a
Florida corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-81601-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept.
10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant
over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant to work as warehouse
workers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40
hours per week without being compensated at the statutory rate of
time and one-half as mandated by the FLSA. Instead, they were only
paid by the Defendant at their regular hourly rate for all the
hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.

Amanda Lindroth Corp. manufactures interior design products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Schofield, Esq.
          ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A.
          Via Jardin Building
          330 Clematis St., Suite 207
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Tel: (561) 655-4211
          Fax: (561) 655-5447
          Email: aschofield@flalabor.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cooper Sues Over False Marketing of Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA COOPER and JOSEPH ROSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-07451 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), is a consumer protection
class action arising from the Defendant's false and misleading
advertising of its Ritas Margarita, Mojito, Rose, and Sangria
beverages sold in enclosed packages.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and other consumers of
"SPARKLING MARGARITA" have been misled by the Defendant's packaging
into believing the product contains tequila. Similarly, consumers
of "ROSE" or "SANGRIA" have been deceived by the Defendant's
packaging into believing the products contain wine, while those who
have bought the Defendant's "MOJITO" and "SPARKLING CLASSIC
COCKTAILS" have also come to mistakenly believe the beverages
contain rum based on their label representations. However,
unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and other consumers, the products do
not contain tequila, wine, or rum, respectively.

As a result of the Defendant's false and deceptive packaging, the
Plaintiffs say they and other members of the proposed Class have
purchased the products they otherwise would not have purchased or
have paid more for the products than they otherwise would have
paid.

Anheuser-Busch, LLC, is an American brewing company that owns
brands, such as Budweiser, Stella Artois, and Michelob Ultra.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com


APPLE INC: Class Action Suit Alleges MacBook Fraud
--------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that Plaintiff Justin Ocampo filed a
putative class action suit in the Northern District of California,
alleging that Apple Inc. misled consumers about the quality of its
MacBook Pro Laptops starting with its 2016 model. The 10-count
complaint asserts breach of warranty, false advertising, and
consumer fraud claims under both state and federal law against
California-based Apple, "seeking to redress the pervasive pattern
of deceptive, false, misleading, and otherwise improper
advertising, sales, and marketing practices" leveled at consumers.

The complaint targets the MacBook Pro display screen, which
features "a light-up touch-based panel that replaces certain
function keys on the keyboard." These computers, first introduced
in late 2016, did not live up to expectations due to display
backlighting issues, the complaint argues. This is because the
machines' flex cables, which connect the laptops' display screen to
the base of the computer, are defective, the filing explained. In
turn, MacBook Pro Laptops either malfunction when the screen is
angled wider than a certain degree, or because the display screen
is inoperable altogether.

Despite Apple's 2019 acknowledgment of the defect and offer to
repair one model's display backlight issues, consumer grievances
were largely unresolved, the complaint contends. The filing points
to representations made by Apple, like "'[t]he new display in the
MacBook Pro is the best ever in a Mac notebook,' and that it
'ensures truer-to-life pictures with realistically vivid
details.'"

These statements, the plaintiff argues, amount to
misrepresentations that reasonable consumers relied on while making
Apple MacBook purchases. Had Apple notified consumers of these
flaws and had they known of Apple's allegedly false and misleading
advertising, "consumers would not otherwise [have] purchased a
purportedly high-end laptop costing approximately $1,499.00 to
$2,399.00," the complaint contends.

In turn, the plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of
individual consumers who purchased MacBook Pro Laptops with a model
year of 2016 or later within the last four years, and a California
subclass consisting of California residents who did the same. The
plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief
preventing Apple from further "defrauding the public," and ordering
it to provide a comprehensive repair program for models that
experience backlight display issues.

The plaintiff is represented by Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.[GN]

ARS NATIONAL: Lebovits Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chaim Lebovits,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS
National Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-07444
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020).

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

Ars National Services, Inc., provides accounts receivable
management services. The Company provides collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSURED IMAGING: Travis Files Class Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assured Imaging LLC.
The case is styled as Angela T. Travis, Kerri G. Peters, Geraldine
Pineda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Assured Imaging LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Case No.
4:20-cv-00390-SHR (D. Ariz., Sept. 11, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Assured Imaging provides a variety of services in addition to the
sale of mammography equipment, custom mobile coaches, portable
solutions and in-house solutions for providers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hart Lawrence Robinovitch
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
          Phone: (480) 348-6400
          Fax: (480) 348-6415
          Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com


AUSTIN, TX: Sexual Assault Survivors Appeal Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Hamdan, writing for KUT90.5, reports that attorneys
representing eight sexual assault survivors are appealing a federal
court's decision to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging Austin
and Travis County officials mishandled the survivors' cases.

Federal Judge Lee Yeakel of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District threw out the case in February -- nearly two years after
the lawsuit was first filed in June 2018.

Plaintiffs had argued the city and county defendants -- including
Austin Police Chief Brian Manley and outgoing Travis County
District Attorney Margaret Moore -- mishandled sexual assault cases
because of gender discrimination. But Yeakel ruled there was not
enough evidence to prove there was a conspiracy.

Attorneys for the survivors argue the judge never gave their
clients an opportunity to address what he ruled was wrong with the
complaint.

"I think the [plaintiffs] expected to have another opportunity,
based on how federal courts work generally," said Jennifer Ecklund,
a lawyer at Thompson Coburn LLP, the law firm representing the
plaintiffs.

"The City will respond to the recently filed brief next month," a
city spokesperson said in a statement. "In the meantime, the City
continues to move forward with its commitment to improve the
criminal justice process for cases involving allegations of sexual
assault."

The Travis County District Attorney's Office said it could not
comment on pending litigation.

Typically in a motion to dismiss, courts will allow plaintiffs to
file a new complaint to address deficiencies laid out in the
original case. Instead, Ecklund says, the judge declined to hear
the majority of the claims laid out in the lawsuit, citing an
abstention doctrine. This is when a court refuses to hear a case
because the court believes it could be in conflict with another
court.

Yeakel argued federal involvement could hinder the state's
interest, pointing to new Texas laws and municipal initiatives
around the crime of sexual assault. State lawmakers added more than
$75 million to their budget in 2019 toward these initiatives,
including nearly $60 million to build a new crime lab to address
the backlog in testing rape evidence kits. The Austin City Council
is also moving forward with an independent review of how Austin
police investigate hundreds of sexual assault cases.

"The passage of the new laws indicates a strong statewide interest
in changing the current manner in which municipalities, law
enforcement, and prosecutors address sexual assaults in Texas,"
Yeakel said in his ruling.

Ecklund has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the
ruling. She argues the state's initiatives do not interfere with
her clients' fight for their constitutional rights.

"In any number of other kinds of cases, a state policy interest may
be involved, while at the same time constitutional rights are still
heard by the courts," she said. "Whether it's in the abortion
sphere or the school desegregation sphere, it's frequent that these
interests come into play with one another."

Ecklund and her team don't believe moving forward with the federal
lawsuit would hinder any state initiatives.

"We're arguing that the system needs to account for any
discrimination that may be inherent in their processes, and,
presumably, the state interest is in protecting victims and
ensuring law enforcement does result in justice," she said. "From
where we sit, those two things are in harmony -- not in conflict."
[GN]


BABYVISION INC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BABYVISION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07401-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind and a visually-impaired handicapped, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software, and a person and a member of a protected class of
individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Web site,
http://www.babymallonline.com/,is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers like him due to the website's
multiple barriers, which he experienced when he visited the website
in September 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. The
Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety of features and
accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being
able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.

Babyvision, Inc. is a baby products company that owns and operates
the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARBERTON TREE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Hall Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HALL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons v. BARBERTON TREE SERVICE, INC., and KEITH N. LUCK, Case
No. 5:20-cv-02036-SL (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 10, 2020), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, including pre-shift work and Saturdays. However, the
Defendants failed to compensate them for pre-shift work and failed
to count Saturday work towards weekly hours, thereby, denying them
of lawfully earned overtime compensation at a rate of at least one
and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee from July 2019 to July 27, 2020.

Barberton Tree Service, Inc., provides tree trimming and removal
services. Keith N. Luck is the founder, owner, president, and
operator of the Defendant Barberton Tree.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 824-5770
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


BITFINEX: Seeks Dismissal of Bitcoin Market Manipulation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Himadri Saha, writing for Crypto Potato, reports that stablecoin
printing firm Tether and cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex have
rejected the Bitcoin market manipulation lawsuit against them as
baseless. In a motion filed on Sept. 3, they have called for it's
outright dismissal.

Bitfinex and sister firm Tether moved to dismiss a Bitcoin
manipulation lawsuit filed against them in October last year. The
crypto companies said that the allegations are baseless.

Bitfinex and Tether Call For Dismissal of 'Preposterous' Lawsuit

In October 2019, a group of bitcoin and cryptocurrency traders
David Leibowitz, Benjamin Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz, Aaron
Leibowitz, and Pinchas Goldshtein filed a class-action lawsuit
against Bitfinex and Tether claiming that the crypto exchange and
the USDT printing firm manipulated markets resulting in damages to
the tune of $1.4 trillion. On Sept. 3, Tether and Bitfinex parent
firm iFinex filed a motion for dismissal of the lawsuit.

Earlier in June this year, Bitfinex General Counsel Stuart Hoegner,
had labeled the lawsuit as an "unproven conspiracy theory" in a
company announcement. But the two cryptocurrency companies decided
to strengthen their stance in a supporting memorandum. Extracts
from the statement read:

Plaintiffs attempt to patch this gaping hole in the CAC with
unsupported conclusions and rank speculation, rather than
allegations of fact.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
claims fail because Plaintiffs do not plead facts demonstrating a
RICO conspiracy, or that they suffered an injury proximately caused
by such a conspiracy. All of the claims should be dismissed.

Accounts Used For Crypto Market Manipulation Not Owned by Bitfinex
The plaintiffs claimed that from 2015 to 2018, a Bitfinex 'account'
owner wired around $3 billion USDT to 'accounts'. These accounts
exist on Bittrex and Poloniex (also the defendants in the case). As
per the allegation, USDT transfers stopped temporarily during a
ten-day period in January 2018.

Bitfinex slammed these accusations in the memorandum. It stated
that the plaintiff's case entirely depends on the 'assumption' that
these 'accounts' belong to the exchange. In its defense, Bitfinex
added:

Plaintiffs do not allege any fact -- i.e., no document, no witness,
no email, no other communication -- suggesting that the Accounts
are owned or controlled by Bitfinex. Instead, Plaintiffs ask the
Court to infer that the accounts are owned or controlled by
Bitfinex based on innocuous facts that do not demonstrate such
ownership or control.

The iFinex owned cryptocurrency exchange went on to say that it has
'thousands of customers all over the world'. Therefore, transfers
from Bitfinex to the mentioned 'accounts' don't imply anything
about the ownership of these accounts.

Even if the transfers are as large as $3 billion, it doesn't mean
that a single person or entity owns the accounts.

Lawsuit Fails To Prove That The Plaintiffs 'Actually' Suffered
Damages

Bitfinex and Tether have negated the possibility of the
complainants incurring serious losses. The crypto companies said
that it is 'rare' that the plaintiff 'traded directly with a
defendant'. According to the statement:

she will have to plead enough facts to make plausible the inference
that the prices of her trades with a third party have been
substantially influenced by a defendant's trades with a third (or
fourth or fifth . . .)

The accuser as per Bitfinex and Tether has not brought to light
even a single transaction that can prove that its financial impact
on the complainant was harmful.

The allegations don't add up on any grounds, and hence, should be
outrightly dismissed, Bitfinex said. [GN]


BMW: Oil Consumption Class Action Dismissal Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
Car Complaints reports that a BMW oil consumption class action
lawsuit may finally be over after a California 550i owner filed a
suit which alleges he must constantly add oil to keep the vehicle
running.

California plaintiff Robert Smothers says he noticed excessive oil
consumption problems in 2012, but multiple dealer visits allegedly
did nothing to help his 2012 BMW 550i.

According to the oil consumption class action, the plaintiff paid
about $9,000 for repairs and eventually asked BMW to repurchase the
vehicle. The automaker denied that request and the plaintiff
responded by filing the lawsuit.

In a motion to dismiss the class action, BMW argued the plaintiff
failed to file the lawsuit within the statutes of limitations which
meant the class action should immediately be dismissed. The
district court judge agreed and granted BMW's motion to dismiss.

However, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Smothers testified he knew of the alleged oil consumption problem
as early as May 2012 and argued BMW technicians had not fixed the
problem after multiple visits to the BMW dealership by December
2013.

The appeals court ruled that even if Smothers did not know the
precise nature of the problem, he could have explicitly talked to
technicians about the oil consumption which would have "shed light
on the inquiry."

Based on the statutes of limitations, Smothers' claims were
untimely as of December 2017, but he filed his lawsuit in May
2018.

The BMW oil consumption class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, and
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
Smothers, et al., v. BMW of North America, LLC. [GN]

BNSF RAILWAY: Court Narrows Flooding-Linked Claims in Macias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss in the case captioned Leticia Macias, Juan
Garcia, Elizabeth Magana Zamora, San Juanita Schneider, Ashley
Negrete, N.N., a minor by and through her next friend Ashley
Negrete, Timothy Curry, and Juan Carlos Vasquez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BNSF Railway
Company; Miles Leasing, LLC; Unified Government of Wyandotte County
and Kansas City, Kansas; Terminal Consolidation Co.; Nickell
Properties, LLC; Amino Bros. Co., LLC; and Jane/John Doe
Construction Companies, Case No. 19-cv-2305-JWL (D. Kan.).

Defendant Terminal Consolidation Company's motion to dismiss is
granted in its entirety and this defendant is dismissed from this
action; Defendant Nickell Properties, LLC's motion to dismiss is
granted in its entirety and this defendant is dismissed from this
action; Defendant Unified Government's motion to dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part; and Defendant BNSF's motion to dismiss
is granted in part and denied in part.

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss
filed by BNSF--the Plaintiffs' claims for intentional trespass,
public nuisance, intentional private nuisance and inverse
condemnation are dismissed against BNSF, but the Plaintiffs' claims
for negligent trespass, private nuisance based on negligence, and
negligence survive the motion to dismiss.

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss
filed by the Unified Government--the Plaintiffs' claims for
intentional trespass, public nuisance, and intentional private
nuisance are dismissed against the Unified Government, but the
Plaintiffs' claims for negligent trespass, private nuisance based
on negligence, negligence and inverse condemnation survive the
motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file to file an amended
complaint is granted, but that amended complaint must comply with
the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss and the Plaintiffs
are prohibited from including new allegations in that amended
complaint.

Background

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Defendants asserting
state law claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence and inverse
condemnation stemming from the flooding of the Plaintiffs'
properties, located in the Argentine neighborhood of Kansas City,
Kansas, between June 2017 and August 2017.

During the summer of 2017, significant flooding occurred on the
Plaintiffs' properties in the Argentine neighborhood of Kansas
City, Kansas. Defendant BNSF operates a rail yard north of
plaintiffs' properties. Defendant Miles Leasing LLC owns a vacant
lot west of plaintiffs' properties. Defendants Terminal
Consolidation Company and Nickell Properties, LLC own and operate a
terminal that lies north of plaintiffs' properties but south of
BNSF's rail yard.

The Plaintiffs allege that the flooding of their properties
occurred in part because of a clogged drainage creek located west
of their properties. According to the Plaintiffs, Miles Leasing
hired defendant Amino Bros. to remove trees from its vacant lot.
Amino Bros. removed these trees and also removed trees from BNSF's
property. The Plaintiffs allege that a permit was required for this
work but was not obtained from the Unified Government, although the
Unified Government authorized the work in any event. The Plaintiffs
allege that the removal of the trees removed a substantial
ecological barrier with respect to water draining from the rail
yard. The Plaintiffs further assert that either Miles Leasing or
Amino Bros. disposed of the trees and other debris into the
drainage creek.

According to the proposed amended complaint, other factors
contributed to the flooding of the Plaintiffs' properties.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Unified Government and
BNSF "work in tandem" to "determine drainage and/or manage runoff
from the Kansas River and/or rain fall in order to protect the rail
yard and BNSF operations." Toward that end, it is alleged that the
Unified Government maintains and operates flood gates to the Kansas
River and that BNSF owns and operates drainage gates on its
property. The Plaintiffs allege that the Unified Government and
BNSF did not properly control these gates and/or did not open these
gates at the appropriate times which caused flooding on the
Plaintiffs' properties.

With respect to the Unified Government, the Plaintiffs further
allege that the Unified Government's pump stations within the storm
water drainage system were not working properly and that the
Unified Government failed to remedy the poor condition of the storm
water drainage system in the Argentine neighborhood where the
Plaintiffs reside, all of which contributed to significant flooding
of the area during the summer of 2017.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybnnbs6q from
Leagle.com.


BOB PALERMO INC: Faces Coddington Suit in New York Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ROBERT PALERMO. The
case is styled as Carolyn Coddington, Individually and on behalf of
herself as a shareholder of Bob Palermo, Inc., and on behalf of all
other shareholders of said corporation similarly situated v. ROBERT
PALERMO, PATRICIA CRAFT AND BOB PALERMO, INC., Case No. 608265/2020
(N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Sept. 11, 2020).

The case type is stated as "COMMERCIAL DIVISION."

Bob Palermo, Inc., is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Locust
Valley, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BARNES & BARNES, PC
          445 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 229
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (516) 673-0674

               - and -

          Daniel Oliveri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. OLIVIERI, P.C.
          100 Jericho Quadrangle, Ste. 233
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (516) 470-0704


BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attys. Discuss Aftermath of S.C. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Balzano, Esq., John Beisner, Esq., Kent Hiebel, Esq.,
Jessica Miller, Esq., Jordan Schwartz, Esq., and Geoffrey Wyatt,
Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that in 2017, the Supreme Court decided
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS),
holding that a California state court could not exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant as to the claims being asserted by
nonresident plaintiffs in a sprawling mass tort proceeding. 582
U.S. –––, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). As Justice Sonia
Sotomayor's dissent in that case noted, the Supreme Court expressly
left open whether the ruling would apply to claims being asserted
by members of putative nationwide classes in federal court.

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, district courts split
somewhat evenly on this question. By one court's count, as of the
one-year anniversary of BMS, approximately nine cases had ruled
that BMS does apply to nationwide class actions, while another nine
or so cases had "gone the other way." As the courts in the former
camp explained, the general principle outlined in BMS applies just
as much to absent class members as to the mass action plaintiffs in
BMS for several reasons. For starters, federalism burdens persist
notwithstanding the federal forum and status of the litigation as a
putative class action. This is so because the forum has no
legitimate interest in a dispute between nonforum class members and
a nonforum defendant any more than it would in a dispute between
out-of-state plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, these courts
recognized that the Rules Enabling Act -- under which substantive
rights cannot be abridged by procedural rules -- also compels the
application of BMS to putative class actions pending in federal
court both as to the claims of named and unnamed class members.

The first two federal appeals courts to weigh in on this recurring
and nettlesome question issued their opinions in March 2020. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that BMS does
not apply to putative nationwide class actions, while the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit punted on the
issue and deemed the question premature prior to class
certification. Although the cases reached slightly different
conclusions, they both found that nonresident putative class
members are not "parties" before the court. This reasoning has
since been followed by district courts elsewhere in the United
States, signaling that the U.S. Supreme Court itself might have to
intervene and clarify once and for all whether the dictates of BMS
apply with equal force to nationwide class actions.

In Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., the plaintiffs brought a putative class
action, alleging that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) by mailing unsolicited "junk faxes" to the
putative class members. The district court granted the defendant's
motion to strike the class definition, finding that under BMS, the
court did not have personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state
members of the proposed class. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit
reversed, holding that BMS did not extend to class actions because
nonresident putative class members are not parties to the action
for purposes of personal jurisdiction. The Mussat court
distinguished BMS on the basis that consolidation of individual
cases into a mass action is different from a federal class action
because all plaintiffs in a mass action are parties to the action,
whereas in class actions, "[n]onnamed class members . . . may be
parties for some purposes and not for others." According to the
Mussat court, in some contexts -- like diversity of citizenship
analysis or determination of proper venue -- courts do not consider
unnamed class members, and the same should obtain with the question
of personal jurisdiction.

In Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., a putative class of
current and former Whole Foods employees sued the company for lost
wages, alleging that the company unfairly manipulated its bonus
program.5 Relying on BMS, Whole Foods moved to dismiss the claims
of the nonresident potential class members, arguing that the court
lacked personal jurisdiction over it with respect to those specific
claims. The district court denied the motion and Whole Foods
appealed. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, but on alternative
grounds. Unlike the district court, the D.C. Circuit did not reach
the merits of the motion; instead, the court concluded that the
motion should have been denied as premature, holding that the
unnamed putative class members were not parties before the court
during the period prior to class certification. The court explained
that "[i]t is class certification that brings unnamed class members
into the action and triggers due process limitations on a court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction over their claims." On that
basis, the court concluded that "[b]ecause the class in this case
has yet to be certified, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the
putative class members is premature."

In the wake of these appellate decisions, district courts across
the country have been tasked with deciding whether to follow Mussat
and Molock or chart their own course. The early returns indicate
that many district courts have been persuaded by Mussat, expressly
relying on that case in declining to apply the requirements of BMS
to nationwide class actions. For example, in Lacy v. Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington applied Mussat in denying a motion to
dismiss the claims of nonresident putative class members in a TCPA
action. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Lacy court found BMS
inapplicable because "a plaintiff in a mass tort action is named as
a plaintiff, making each 'a real party in interest[;]' [i]n
contrast, only the proposed class representative is actually named
on the complaint in a class action." In addition to that rationale,
the Lacy court also found BMS distinguishable because "Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 imposes additional due process safeguards on
class actions that do not exist in the mass tort context." In sum,
the Lacy court held that "[t]his [c]ourt will not upend the
traditional approach to personal jurisdiction in class actions
absent an express ruling from the Supreme Court."

Unlike the largely positive reception of Mussat by the lower
courts, the Molock decision has garnered a more mixed reaction. For
example, one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio explicitly declined to follow Molock in another
case brought under the TCPA. In Progressive Health & Rehab Corp. v.
Medcare Staffing, Inc., the court reasoned that addressing the
question left open by BMS is not "premature" before class
certification because "the issue . . . is not whether this court
retains personal jurisdiction over absent class members, but
whether th[e] court has personal jurisdiction over [d]efendant for
claims relating to a nationwide class." In rejecting the key
premise from Molock, the court explained that "[t]he distinction is
important because jurisdiction over parties is a threshold issue
and because district courts have the power to adjudicate a named
plaintiff's ability to represent a class of individuals pursuant to
[Rule 23]." Nonetheless, the court followed the Seventh Circuit's
reasoning in Mussat and denied the motion to dismiss the claims of
the absent class members on the ground that BMS simply does not
apply to "Rule 23 class actions."

However, the Molock decision has not been completely rejected or
ignored, with at least one district court following it and the
majority of district courts that relied on Mussat also citing
Molock for additional support or as an alternative ground for
denying a motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.
Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently
indicated an inclination to follow Molock as well. In Cruson v.
Jackson National Life Insurance Co., the court considered whether
the defendant had waived its personal jurisdiction challenge
against nonresident putative class members by failing to timely
raise it at the outset of the case. As the Fifth Circuit put it,
the answer to that question was "no" because those nonresident
putative class members "were not yet before the court when Jackson
filed its Rule 12 motions"; "[w]hat brings putative class members
before the court is certification." Although the Fifth Circuit did
not cite Molock, it employed precisely the reasoning underlying the
D.C. Circuit's decision.

As these recent examples illustrate, courts construing Molock and
Mussat have rejected personal jurisdiction challenges to claims
being asserted on behalf of absent class members, either kicking
the can down the road to class certification or rejecting the
application of BMS outright. But either approach essentially relies
on the same rationale -- that unnamed class members are not
"parties" for purposes of personal jurisdiction. There is sound
basis, however, to question that rationale, and it is articulated
by D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman's succinct dissenting
opinion in Molock.

First and foremost, the notion that a personal jurisdiction
challenge with respect to absent class members is not ripe until
class certification is based on the "flawed premise" that such a
challenge seeks the dismissal of putative class members themselves.
As Judge Silberman explained, "Whole Foods did not move to dismiss
nonresident putative class members; it moved to dismiss the named
plaintiffs' claims to represent those putative class members."
Under the approach endorsed by the majority in Molock and
effectively countenanced by the Fifth Circuit in Cruson, "a
hypothetical named plaintiff would be entitled to extensive class
discovery even after an on-point decision by the Supreme Court"
compelling the dismissal of claims at the outset of a case.14 As
noted above, this reasoning from Judge Silberman has gained
traction with at least one district court, which explicitly adopted
it and declined to defer consideration of BMS' application until
class certification (though it ultimately endorsed Mussat's
approach to the merits of the question and rejected the application
of BMS to absent class members).

Judge Silberman also addressed and rejected the key arguments that
led the Seventh Circuit and more recent courts to deny personal
jurisdiction challenges in the class action context on the merits.

One such argument is that class actions are different from mass
actions (such as BMS, which had more than 600 plaintiffs) in that
the plaintiffs in the latter category of proceedings are actual
"parties," whereas absent class members in the former category are
not. Specifically, as mentioned above, the Seventh Circuit reasoned
in Mussat that because the Supreme Court has not treated absent
class members as "parties" for purposes of subject matter
jurisdiction or venue, it must follow that they should not count as
parties for purposes of assessing personal jurisdiction. But
subject matter jurisdiction and venue do not generally raise due
process concerns, which are implicated by the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a defendant. Regardless of how absent class
members are treated when assessing subject matter jurisdiction or
venue, they should be deemed parties for the purpose of analyzing
personal jurisdiction because (assuming they do not opt out) they
would be "bound" by any final judgment and therefore could enforce
that judgment against the defendant in the forum where the suit was
brought. As Judge Silberman put it, "the goal of a nationwide class
action is 'a binding judgment over the defendant as to the claims
of the entire nationwide class -- and the deprivation of the
defendant's property accordingly.'"

While it is true that many certified class actions settled, and a
defendant could waive personal jurisdiction issues in order to
facilitate a settlement, a court facing the question of
certification prior to any proposed settlement must assume that a
certified class would be tried and have a plan for binding the
defendant as to all class members following any adverse verdict. As
such, the question of whether the court could exercise personal
jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to out-of-state class
members must necessarily be answered before any class can be
certified.

Some district courts following Molock and Mussat, such as in the
Lacy case described above, have gone even further and justified an
exception for class actions on the ground that "at its core,
'[p]ersonal jurisdiction is rooted in fairness to the defendant,
and Rule 23 provides significant safeguards to that end.'"17
However, those procedural safeguards cannot elevate the class
action device above due process requirements of the Constitution.
To conclude otherwise would arguably manufacture personal
jurisdiction by dint of the lawsuit's putative classwide status and
exceed the scope of the Rules Enabling Act by using a procedural
rule to "abridge, enlarge or modify [a] substantive right."

Finally, Judge Silberman also dismissed the "parade of horribles"
that plaintiffs' lawyers have frequently suggested would result
from applying BMS to nationwide class actions. Specifically, the
plaintiffs in Molock contended that such an application would
render nationwide class actions moribund. Some district courts have
agreed. For example, one court recently stated that "fusing the
Bristol-Myers rule into class actions would divest federal courts
of specific jurisdiction over nationwide class actions -- even
where Rule 23 requirements are met -- simply because the federal
court may not maintain specific jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant as to every single class member['s] claim as though each
class member had brought an individual suit." It is important to
remember, however, that specific jurisdiction is not the only way
to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As Judge
Silberman recognized in Molock, general jurisdiction could have
been exercised over Whole Foods in its home state of Delaware
"without any personal jurisdiction difficulties." Nor would a
straightforward application of BMS to class actions preclude
defendants from waiving personal jurisdiction objections if they
chose to do so, such as where parties on both sides sought to
resolve a nationwide dispute by way of settlement.21 Moreover,
plaintiffs can bring purely statewide class actions in their own
home states. In short, the policy claims being advanced in
opposition to BMS in the class action context could well be
overstated.

It remains to be seen whether Mussat and Molock will continue to
hold sway among other lower courts. But it is clear that they have
influenced subsequent district court decisions despite the
countervailing arguments outlined by Judge Silberman and prior
district court decisions that BMS should apply to putative
nationwide class actions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court itself will
likely have to weigh in on whether the limits on the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants apply to
putative nationwide class actions.

Recent Class Action Decisions of Note
Courts Continue To Split on Whether Consumers Have Standing To Sue
on Behalf of Consumers Who Purchased a Different, but Substantially
Similar, Product
Richey v. Axon Enterprises, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 835 (D. Nev.
2020)

Chief Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada held that a plaintiff had standing to bring
claims on behalf of purchasers of three models of allegedly
defective Tasers even though the plaintiff only purchased and used
one of those particular models. In that case, the plaintiff alleged
that his model of Taser -- called the Pulse -- discharged while in
the "safe" position and that the Taser could fire even if the
safety mechanism was moved only part of the way from the "safe" to
the "armed" position. Based on this claim, the plaintiff sought to
represent a class comprising not only purchasers of the Pulse but
also purchasers of two other models of Tasers sold by the
defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims involving the
other models, arguing that the plaintiff did not have standing to
bring such claims because he never purchased those models.

The court disagreed, holding that the plaintiff had standing to
bring claims on behalf of purchasers of all three models because
the models were substantially similar. Although courts are split on
whether plaintiffs can bring claims on behalf of consumers who
purchased similar, but not identical, products, the court reasoned
that most find standing "so long as the products and alleged
misrepresentations are substantially similar." To determine whether
products are substantially similar, Judge Du explained that courts
ask whether "the resolution of the asserted claims will be
identical between the purchased and unpurchased products" and look
to factors such as similarity in products, claims and injuries.
Applying that standard, the court found that the three Taser models
at issue were substantially similar. In particular, the court
focused on three similarities. First, the models had the "same
traditional hand gun design"; second, an investigation by the
Canadian government found that all three models had the same design
flaw; and, third, the defendant failed to disclose the defects in
all three models. In light of those similarities, the court
determined that the plaintiff had standing to assert claims on
behalf of consumers who purchased all three Taser models.

Snyder v. Green Roads of Florida LLC, 430 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (S.D.
Fla. 2020)

Judge Ursula Ungaro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida held that consumers did not have standing to
bring certain class claims against a company that sold cannabidiol
(CBD) products because the consumers did not purchase some of the
products at issue. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the
defendant misrepresented the amount of CBD in its products, some of
which the named plaintiffs did not purchase themselves. The court
held that the plaintiffs could not bring class claims with respect
to the CBD products they did not purchase. The court reasoned that,
while some courts allow consumers to bring class claims involving
nonpurchased products that are substantially similar to the
purchased products, courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit do not. The court explained that, because at least
one named plaintiff must have standing with respect to each claim
under Article III, standing did not exist with respect to a
particular product unless one of the named plaintiffs purchased
that product. As a result, the court determined that the classes
were overbroad in including claims related to CBD products that the
named plaintiffs did not purchase and dismissed them for lack of
standing.

Ninth Circuit Vacates Order Allowing Counsel To Use Discovery To
Identify a Lead Plaintiff
In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 2020)

Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, writing for a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, granted a writ of mandamus
vacating a pre-class-certification order for discovery that would
have allowed the plaintiff's counsel to find a lead plaintiff to
pursue class claims. In that case, the plaintiff brought suit in
Kentucky, alleging that the defendant misrepresented the thread
count of its bedding. After the trial court held that the plaintiff
could not bring a class action under Kentucky law, the court
ordered the defendant, on the plaintiff's request, to produce a
list of California customers so the plaintiff's counsel could find
a plaintiff to bring the class action. In granting the writ
vacating that order, the Ninth Circuit relied on U.S. Supreme Court
precedent holding that potential class members' names and addresses
were not relevant under Federal Rule 26 and thus were not
discoverable. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,
350-53 (1978). The court also disagreed with the plaintiff's
argument that the list of Californian purchasers was relevant to
commonality, typicality, ascertainability and reliance, reasoning
that "using discovery to find a client to be the named plaintiff
before a class action is certified is not within the scope of Rule
26(b)(1)." Accordingly, the court vacated the discovery order.
[GN]


BROWNELL INC: Faces Graciano ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brownell, Inc. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Brownell, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07540 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020).

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

Brownell, Incorporated, supplies firearm accessories, gun parts,
and gunsmithing tools. The Company offers rifle, shotgun, and
handgun parts, as well as provides magazines, bullets, primers,
shell holders, measuring tools, loading blocks, reloading dies, gun
powders, bullet casting equipment, and shot shell components.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BSA LIMITED: To Vigorously Defend Misclassification Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITNews reports that BSA Limited, a supplier of technical services
to the likes of NBN Co and Optus, said it will "vigorously defend"
a class action lawsuit filed over the way it allegedly assembled
its technician workforce.

The ASX-listed service provider is accused of "wrongly
categorising" technicians as subcontractors instead of as
employees, leading them to miss out on pay and entitlements.

Shine Lawyers' class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said
the case, lodged in the Federal Court of Australia, "will argue the
technicians are covered by the Fair Work Act (2009) and
Telecommunications Services Award."

"We allege this publicly-listed company has misrepresented the
nature of its engagement with its technicians," Antzoulatos said in
a statement.

"The technicians believed they were subcontractors when we say in
all respects they were employees and are entitled to minimum wage,
overtime, sick leave, annual leave, and superannuation.

"We believe the technicians ended up with considerably less money
in their pocket as a result of sham-contracting and this type of
system of work needs to be called out, especially during these
tough economic times when people are hurting."

The case has been brewing since late last year.

BSA confirmed in a filing to the ASX that it had been served with
legal proceedings "in relation to its contracting arrangements,
specifically to independent contractors and whether they are
properly characterised as such."

It criticised news of the case appearing in the media "before our
counsel had received the claim and had an opportunity to review"
it, and said that was suggestive of "a level of opportunism on the
part of the plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders."

"We will vigorously defend the action and our position on the
validity of our contracting arrangements," the company said.

"BSA takes its obligations in this area very seriously and has over
many years regularly tested its contracting arrangements against
legal requirements.

"As a result, we are confident our contracting arrangements are
sound."

The legal action is being funded by Australian litigation funder,
Litigation Lending Services Ltd.

Shine Lawyers said it was encouraging "all telecommunication
technicians engaged by BSA, either directly or via an intermediary
(sub-prime), from 2003 to date to register their interest in the
class action." [GN]


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Distillery, Restos Slam Denied Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rieger & Company LLC, Heim Master Tenant LLC, Heim Building
LLC, Tiger Notions Inc., Linear Notions Inc., Racing Notions Inc.,
Vienna Group LLC and Musical Theatre Heritage, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00681
(W.D. Mo., August 24, 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.

Jacob Rieger & Company and the Heim companies operate a distillery
in Kansas City while Tiger Notions, Linear Notions, Racing Notions,
Vienna Group and Musical Theatre Heritage operate restaurants in
Kansas and Missouri. They purchased an all-risk commercial property
insurance policies from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the
event of property loss and business interruption. But during the
COVID-19 pandemic, they were denied coverage despite that fact that
the policies do not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or
virus-related losses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
      Curtis Shank, Esq.
      Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
             wilders@stuevesiegel.com
             shank@stuevesiegel.com
             mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
             mlytle@millerschirger.com
             jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

             - and -

      J. Kent Emison, Esq.
      LANGDON & EMISON LLC
      911 Main Street
      PO Box 220
      Lexington, MO 64067
      Telephone: (660) 259-6175
      Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
      Email: kent@lelaw.com

             - and -

      Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
      SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
      2001 Wyandotte Street
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 931-0500
      Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
      Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com


CLEVELANDER OCEAN: Dalton Sues in Florida Over Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CLEVELANDER OCEAN,
LP. The case is styled as Shannon Dalton, for herself and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. CLEVELANDER OCEAN, LP, a Foreign
Limited Partnership, itself, and as successor-in-interest to 2K
Clevelander, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No.
1:20-cv-23804-DPG (S.D. Fla., Sept. 14, 2020).

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

CLEVELANDER OCEAN, LP, operates a hotel in Miami Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 327-3017
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com
                 pbotros@forthepeople.com


COMCAST CABLE: Misclassifies Human Resource Workers, Bertot Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS BERTOT v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, MARK FLEMING, an individual,
jointly, Case No. 1:20-cv-23766-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 10, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pattern
and practice of depriving non-exempt Human Resources employees
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a Human Resource
Manager.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his employment with the
Defendants, he performed primarily non-exempt work although the
Defendant classified him as an exempt employee. However, he was not
paid one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the
hours he worked in excess of 40 during a workweek. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to keep accurate time records for all hours he
and other similarly situated employees worked, the Plaintiff adds.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC is a
telecommunications company. Mark Fleming was a Senior Director and
then Vice President of Human Resource of Comcast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Anisley Tarragona, Esq.
          BT LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205
          Miami, FL 33137
          Tel: (305) 507-8506
          Email: jason@battorneys.com
                 anisley@battorneys.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Piper Alderman Files New Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Business reports that Commonwealth Bank has been hit with
a new class action relating to commissions paid to its subsidiary.

Law firm Piper Alderman has filed a class action in the Federal
Court against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

The class action has been launched on behalf of individuals who
have obtained financial products and/or life insurance on the
advice of financial planners operating under the licence of former
CBA subsidiary Count Financial Ltd.

The law firm has alleged that Count Financial and its authorised
representatives received conflicted remuneration from product
issuers and/or customers themselves over the period between 21
August 2014 to 21 August 2020.

Specifically, the claim alleged that Count Financial contravened
its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to:

   -- ensure that their financial advisers do not contravene their
legal obligations to their customers;

   -- ensure that adviser remuneration was free from conflict;

   -- act in their customer's best interests when giving personal
financial advice; and

   -- to provide services where fees were charged.

CBA has acknowledged the class action lawsuit in a statement to
shareholders.

The bank noted that it has since sold Count Financial to CountPlus,
with management of the firm handed over in October 2019.

"[CBA] will continue to support and manage customer remediation
matters arising from past issues at Count Financial and has
provided an indemnity to CountPlus Ltd of $300 million," CBA
stated.

This comes just weeks after litigation firm Shine Lawyers launched
a separate class action against CBA.

Shine Lawyers has laid charges on behalf of customers who obtained
CommInsure life insurance products recommended by financial
advisers operating under CBA subsidiaries Commonwealth Financial
Planning Ltd, Financial Wisdom Ltd and BW Financial Advice. [GN]


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Insurance Policy Advice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Kurian Nainan at Insurance Journal reports that Commonwealth
Bank of Australia (CBA) said a class action lawsuit was filed over
advice given on life insurance policies issued and recommended by
three former subsidiaries.

The lawsuit was filed by Shine Lawyers against financial advisors
Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd (CFPL) and Financial Wisdom
Ltd., and The Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, a life
insurer sold by CBA to AIA Group this year.

The lawsuit relates to advice given by CFPL and Financial Wisdom on
policies issued by Colonial Mutual.

In January, the same law firm brought another class action lawsuit
against CBA's pension arm for not acting in customers interest by
encouraging them to pick policies provided by CommInsure.

CBA stopped providing licensee services through Financial Wisdom
and CFPL this year as part of the bank's move away from wealth
management.

Australia's biggest bank did not say when the alleged wrongdoing
took place and a Shine spokeswoman declined to comment other than
to confirm that a lawsuit had been filed. [GN]

CONVERSE INC: Appeals Ruling in Madeira Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Converse, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in the lawsuit entitled Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Cormac J. Carney entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and

   2. remanding the action to San Bernardino Superior Court.

In November 2018, the Plaintiff Bryan filed this putative wage and
hour class action against Defendant Converse, Inc., et al., in San
Bernardino Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of current
and former hourly Converse employees in California. On January 25,
2019, Converse removed the lawsuit to the District Court pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator at the Converse
Distribution Center from December 7, 2015, through July 18, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc.,
Case No. 20-55958, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Converse, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      September 24, 2020; and

   -- Appellee Bryan Madeira's answering brief is due on
      September 24, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  MStahle@maternlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellant CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Michael Afar, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  mafar@seyfarth.com


CVS PHARMACY: Seeking Justice for Pain Files Opioid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Justice for Pain Patients on Aug. 10 disclosed that
national class action lawsuits have been filed against the largest
pharmacy chains in the country for discrimination in refusing to
fill legitimate prescriptions for opioid medication.  Edith Fuog, a
48 yr. old Hispanic divorced mother, from Riverview, Fla., filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Rhode Island located in Providence, R.I.
against CVS on behalf of the millions of other legitimate users of
legally prescribed opioid medication, seeking legal relief that
will allow them to get their legitimate opioid prescriptions
filled, as written, without additional limitations or restrictions,
and without the constant fear that their prescriptions will be
denied.

Susan Smith, a 43 yr. old married mother from Castro Valley, Ca.,
has filed a similar national class action against Walgreens and
Costco in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California located in San Francisco, Ca.

Edith Fuog suffers from chronic pain brought on by numerous medical
conditions, including stage-1 breast cancer, MRSA, VRSA,
Guillainn-Barre Syndrome, Parsonage Turner Syndrome, Trigeminal
Facial Nerve Neuropathy, Hashimotos Thyroid disease, Lupus and
arthritis.  As alleged in her lawsuit, since at least 2017,
numerous different CVS pharmacies have refused to fill her
legitimate prescriptions for opioid medication in violation of the
American with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  She
filed complaints with CVS' corporate headquarters, but despite
promises that the matter would be investigated, has never heard
back from CVS.

Susan Smith suffers from Mesial Temporal Lobe Sclerosis of the
brain, which is an extreme form of scar tissue in her brain that
leaves her with constant migraine headaches that are so severe,
that at times she cannot walk, will lose vision in her eyes, and
experiences extreme bouts of nausea and vomiting.  The only
medications she can take to provide her with any sort of relief
from the extreme pain are opioids.  As alleged in her lawsuit,
numerous Walgreens and Costco pharmacies have refused to fill her
legitimate prescriptions for opioid medication in violation of the
American with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  She
complained to Walgreens corporate, but they were dismissive of her
plight.

Efforts to combat the national crisis of abuse of opioids, while
originally well-intentioned, have led to discrimination against
millions of Americans who legitimately need opioid medication to
combat the terrible pain they live with every day.  As alleged in
the lawsuits, CVS, Walgreens and Costco have implemented nationwide
policies that  that have resulted in their pharmacies treating
patients who presents a valid prescription for opioid medication as
if they are a drug abuser, interfering with the customer's
relationship with his or her treating doctor and improperly
refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for opioid pain
medication or imposing medically unnecessary limitations or other
requirements before agreeing to fill the prescriptions.

As noted in the suits, in a June 16, 2020 letter to the CDC, the
American Medical Association stated that "The nation no longer has
a prescription opioid-driven epidemic" and "We can no longer afford
to view increasing drug-related mortality through a prescription
drug-myopic lens."  The AMA noted that guidelines issued by the CDC
in 2016 "included multiple arbitrary dosage and quantity limitation
recommendations that have been consistently misapplied by State
legislatures, national pharmacy chains, pharmacy benefit management
companies, health insurance companies and federal agencies."  The
AMA letter cited CVS and Walgreens policies as "inappropriate"
policies that misapply "the CDC guidelines in different ways and
have resulted in specific harm to patients."  The AMA further noted
that: "These policies, moreover, have not withstood any meaningful
evaluation or data analysis as to whether they have improved pain
care or reduced opioid-related harms."

As Scott Hirsch, one of the lead attorneys handling the cases,
explained:  "Many Americans are unaware of the difficulties chronic
pain patients have getting pharmacies to fill their
lawfully-obtained opioid prescriptions.   It is not only a crisis
for Edith and Susan, but for millions of Americans due to the
backlash caused in part by the national publicity concerning opioid
abuse.  These lawsuits seek to allow the millions of chronic pain
patients to obtain their legitimate opioid prescriptions without
being discriminated against, harassed, denied, or embarrassed.  It
will hopefully improve their quality of life and save many lives in
the process."

The filed Class Actions are: Smith v. Walgreens Boots Alliance,
Inc., et al., Case No.: 20-cv-05451 and Fuog v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al., Case No.: 20-cv-00337

For a copy of the Complaints and more information about the
allegations, visit https://seekingjusticeforpainpatients.com. [GN]


DELOITTE CONSULTING: Karns Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Krystal Karns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-04952 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2020), seeks monetary,
actual and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest, costs, fees and attorneys' fees, expenses and
costs of prosecuting this action and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of implied and express contract, negligence,
invasion of privacy and for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Deloitte contracts with state agencies—including the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services, the Illinois Department of
Employment Security, the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment and the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services to
create and maintain web-portals by which applicants may apply for
benefits and communicate with the state agencies.

Karns applied for unemployment benefits through the Ohio Department
of Job and Family Services online portal on May 13, 2020. On May
20, 2020, Deloitte had discovered that the web-portal it created
and maintained exposed applicants' Personal Information to the
public. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 619-8966
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

            - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Mona Amini, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com3
            mona@kazlg.com

            - and -

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Steven G. Perry, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882, (224) 218-0875
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
            steven.perry@toddflaw.com


DNATA US: Moore Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN L. MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING LLC, a New York limited
liability company; 121 INFLIGHT CATERING LLC, a New York limited
liability company; KEVIN KLOIBER, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-586512 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., Sept. 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants implemented policies
and/or practices that have resulted in the violation of the Labor
Code due to the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, and failure
to provide accurate wages statements. The Plaintiff further alleges
that the Defendants unlawful conduct constitutes unfair competition
within the meaning of Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2019
through February 2020 as a non-exempt employee whose duties include
preparing and serving food.

Dnata US Inflight Catering LLC and 121 Inflight Catering LLC are
New York-based companies that provide catering services to
commercial airlines and private jets. The Companies are doing
business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com
                  sara@tomorrowlaw.com


DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunham's Athleisure
Corporation. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Dunham's
Athleisure Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07480 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11,
2020).

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

Dunham's Athleisure corporation operates a sporting good chain. The
Company offers sporting goods, athletic equipment, active sports
gear, and leisure apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDWARD MALINA: Sarkisyan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELINA SARKIS YAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. EDWARD MALINA INC. d/b/a DELACQUA SALON & MEDI SPA,
ALEXANDER BEDEROFF a/k/a "ALEXANDER DELACQUA," and ALEXANDER
BEDEROV a/k/a "ALEXANDER DELACQUA," Case No. 1:20-cv-04249
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks to recover damages arising from
the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and the "spread of hours" premium, in direct
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
administrative assistant at the Delacqua Salon & Medi Spa from May
2018 until November 7, 2019.

Edward Malina Inc. owns and operates a hair salon and spa doing
business as "Delacqua Salon & Medi Spa," located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ERIE INSURANCE: Balogh Enterprises Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BALOGH ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A HONEY BAKED HAM & CAFE v. ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00259-CB (W.D. Pa., Sept. 2,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated arising from the Defendant's denial of coverage
for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

In response to the business interruption claims filed by the
Plaintiff and thousands of other class members, the Defendant has
systematically denied and continues to deny and refuses to provide
payment for insurance claims for coverage for similar losses and
expenses by insureds holding policies that are, in all material
respects, identical, according to the complaint. The Defendant's
decision to not provide coverage and/or its decision to refuse to
pay claims under the common policy forms issued to the Plaintiff
and the putative class members constitutes a breach of contract and
provides them with the right to seek a declaratory judgment,
establishing that they are entitled to receive the benefit of the
insurance coverage it purchased and for indemnification of the
businesses losses it has sustained.

The Plaintiff operates a cafe in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Erie Insurance Exchange is a Pennsylvania-based insurance company
engaged in the business of selling insurance contracts to
commercial entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ETHAN ALLEN: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethan Allen Retail,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ethan
Allen Retail, Inc., a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01811-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., Sept. 14,
2020).

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

Ethan Allen Retail, Inc. retails home and office furniture. The
Company offers sofas, chairs, tables, cabinets, desks, fabrics, and
storage and display furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


EVERBRAND LLC: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everbrand LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Everbrand LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04268 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020).

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

EverBrand is a brand development, marketing strategy and digital
marketing solutions company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Faces Garrett FDCPA Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tavorris
Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-02754-MEH (D. Colo., Sept. 11,
2020).

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

Financial Business Consumer Solutions is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Flood Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Flood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action,
Plaintiff, v. First Family Insurance, Inc. and Jason Marra,
Defendant Case 20-cv-00623 (M.D. Fla., August 19, 2020) seeks
overtime wages, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief including costs and attorneys'
fees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Flood worked for First Family as an inside sales representative. He
was paid a base hourly rate plus he was entitled to receive monthly
paid commission on health insurance policies sold. First Family
allegedly failed to include commissions in the regular rate of pay
leading to an underpayment of overtime premiums. Flood also claims
to be misclassified as non-exempt, thus denied overtime wages.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
      6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101
      Tampa, FL 33625
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
             lschindler@feldmanlegal.us


FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Motion to Compel Filed in Iwanski Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Iwanski and TVPX ARS Inc. filed a sealed motion to compel in
the case captioned as THOMAS IWANSKI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND TVPX ARS INC. AS SECURITIES
INTERMEDIARY FOR CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LTD., ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY v. FIRST PENN-PACIFIC LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY AND LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 2:20-mc-00093-RBS (E.D. Pa.).

First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company offers term life
insurance and linked benefits policies. Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company is an Indiana-based insurance services
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Caforio, Esq.
          Catriona M. Lavery, Esq.
          Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
          Michael B. Adamson, Esq.
          Richard L. Jolly, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3192
          E-mail: bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com
                  clavery@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                  madamson@susmangodfrey.com
                  rjolly@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Douglas E. Roberts, Esq.
          Gaetan Alfano, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
          1818 Market St., Suite 3402
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-1431
          E-mail: der@pietragallo.com
                  gja@pietragallo.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          E-mail: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alan B. Vickery, Esq.
          Evelyn N. Fruchter, Esq.
          Motty Shulman, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: avickery@bsfllp.com
                  efruchter@bsfllp.com
                  mshulman@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Andrew Villacastin, Esq.
          John F. Lasalle, III, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: avillacastin@bsfllp.com
                  jlasalle@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Brian H. Callaway, Esq.
          Robin P. Sumner, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4428
          E-mail: brian.callaway@troutman.com
                  robin.sumner@troutman.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of FirstEnergy Corp.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE: FE)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

                       About Bragar Eagel

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


FRESH MARKET: Fails to Put Nutrition Labels on Foods, Myhand Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE MYHAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC. a DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-01358-AKK (N.D. Ala., Sept. 11, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to affix nutrition labels of its bakery goods
prior to sale in violation of the food marketing regulations set by
the Food & Drug Administration.

According to the complaint, on May 25, 2020, the Plaintiff visited
the Defendant's location in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama,
and purchased several items including the prepackaged containers of
bakery goods from the Defendant's bakery department. The Plaintiff
expected that the Defendant's bakery goods were being baked,
packaged and sold in conformity with legal requirements but the
Plaintiff learned, after the purchase, that such was in violation
of the FDA's clear requirements to place nutrition labels on its
food products.

The FDA states that the Defendant's failure to place nutrition
labels to its bakery products has misled consumers by marketing
misbranded food, the Plaintiff contends.

Fresh Market, Inc. is an American chain of gourmet supermarkets
based in Greensboro, North Carolina, but incorporated under the
laws of the State of Delaware. The Company operates at last report
176 stores in 24 states, located in the Southeast, Midwest,
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
          2539 John Hawkins Pkwy., Suite 101-149
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 995-0068
          Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
          E-mail: cmtlaw@aol.com


FTG AEROSPACE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
FTG Aerospace Inc., failed to provide their California employees
with meal and rest periods as required by California law. The FTG
Aerospace Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV28767, is
currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of
California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.

According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
FTG Aerospace Inc. allegedly (a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b)
failed to pay overtime wages, (c) failed to properly record and
provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d) failed to
provide PLAINTIFF accurate itemized wage statements, and (e)
failure to provide wages when due, all in violation of the
applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code Sections Sec
201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and
the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil
penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.

The complaint further alleges FTG Aerospace Inc. committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime rate
for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the
obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to
properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work
performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the
California Labor Code.

If you would like to know more about the FTG Aerospace Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling
(800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys. [GN]


FULL SOURCE: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Source, LLC. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Full Source, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07481 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020).

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

Full Source is a privately-held company headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida. Full Source sells affordable safety gear,
casual and work wear apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALLS LLC: Graciano Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galls, LLC. The case
is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Galls, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07543
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020).

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

Galls, LLC, distributes public safety equipment and apparels. The
Company offers apparels including shirts, pants, shorts, jackets,
gloves, workouts, undergarments, jumpsuits, and accessories, as
well as body armors, handcuffs, and restraints.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Camaro Starter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed over alleged recurring problems
with the starter motor in the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the state of
Delaware, alleges General Motors "knowingly sold Chevy Camaro
models without disclosing that the vehicles are plagued by a
starter and/or heat shield defect."

The suit claims the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro has inadequate
heat shields that fail to protect the starter motor from engine bay
heat. The additional heat allegedly puts resistance on the
electrical conductors inside the motor, which forces it to use more
power than usual to start the engine. This, in turn, can allegedly
wear out the motor prematurely. It also says the starter motor
issues will typically manifest in hot weather or directly after
being driven and that the heating issues can damage the vehicle's
wiring and battery as well.

The 40-page suit also says GM has consistently refused to fix the
starter motors under warranty, instead forcing customers to pay
hundreds or thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for the repairs.

"GM's failure to disclose the starter defect at the time of
purchase is material because no reasonable consumer expects to
spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace
damaged vehicle components that the manufacturer knows will fail
well before the expected useful life of the component and damage
other components of the vehicle as well," the 40-page complaint
reads. "Had GM disclosed the starter defect, the plaintiff and
class members would not have purchased the class vehicles or would
have paid less for them."

A number of similar owner complaints can be easily located on
Chevrolet Camaro enthusiast forums around the web. One Camaro6.com
forum user, JReagle56, previously authored a post describing their
experiences with their personal Camaro's starter.

"Had the issue pop up 3 times so far since brand new," the post
reads. "Once right after I got the car. It was a hot August day
driving around breaking in the engine, tranny, rear axle and
brakes. Returned home and parked the car in garage; had to go right
back out a few minutes later; slow turnover, pause and it started.
Then again this year. A 2 hr drive to the beach, really hot day,
waiting in line to park, stalled car, restart and the starter just
barely turned over, started on the 2nd rotation, if a 3rd was
needed I don't think it would have done it. Seems like when the
starter is heat soaked something goes wrong."

This class action is open to any 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro
owners or lessees who have experienced these same issues with the
vehicle's starter motor and battery. [GN]


GLIK COMPANY: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE GLIK COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-07400-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff asserts that when he visited the Defendant's website,
http://www.gliks.com,in July 2020 with the intent of browsing and
potentially making a purchase, he encountered multiple barriers
that denied him access similar to that of a sighted individual
despite using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual
Desktop Access. The Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety
of features and accommodations which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodation.

As a result of the Defendant's failure to maintain a website that
is accessible to legally blind and visually-impaired people, the
Defendant allegedly engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.

The Glik Company is a clothing company that owns and operates the
website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Crypto Ad Ban
-------------------------------------------------
Samuel Haig, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that Andrew
Hamilton, a lawyer with a background in computer science, is
spearheading a class-action lawsuit accusing the social media and
search giants Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for
cartel-like behavior intended to kill off the burgeoning
cryptocurrency sector.

The suit, which has already amassed more than $600 million in
claims, accuses the firms of acting as a cartel in launching a
coordinated attack designed to crush competition emerging from the
nascent virtual currency sector in 2018 -- when the social
platforms enacted sweeping bans against the promotion of crypto
assets and initial coin offerings.

After two-and-a-half years of preparation, Hamilton told
Cointelegraph that he is ready to file proceedings within the 48
hours, highlighting that signups from claimants are set to close on
Aug. 21.

Hamilton believes that the total value of claims against the firms
could grow to as much as $300 billion.

Hamilton is the CEO of JPB Liberty -- the legal firm that plans to
bring the no-win-no-fee suit to court in Hamilton's home country of
Australia.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Hamilton recounted immediately
recognizing the crypto ad ban as anti-competitive when it was
enacted, drawing from his background in competition law.

After conducting extensive research into Australian competition
law, Hamilton determined that the social media giants were acting
as a cartel and it would be "pretty easy to prove it."

Hamilton wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission and decided to start his own litigation funding company
to back the case after the watchdog did not respond to his
concerns.

In addition to Hamilton volunteering his labor, the suit has seen
"a major law firm" contribute "hundreds of hours off the clock"
-- with Hamilton emphasizing that "lawyers don't work for free very
much unless they really believe in something."

Hamilton asserts that the wide-reaching crypto ad ban "completely
killed off the [initial coin offering] ICO market."

The lawyer described ICOs as offering "a new way for startup
companies in the tech space to raise money" that bypasses the
cumbersome regulated fundraising processes associated with the tech
industry.

"This is a very big threat to Facebook and Google strategically,
because, instead of having startups that have to fundraise all the
way through and end up getting bought by Facebook or Google or
someone before they become a competitive threat, [. . .] ICOs
front-loaded the investment," he said.

"Basically, people could raise all the money they were ever going
to need to bring their product to fruition. [. . .] It actually
meant that people could focus on development and improving
technology, [. . .] rather than spending all their time
fundraising," Hamilton added.

Hamilton asserts that the impacts of the crypto ad ban were
far-reaching, recounting that numerous claimants were left unable
to secure investment after losing their ability to advertise on the
internet's largest platforms.

'Absolute hypocrisy'
In light of Facebook's Libra stablecoin project, Hamilton describes
the firm's strategy of "banning all of its competitors" from
advertising on its platform "while secretly working on its own
cryptocurrency" as "absolute hypocrisy" in clear violation of
competition law.

Similarly, Hamilton highlights Twitter's move to ban advertising
from crypto firms while allowing Jack Dorsey's financial firm
Square to promote its crypto-friendly Cash App on the platform.

"This was an appalling attack on competitors. [. . .] At the same
time as Twitter was banning crypto ads, Jack Dorsey's Square's Cash
App was launching into crypto and became the number one app. They
crushed their competitors and then provided little exceptions to
the ad ban for their mates."

Further, search engine optimization and online marketing
professionals targeting the crypto niche found their accounts
suspended -- with Hamilton sharing the story of one SEO specialist
whose Google Adwords account is still subject to a lifetime ban due
to his work promoting crypto-focused clients at the time.

"Anyone who was in the Web 3.0 space and competing with Facebook
and Google were crushed by this," added Hamilton.

JPB Liberty is currently seeking funding from institutional
litigation funders. If successful claimants will receive 70% of any
future settlement, while 30% will go to the suit's funders. [GN]


GS VICTOR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Katt Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KATT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. GS VICTOR, LP, Case No. 1:20-cv-02668-NRN (D. Colo., Sept. 1,
2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its Web site
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs used by blind and visually impaired users.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other visually
impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access
to the Defendant's Residential Complex and Leasing Office and the
numerous services and benefits offered to the public through its
Web site, http://www.victordenver.com/,due to the Defendant's
failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Web site.

GS Victor, LP operates the GS VICTOR, LP Residential Complex and
Leasing Office, as well as its Web site, and offers it to the
public. The Web site offers features that should allow all
consumers to access the facilities and services that the Company
offers in its physical locations. The facilities and services
offered by the Company through its Web site include: available
residences, learn about apartment designs, contact information, and
related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


GUAM: DOJ Wants H-2B Visa Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
The Guam Daily Post reports that the U.S. Department of Justice has
moved to dismiss the Guam Contractors Association's class action
amended complaint over H-2B visa petitions arguing the plaintiffs
can no longer present the court with any reasonable claims.

Attorneys for the DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation filed the
dismissal motion in the District Court of Guam and contend none of
the plaintiffs can establish standing to continue with the
litigation.

In 2016, the Guam Contractors Association and nearly a dozen
businesses sued the federal government for denying nearly all
petitions to hire H-2B workers for the island, when H-2B petitions
under the same set of facts were approved in the past.

Employers were able to get approvals for their H-2B petitions again
in 2018.

According to the DOJ, a number of the concerns of denials are now a
moot issue after Congress enacted and reauthorized provisions of
the National Defense Authorization Act that specifically exempted
H-2B petitions filed by military contractors and sub-contractors
from having to demonstrate the "temporary need" requirement.

The U.S. government attorneys said none of the plaintiffs are
"presently suffering any injury" and that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services did approve H-2B petitions in April and May.
[GN]


HDFC BANK: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against HDFC Bank Limited  ("HDFC or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HDFC)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and
docketed under 20-cv-04140, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired HDFC Bank securities between July 31, 2019, and July 10,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Bank and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased HDFC securities during the
class period, you have until November 2, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India.  The
Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals
and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking,
Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among
other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail
borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans.

Revenues generated from HDFC Bank's auto and commercial vehicle
loans are reported as part of the Bank's Retail Banking segment.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Bank's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained improper
lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (iii)
accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's vehicle-financing
operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact
on the Bank's financial condition and reputation; and (v) as a
result, the Bank's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Economic Times
published an article titled "HDFC Bank probes lending practices at
vehicle unit."  That article reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted
a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and
conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations
involving the unit's former head."

On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on
July 13, 2020.

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

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


HEARST MAGAZINE: S.D. California Dismisses Arnold Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case captioned FENELLA
ARNOLD, KELLY NAKAI, and MICHELE RUPPERT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA,
INC., a Delaware corporation; CDS GLOBAL, INC., an Iowa
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 19-cv-1969-WQH-MDD
(S.D. Cal.).

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Fenella Arnold and Kelly Nakai
filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of San Diego, against Defendants Hearst
Magazine Media, Inc. ("Hearst"), CDS Global, Inc. ("CDS"), and Does
1 through 50, inclusive. (ECF No. 1-2). On October 10, 2019, the
Defendants removed the action to this Court. On December 9, 2019,
Plaintiffs Fenella Arnold, Kelly Nakai, and Michele Ruppert filed
the First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Hearst is "one of
the largest magazine publishers in the world." The Plaintiffs
allege that Hearst publishes approximately two dozen magazines in
the United States, including Food Network Magazine, Cosmopolitan,
Good Housekeeping, Woman's Day, Country Living, HGTV Magazine, and
Car & Driver. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant CDS is "the
largest magazine fulfillment house in the United States." The
Plaintiffs allege that CDS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hearst
that provides services to Hearst, including "assisting with
subscriptions, billing, collection, and/or other account
services."

In granting the Motion, District Judge William Q. Hayes opines that
Plaintiff Nakai fails to state facts that support a reasonable
inference that the Defendants violated Section 1716 of the
California Civil Code and are uncontroverted by the exhibits
attached to the FAC. The Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs
fail to state claims for violations of the False Advertising Law,
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Section 1716.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xlpt2a from Leagle.com.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Honeywell
International Inc. (NYSE:HON) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
9, 2018 and October 19, 2018 inclusive (the ''Class Period'') are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 4, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Honeywell faced a greater level of Bendix
asbestos-related liability than it initially disclosed. The Company
also engaged in improper accounting practices related to the Bendix
liability. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Honeywell, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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


HOTELS.COM LP: San Antonio Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of San Antonio, Texas, filed with the United States
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES, PETITIONER v.
HOTELS.COM, L.P., ET AL., RESPONDENT, Case No. 20-334.

Response is due on October 14, 2020.

Petitioner City of San Antonio, Texas petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case captioned CITY OF SAN
ANTONIO, TEXAS, On Behalf Of Itself And All Other Similarly
Situated Texas Municipalities, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOTELS.COM,
L.P.; HOTWIRE, INCORPORATED; TRIP NETWORK, INCORPORATED, doing
business as Cheaptickets.com; EXPEDIA, INCORPORATED; INTERNETWORK
PUBLISHING CORPORATION, doing business as Lodging.Com; ORBITZ,
L.L.C.; PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED; SITE59.COM, L.L.C.;
TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P.; TRAVELWEB, L.L.C.; TRAVELNOW.COM,
INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-50701.

The question presented is: Whether, as the Fifth Circuit alone has
held, district courts "lack[] discretion to deny or reduce"
appellate costs deemed "taxable" in district court under Fed. R.
App. P. 39(e).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 8,
2020, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment Entering Bill of
Costs against the Plaintiffs in the case.

This appeal represents the latest installment in a long-running
legal dispute pitting a class of 173 Texas municipalities against
various online travel companies (OTCs) such as Hotels.com, Hotwire,
Orbitz, and Travelocity. The dispute began in 2006 when the City of
San Antonio filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging the
service fees charged by OTCs for facilitating hotel reservations
are part of the "cost of occupancy," and, therefore, subject to the
municipalities' hotel tax ordinances. The municipalities sought
money damages for unpaid and underpaid hotel occupancy taxes, as
well as a declaratory judgment that OTCs must collect and remit
hotel occupancy taxes based on the amount collected for the room
rate and service fee combined, i.e., the "retail rate."

Following entry of final judgment, the OTCs filed a bill of costs
in the district court seeking $2,353,294.58. In addition to the
$905.60 sought in the Second Circuit and various other court fees
and copying costs, the bill of costs included $2,008,359.00 for
post-judgment interest and premiums paid for the supersedeas bonds
required to secure a stay of execution and preserve rights pending
appeal.

San Antonio objected, urging the district court to refuse to tax,
or at least substantially reduce, the appeal bond premiums sought
by the OTCs. The district court noted that San Antonio made some
persuasive arguments but, relying on In re Sioux Ltd., Sec. Litig.,
No. 87-6167, 1991 WL 182578 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 1991), the court
concluded that it lacked discretion to reduce taxation of the bond
premiums.

The district court entered a bill of costs taxing $2,226,724.37
against San Antonio.

The City timely appealed the district court bill of costs taxing
$2,226,724.37 against it.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a framework for
allocating appellate litigation costs between parties. For example,
if the judgment below is reversed, the costs of printing appellate
briefs are, by default, taxed against the appellees. The rules also
provide that certain other appeal costs, including premiums paid
for bonds used to stay a money judgment and secure the right to
appeal, are taxable in the district court.

San Antonio asserts that even if the district court was authorized
to grant the OTCs' request for Rule 39(e) appeal costs, the award
should nevertheless be vacated because the district court applied
the wrong legal standard, thinking it lacked discretion to deny or
reduce the award when in reality it could have done so.

As San Antonio points out, most other circuits to have considered
this issue have held or at least implied that a district court
retains discretion to deny or reduce a Rule 39(e) award, regardless
of whether the district court's authority to grant the award arises
from one of the default rules in 39(a)(1)-(3) or from an appellate
court's mandate in a 39(a)(4) case.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner City of San Antonio, Texas, On Behalf of
Itself and All Other Similarly Situated Texas Municipalities, is
represented by:

          Daniel L. Geyser, Esq.
          ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON LLP
          Walnut Glen Tower
          8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Ste. 1000
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 369-2358
          E-mail: dgeyser@adjtlaw.com


IMPERIAL INDUSTRIAL: Monegro Claims Website Not Blind-Friendly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Monegro, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Imperial
Industrial Supply Co., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05920 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 15, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a tool and equipment retailer that owns and operates
www.maxtool.com. It offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. Monegro is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


INTACT INSURANCE: Hair Salon Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a hair salon
that has eight outlets in B.C. has filed a class-action lawsuit
alleging that insurance companies are wrongly denying business
interruption insurance coverage for closures and restrictions
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Great Clips is the representative plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court against Canada's major
insurance companies. The plaintiffs claim that 100,000 businesses
across the country, including more than 10,000 in B.C., have been
adversely impacted by the position being taken by the insurance
companies.

The hair salon says it signed a contract with the Intact Insurance
Company for a business interruption insurance policy that featured
coverage for lost business income over a prescribed period of
time.

It says that after B.C.'s state of emergency was declared in March
and restrictions were imposed by health authorities, it was forced
to interrupt its regular business operations for weeks.

The hair salon contacted the insurance firm and submitted a claim
for its business losses, but in May received word that the claim
had been denied on the grounds that the requisite losses or damages
to insured property had not been proven, according to the lawsuit.

The thousands of class members have suffered "significant loss" as
a result of the interruptions brought about by the pandemic, it
says.

"When they began making claims on the defendants for support under
their business interruption insurance policies, they were surprised
and dismayed to see their claims uniformly denied."

The insurance companies collected millions of dollars in insurance
premiums from class members over a period of years or decades "only
to deny them coverage when they needed it most," adds the lawsuit.

The typical business interruption policy covers all perils or risks
unless the perils are specifically excluded and the exclusions
typically do not prevent coverage for pandemics, says the
class-action.

"None of them specially exclude contamination or risk of
contamination by pandemics. None of the class members' policy
language specifically excludes circumstances such as COVID-19 or
its resulting orders, notices, advisories, directives and
guidelines."

The suit is seeking a certification of a class-action and a
declaration that the defendants breached the terms of their
contracts and acted in "bad faith".

Punitive and aggravated damages of $100 million are being sought,
but Tony Merchant, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on Aug. 10
that the figure for total damages could run into the billions of
dollars.

"These claims that we're advancing in Canada and similar claims
that are being advanced in the United States and Europe could be
absolutely huge," said Merchant.

An Intact spokeswoman sent an email response to questions from
Postmedia: "We are aware of the application for authorization for a
class-action lawsuit filed against a number of insurers, including
Intact. As this is potentially in litigation, we cannot provide
further details at this time. We continue to provide support and
relief to our customers wherever we can."

Aaron Sutherland, a vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of
Canada, said that he couldn't comment on the specifics in the
lawsuit.

But he said that insurance coverage for pandemics is typically
excluded in most business policies unless it's specifically sought
and that business interruption policies typically require physical
damage to be proven for a claim to be made out. There has been no
physical damage to businesses under COVID-19, he said.

The class action lawsuit was brought by Keith Chalmers, who owns
eight Great Clips hair salons in B.C., not Great Clips itself.
[GN]


IRA L. GROSSMAN: Underpays Veterinary Technicians, Cordy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR CORDY, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. IRA L. GROSSMAN DDVM, PLC d/b/a PALMS WEST
VETERINARY HOSP., a Florida Limited Liability Company, IRA
GROSSMAN, individually, and GLEN GROSSMAN, individually, Case No.
9:20-cv-81580-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
including improper payment of wages.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt veterinary
technician in February 2016 until August 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite working in excess of 40 hours
per week, the Defendants failed to compensate him at a rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek at various times throughout
the duration of his employment with the Defendants. Additionally,
the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at least minimum wage in
one or more workweeks, and failed to maintain proper time records
as mandated by the FLSA.

Ira L. Grossman DDVM, PLC, operates a 24 hour emergency veterinary
hospital. Ira Grossman owns and operates Palms West. Glen Grossman
exercised significant operational control over Palms West,
controlled the finances, and regularly directed the work of the
employees of Palms West.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 333-3515
          Email: CVentura@forthepeople.com


ITO EN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Nelson Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ITO EN (North
America) Inc. The case is styled as Devynn Nelson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ITO EN (North
America) Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-07496 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

ITO EN (North America) INC., a subsidiary of ITO EN LTD., does
business in the beverage industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHN C. HEATH: Boyd Sues in D. Utah Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath
Attorney at Law. The case is styled as Daniel Boyd, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. John C. Heath Attorney at
Law doing business as: Lexington Law Firm, Case No.
2:20-cv-00636-CMR (D. Utah, Sept. 11, 2020).

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

Lexington Law provides credit repair services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 401-4882
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


KENZO PARIS: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenzo Paris USA LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kenzo Paris
USA LLC, a Delaware corporation; Does 1-10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-01796-BEN-LL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020).

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

Kenzo (stylized as KENZO) is a French luxury fashion house founded
in 1970 by Japanese designer Kenzo Takada and owned by parent
company LVMH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


KITCHEN KAPERS: Fuchs Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Kitchen Kapers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03917 (E.D. N.Y.,
August 17, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Kitchen Kapers owns and operates www.kitchenkapers.com, an online
retailer specializing in developing, producing and selling kitchen
products including gourmet cookware, bakeware, kitchen knives, as
well as new kitchen gadgets, small appliances and cookbooks. Fuchs
is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
      SHALOM LAW, PLLC
      105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 971-9474
      Email: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com


KM INDUSTRIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Harris Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant KM Industrial, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Levone Harris v. KM Industrial,
Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-07801-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 17,
2020, Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Harris motion to remand the
case to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

Harris was employed by KMI as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
January 2017 until July 2019. He alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), California Labor Code, and
California unfair competition law.

The appellate case is captioned as Levone Harris v. KM Industrial,
Inc., Case No. 20-16767, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant KM Industrial, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      September 24, 2020; and

   -- Appellee Levone Harris' answering brief is due on
      September 24, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee LEVONE HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Email: william@setarehlaw.com
                 shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant KM INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Megan Marie Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
          E-mail: mcooney@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com

               - and -

          Jordan Mikhail Rex, Esq.
          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7122
          E-mail: jrex@gibsondunn.com
                  ksmith@gibsondunn.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Suit Over Maxwell House Coffee's Deceptive Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on July 31, 2020, Plaintiff, on behalf of a proposed
class of consumers, filed a class-action lawsuit against Defendant
Kraft Heinz Company alleging that Defendant had falsely and
deceptively advertised its Maxwell House ground coffee products by
"grossly" exaggerating the number of cups of coffee that could be
made from them.

The representations at issue covered 38 varieties of coffee
products and were made in each case on the front packaging of the
products. Based on the products' instructions to use one tablespoon
of ground coffee to make one 6 fluid-ounce cup of coffee, and the
fact that one tablespoon of ground coffee weighed five grams,
Plaintiff calculated that Defendant's products could only produce
between 66% and 73% of the represented number of cups of coffee
based on the net quantity of contents of the product.  The example
provided in the complaint was that the product claimed to make 90
cups of coffee from a 10.5 ounce (297 gram) tin but at 5 grams per
tablespoon the contents would only yield around 59 cups of coffee.
Plaintiff alleged that these misrepresentations allowed Defendant
to charge more for the coffee products and induced consumers to
purchase them, and that it would be unreasonable to expect a
consumer to calculate how many cups of the coffee the products
could make.

Plaintiff's complaint is similar to a class-action lawsuit filed in
May 2020 which alleged that Folgers Coffee Company had inflated the
number of cups of coffee that could be produced from its products.
Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments in this
case and trends in food class-action litigation. [GN]


KRAPILS: Faces Hankes FLSA Suit Over Improper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT HANKES and EVAN THOMPSON, individually and as Class
Representatives v. KRAPILS, THE GREAT STEAK, INC., RON MUERSCH,
SR., individually, RON MUERSCH, JR., individually, and TED MUERSCH,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-05328 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for their alleged failure to
properly pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs, who were Defendants' kitchen employees during the
time period from August 1, 2017, through the present, allege that
the Defendants created schemes to defraud the kitchen employees of
overtime pay, by manipulating the recorded work hours of the
kitchen employees, not reflecting the hours they worked on the
paystub, and delaying their overtime pay as unacknowledged "comp
time."

Krapils, The Great Steak, Inc. operates a restaurant. Ted Muersch
is the President of Krapils. Ron Muersch, Sr. is the manager. Ron
Muersch, Jr. is the general manager.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jac A. cotiguala, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAC A. COTIGUALA
          431 South Dearbon St., Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Tel: (312) 939-2100
          Email: jac@wageandhour.com

                - and –

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: (312) 233-1550
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@steohanzouras.com
                 aceragioli@stephanzouras.com


LAB TEC COSMETICS: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and MARIA SALGADO v. LAB TEC COSMETICS BY MARZENA, INC.
and MARZENA SAVAS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-05326 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay
practice, including failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their employment with the
Defendants, they were denied overtime pay at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Instead, they were only paid regular hourly rate
for the 60 hours they worked per week.

The lawsuit also asserts claims under the Biometric Information
Privacy Act for the Defendants' alleged illegal collection of
biometric data. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to
maintain or publicize information about its biometric practices or
policies; failed to provide Plaintiffs with written notice and
obtain prior written consent from Plaintiffs regarding their
biometric information collection; and failed to inform Plaintiffs
of any biometric retention policy developed by the Defendants.

Lab Tec Cosmetics by Marzena, Inc. is a personal care contract
manufacturer ad private label company. Marzena Savas is the
President and CEO of Lab Tec Cosmetics. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312) 763-6880
          Email: acaffarelli@cafarelli.com
                 mengel@caffarelli.com


LLOYD'S LONDON: Tripwire Files Class Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certain Underwriters
at LLoyd's, London Trading as Syndicates WRB 1967 and KLN 0510. The
case is styled as Tripwire Operations Group, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Certain Underwriters at
LLoyd's, London Trading as Syndicates WRB 1967 and KLN 0510, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01672-YK (M.D. Pa., Sept. 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Lloyd's of London, generally known simply as Lloyd's, is an
insurance and reinsurance market located in London, United
Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 kiverson@carlsonlynch.com


LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in DeAngelo FDCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an
Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned JOSEPH DEANGELO v. LVNV FUNDING
LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC,
SHERMAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SHERMAN ORIGINATOR III LLC, SHERMAN
ACQUIITION L.P., SHERMAN ACQUISITION OO LP, SHERMAN ACQUISITION II
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP LLC, SHERMAN CAPITAL, LLC, ALEGIS GROUP LLC,
BENJAMIN W. NAVARRO, LESLIE G. GUTIERREZ, SCOTT E. SILVER, KEVIN P.
BRANIGAN, ROBERT A. RODERICK and KENNETT KENDALL, Case No.
1:18-cv-15689-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint and demand for a jury
trial in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, in Gloucester
County on September 28, 2018. On November 5, 2018, the Defendants
removed this case to the District of New Jersey. On September 23,
2019, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Defendants
moved to dismiss this Complaint on November 8, 2019.

The Plaintiff's complaint includes a number of other entities
created under Delaware law, referred to as the "Sherman
Organization Defendants." The Plaintiff contends that these
entities are vicariously liable for the actions of LVNV Funding and
Resurgent, collectively referred to as "LVNV." The Plaintiff has
also included a number of individuals residing in South Carolina,
known as the "Sherman Executive Defendants," and alleges they are
also vicariously liable for LVNV's actions.

The Plaintiff's Debt and Default Judgment

In 1999, the Plaintiff purchased a car for his nephew. To do so, he
incurred debt held by CitiFinancial, Inc. ("Citi"). In 2003, the
Plaintiff restructured this debt to lower his payments. At some
point, the Plaintiff defaulted on this loan. The Plaintiff alleges
that his last payment on this loan was in 2004, at the latest. The
car was repossessed in 2004.

In July 2009, Resurgent brought an action against the Plaintiff in
LVNV Funding's name in the Superior Court of Gloucester County, Law
Division. This action was brought long after the four-year statute
of limitations for contract actions had expired. In that
proceeding, the Defendants alleged that Plaintiff owed a debt of
$28,382.10. The Defendants further alleged that the Plaintiff had
made two payments by money order in November 2008. The Defendants
argued that these payments had the legal effect of restoring a
cause of action for breach of contract.

In this action, the Plaintiff alleges these payments were never
made and, in essence, were a fabrication to create a false but
colorable claim that the expired debt had been revived by voluntary
payments by the Plaintiff after the expiration of the statute of
limitations. A default judgment was entered in the Defendants'
favor in the underlying action on February 8, 2010.

According to the Plaintiff, he did not become aware of the state
court action against him and the default judgment until October 5,
2017, when he received a Notice of Wage Application. On October 25,
2017, LVNV filed a Writ of Execution against Wages with the
Superior Court of New Jersey. On February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed a motion to vacate this judgment, asserting that the debt was
time-barred and that the suit was brought in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act. On May 10, 2018, LVNV sent DeAngelo
a Notice of Application for Wage Execution. Together the 2017
Notice, the 2017 Writ, and this 2018 Notice are referred to as "the
Garnishment Pleadings."

On August 23, 2019, the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an
opinion granting the Plaintiff's motion to vacate and sua sponte
granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. The state
court found both that the Plaintiff had not made the alleged
payments by money order in November 2008 and, even if he had, the
Defendants lacked a good faith basis to conclude their cause the
action was still viable.

The Current Matter

The Plaintiff has since filed a class action complaint against the
Defendants for their debt collection practices, which he refers to
as "zombie" debt collection. According to the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, the Defendants are engaged in part of a nationwide
"epidemic haunting hundreds of thousands of individual consumers
all across the country." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
routinely "attempt to collect on debts that have been settled, paid
off, discharged in bankruptcy, or rendered uncollectible due to the
statute of limitations."

The Plaintiff has identified two classes of similarly situated
persons in this case: (1) the legal action class and (2) the false
representations class. The Plaintiff's complaint includes three
counts: the First Cause of Action alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(1)
(against Defendants Resurgent and LVNV Funding) on behalf of the
legal action class; the Second Cause of Action alleges violations
of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C SectionSection 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and
1692f(1) (against Defendants Resurgent and LVNV Funding) on behalf
of the false representations class; and the Third Cause of Action,
which does not allege a separate statutory theory but rather
alleges vicarious liability for the first two counts against all
Sherman Executive Defendants and all Sherman Organization
Defendants except Resurgent and LVNV Funding on behalf of both
classes.

Defendants Resurgent and LVNV Funding moved to dismiss this
complaint on November 8, 2019. The Defendants allege, somewhat
ironically, that the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred and that he
has failed to state a claim under the FDCPA.

Ruling

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a separate
plausible claim under Section 1692e(5) in the Second Cause of
Action. In sum, the Court will partially deny and partially grant
the motion to dismiss as it relates to the Second Cause of Action.
The Plaintiff's claims under Section 1692e(2)(A) will not be
dismissed. The Plaintiff's claims under Section 1692e(5) and
Section 1692f(1) will be dismissed.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claims against the
Sherman Organization Defendants and the Sherman Executive
Defendants must be dismissed because the claims against LNVN, as
the alleged agent, are time-barred and fail to make a claim.

District Judge Noel L. Hillman notes that both parties have stated
that the fate of this claim rests with the fate of the previous
two. If the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on either Causes
of Action, it follows that no one can be held vicariously liable
for that claim. Having denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the First and Second Causes of Action, the Court will allow
Count III to proceed in a manner consistent with this Opinion and
accompanying Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y749kcrh from Leagle.com.

LAURA ROSSI -- rossil@whiteandwilliams.com -- MICAHEL O. KASSAK --
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com -- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP, in
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLAVANIA, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

THOMAS MICHAEL BRODOS , MICHAEL RAY DARBEE -- mdarbee@blankrome.com
-- STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY -- orlofsky@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP,
in PRINCETON, New Jersey, Attorneys for the Defendants.


LVNV FUNDING: Shaughnessy Consumer Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Grady Shaughnessy, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent
Capital Services, LP, Case No. 37-02020-00028067-CU-MC-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Sept. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01809-BEN-WVG to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

LVNV Funding LLC purchases portfolios of both domestic and
international consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP
          41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Phone: (619) 500-4187
          Fax: (888) 819-8230
          Email: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLT MANSUKHANI, LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 255-6950
          Fax: (949) 474-2060
          Email: sflynn@grsm.com


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Freedman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued
an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ROBERT
FREEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC LTD., an
Israeli corporation; DON C. BELL III, GERALD VENTO, DONALD A.
BURNS, RICHARD HARRIS, YUEN WAH SING, ALAN HOWE, IZHAK GROSS, TALI
YARON-ELDAR, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-15303 (11th Cir.).

The Honorable R. David Proctor affirmed the decision of the
District Court. Judge Proctor, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Alabama, is sitting by designation.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Freedman ("Freedman") is a shareholder
of one of the Appellees, magicJack Vocaltec Ltd. ("magicJack").
Freedman filed a putative class action complaint against magicJack
and eight individuals who were magicJack current or former
directors. In his class allegations, Freedman claimed that
magicJack issued two proxy statements that contained material
misrepresentations. The District Court gave Freedman multiple
chances to amend his pleadings to state a claim. Ultimately, the
District Court dismissed his lawsuit because his claims were
derivative in nature and he failed to plead that he made a demand
on magicJack or that doing so would have been futile.

In this appeal, Mr. Freedman argues that (1) the operative
complaint, which here is his Second Amended Complaint, is direct in
nature, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise, and
(2) he properly pleaded violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Act") and Section 20(a)
of the Act.

After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, the
Court of Appeals agrees with the well-reasoned analysis of the
District Court, which concluded the claim at issue was derivative
rather than direct in nature.

Judge Proctor opines, among other things, that the conclusion that
Mr. Freedman's claim is derivative is reinforced by his failure to
plead that he personally suffered a special injury, distinct from
that experienced by magicJack or its other shareholders. Judge
Proctor states that the District Court did not err in granting
magicJack's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd3r9ffe from Leagle.com.

LAURA ROSSI -- rossil@whiteandwilliams.com -- MICAHEL O. KASSAK --
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com -- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP, in
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

THOMAS MICHAEL BRODOS , MICHAEL RAY DARBEE -- mdarbee@blankrome.com
-- STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY -- orlofsky@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP,
in PRINCETON, NJ, Attorneys for the Defendants.


MEI PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 9 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of MEI Pharma, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP)

Class Period: August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 9, 2020

MEI Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on
the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer.
MEI Pharma's clinical drug candidates include, among others,
Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase ("HDAC") inhibitor.

MEI Pharma and Helsinn Healthcare SA, a Swiss pharmaceutical
corporation ("Helsinn"), with which MEI Pharma had an exclusive
worldwide license, development, manufacturing and commercialization
agreement for Pracinostat in acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"),
myelodysplastic syndrome, and other potential indications (the
"Helsinn License Agreement"), were evaluating Pracinostat in, among
other studies, a pivotal Phase 3 global registration clinical trial
for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit
to receive intensive chemotherapy (the "Phase 3 Pracinostat
Trial"). The Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, which was initiated in June
2017, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that
would enroll worldwide approximately 500 adults with newly
diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Pracinostat or placebo with
azacitidine as background therapy. The primary endpoint of the
trial was overall survival.

On July 2, 2020, MEI Pharma issued a press release announcing that
it was discontinuing the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial. Specifically,
the Company advised that an interim futility analysis of the Phase
3 Pracinostat Trial, undertaken by the study's Independent Data
Monitoring Committee ("IDMC"), "has demonstrated it was unlikely to
meet the primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the
control group," and that "[b]ased on the outcome of the interim
analysis, the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of
patients and end the study," which "was based on a lack of efficacy
and not on safety concerns."

Following the announcement, the Company's stock price fell $0.78
per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 10, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI
Pharma had overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an AML
treatment for the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3
Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of
overall survival; (iii) 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
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

                        About Bragar Eagel

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

MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Williams Class Suit in M.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MERCER UNIVERSITY.
The case is styled as Olivier Williams, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. MERCER UNIVERSITY, Case No.
5:20-cv-00361-TES (M.D. Ga., Sept. 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Mercer University is a private research university with its main
campus located in Macon, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Ave., Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 969-7810
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          160 Clairemont Ave., Ste. 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Phone: (678) 780-4880
          Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


MEYER CORP: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., Case No. 1:20-cv-07373
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff, who is a visually impaired or blind person, alleges
that he was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual
when he visited the Defendant's website,
http://www.hestanculinary.com/,in July 2020 with the intent of
browsing and potentially making a purchase.

According to the complaint, the website effectively barred the
Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of
Defendant's public accommodation due to its multiple barriers or
lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which makes it
impossible for the Plaintiff and any other visually impaired or
blind person from being able to access the website's content
despite using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual
Desktop Access. Moreover, the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because of its failure and refusal to
remove access barriers to its website.

Meyer Corporation, U.S., is a cookware company that owns and
operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


MOUNTAIN STATE: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOUNTAIN STATE PRESSURE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01363-WSS (W.D. Penn., Sept. 10, 2020), is a brought
against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a rig and snubbing
supervisor from approximately mid-2016 through 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees performed non-exempt job duties. But, because
the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees as exempt from overtime pay, they were
denied lawful overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in a single workweek. Instead, they were paid base salary
plus a daily rate for each day worked in the field under the guise
of reimbursements.

Mountain State Pressure Services, Inc. is a natural gas well
completion company operating throughout the U.S., including in
Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@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
   
                - and –

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Tel: (412) 766-1455
          Fax: (412) 766-0300
          Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


MUSICIAN'S FRIEND: Graciano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Musician's Friend,
Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Musician's Friend, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07541 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020).

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

Musician's Friend, Inc. markets music gear products. The Company
offers guitars, amps and effects, basses, keyboards, drums and
percussion, live sound equipment, recording software, studio gear,
DJ equipment and lighting, accessories, music instruction videos,
and music books.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL OCEANIC: Charter Boat Captains Sue Over 'Intrusive' Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
nbc-2.com reports that in July the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration announced a rule that won't take effect until
January.

It will require charter boat captains to buy and maintain a GPS
tracking system on their boat.

"We spend a lot of time and effort out there trying to find our
spots to be consistent every single day," A&B Charters captain
Bobby Nagaj said. "It takes a lot of time and effort so once big
brother government has those, they're there for everyone."

They also need to log everything they catch.

"Logging every client that comes on the boat, every fish that's
caught and released, it's definitely going to take a lot of time
and effort out of our day and maybe not let us give the quality of
trip we're used to giving," Nagaj said.

The goal is to monitor the fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. On
Aug. 19, a class-action lawsuit was filed to stop the rule before
taking effect in 2021.[GN]

NELNET INC: Isner-Monticello Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Kimberly Isner-Monticello, and all others
similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., a Nebraska corporation; Nelnet
Diversified Solutions, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company;
Nelnet Servicing, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; Case
No. 8:20-cv-02135-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., Sept. 11, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Nelnet, Inc., is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in
the administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryant Dunivan, Jr., Esq.
          OWEN & DUNIVAN, PLLC
          615 E. De Leon St.
          Tampa, FL 33606  
          Phone: (813) 502-6768
          Fax: (813) 330-7924
          Email: bdunivan@owendunivan.com


NEW YORK, NY: Lady Gaga's Father Joins Restaurant Owners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Fruen, writing for Dailymail.com and Wires, reports that
Lady Gaga's father has joined more than 450 New York City
restaurant owners suing Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de
Blasio for $2 billion in damages over a continued ban on indoor
dining amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The outdoor dining scheme ends on October 31 and so far, there are
no solid plans to allow people back inside restaurants. Indoor
dining is allowed in New York state with the exception of New York
City, where, as of Sept. 3, 456 restaurateurs had filed the
class-action lawsuit against the state and city, according to
reports.

Joe Germanotta, who owns the Joanne Trattoria restaurant in
Manhattan and is pop superstar Lady Gaga's dad, is one of them, and
says outdoor dining is not a long-term solution anyway.

He told Pix11: "When it rains we gotta close. Once it starts
getting cold, the place will be empty." He later told Fox News:
"Once the weather gets cold we are pretty much out of business."  

New York has seen by far the most deaths from COVID-19 of any U.S.
state, more than 32,000, but its rate of new infections has dropped
to among the lowest in the country.  

Germanotta says he has the backing to survive but added: "It's so
sad, because I'm watching some of my dear friends that own places,
shut down.

"Something has to be done. They're not listening, they're not
hearing, they're just not being realistic. They gotta put
themselves in our shoes, they're still getting a paycheck, these
people are suffering.

"Without the indoor dining I am just about breaking even, which is
fine, it's a family run business but it is going to be tight,
especially when winter hits.

"The whole situation affects the entire supply chain. It will
affect the governor and the city and the tax base. We have taken
the precautions. I was ready on July 6.'

In March Germanotta was slammed for creating a GoFundMe page to pay
staff at the restaurant he co-owns with the pop star, as COVID-19
forced layoffs.

The A Star is Born actress (born Stefani Germanotta) reportedly had
"no idea" her father Joe Germanotta made the public plea for
$50,000, according to a source who spoke with PageSix. He
eventually removed the page.  

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says he won't let New York City reopen its
restaurants for indoor dining until the city comes up with a plan
to make sure they are following regulations to reduce the spread of
the coronavirus.

Restaurants and bars were finally able to offer outdoor dining
again on June 22 after nearly three months of closures. Those who
were able to opened their doors again but were met with strict
rules; all diners must be 6ft apart, wear masks when not at their
tables and order food with every drink served.  

The governor said that he thinks restaurants should open in
New York City but that the state doesn't have enough personnel to
monitor the city's 27,000-plus eateries.

"These institutions are under dire economic circumstances," Cuomo
said in a phone call with reporters on Sept. 3. 'And we know that
compliance has to happen.'

"We open restaurants, that's going to complicate by the hundreds if
not thousands the number of establishments that need to be
monitored," he said.

Cuomo is facing pressure from the restaurant industry, which has
seen business plummet amid the pandemic and hundreds of workers
seeking unemployment assistance.

The lawsuit was filed the same day New Jersey announced plans to
allow indoor dining at 25 per cent capacity starting Sept. 4.
Connecticut began allowing indoor dining at half capacity in June.

The rest of the state outside New York City has allowed indoor
dining at half capacity since June.


New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had hoped the city was on track
to allow indoor dining in late June when it entered the third phase
of Cuomo's gradual reopening plan.

But Cuomo announced he wouldn't allow indoor dining in New York
City over concerns about dining indoors fueling the spread of the
coronavirus. The city has since pushed to expand outdoor dining,
though Cuomo increased restrictions on bars following reports of
crowds violating social distancing rules.

The restaurants, in their lawsuit over the ban on New York City
indoor dining, claim the restriction lacks scientific basis and
question why it is allowed so close to New York City.

But public health experts have warned that dining is risky in
enclosed spaces with groups of people talking loudly, sharing food
and drinking alcohol. States including Louisiana and Maryland have
linked new cases to bars and restaurants.

New York is now reporting a sharp decline in hospitalizations and
fatalities since a peak of over 18,000 COVID-19 patients and well
over 700 deaths a day in mid-April.

Cuomo has praised New Yorkers for keeping infection rates down,
contrary to expectations after the state began reopening in
mid-May. New York City recorded about 9,000 positive COVID-19 tests
in August, down from over 11,700 in June, according to state
Department of Health data.

Still, the virus is not vanquished. Over 9,000 COVID-19 tests were
positive across New York in the last two weeks of August as some
upstate communities weather upticks at colleges and elsewhere. And
New York City has continued to represent about half of the state's
positive cases.        

Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sept. 3 that the city will provide
guidance to restaurants this month and that he is in "constant
dialogue" with the state.

Cuomo suggested New York City could deploy police officers to
ensure compliance with safety guidelines such as mask-wearing and
capacity limits.

The mayor offered a note of caution: "The NYPD has a lot on its
hands and they're dealing with so many challenges and fighting back
the challenges we face." [GN]


NEW YORK: Staten Island Boutique Fitness Studio Owners to File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Porpora, writing for silive.com, reports that the owners of
the Max Challenge -- which has three locations on Staten Island --
are the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit being filed on
Sept. 2 against Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City to allow
boutique fitness studios to open amid the coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic, said the lawyer for the case.

The lawsuit, which was set to be filed Sept. 3 in Richmond County
Supreme Court, St. George., is being led by Roseann and Anthony
Camarda, who own three popular fitness studios -- in Grasmere,
Woodrow and Great Kills -- under the Max Challenge franchise on
Staten Island, said James G. Mermigis, an attorney with the
Syosset, N.Y.-based Mermigis Law Group, who will be filing the
case.

"There is absolutely no reason that big box gyms can be open and we
can't," said Roseann Camarda, who said her membership has been
reduced from 1,500 to 700 people during the pandemic. "We can
follow all the New York state guidelines of putting everyone
6-feet apart. ..  We have followed every guideline for reopening
indoors and have invested a lot of money to put protocols in place,
and it's more than six months of us being closed. He [de Blasio] is
shutting down our businesses and our livelihoods."

While Cuomo said gyms across the state could reopen Aug, 24, he
said that local elected officials -- in New York City's case that's
de Blasio -- may choose to delay the reopening of gyms and fitness
centers until Sept. 2.

This delay was to allow time for required local health department
inspections. In addition, Cuomo said local officials could choose
to delay the reopening of indoor fitness classes until a date
beyond Sept. 2.

De Blasio chose to do both.

While many gyms were able to open Sept. 2, de Blasio won't allow
fitness classes to resume indoors, which has left boutique fitness
studios, like the Max Challenge, yoga centers, CrossFit and Pilates
studios, which rely on classes as the main draw to their
businesses, unable to reopen.

Mermigis -- who had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 1,500
New York gym owners against the state last month -- said this suit
against de Blasio and the city will demand boutique fitness centers
be allowed to reopen immediately.

"Im going to be filing another action against de Blasio and the
city of New York for not allowing fitness classes to proceed," said
Mermigis, who also is representing Staten Island restaurant owners
in a lawsuit expected to be filed Sept. 8 to allow indoor dining in
New York City.

"We are going to demand that de Blasio allow all these fitness
boutique studios to open. . . . These classes are now being held
across the state except for the five boroughs. It's unequal
treatment," he added.

A city Law Department spokesman said, "We'll review and respond to
the lawsuit once we're served."

NO TIMEFRAME

And there is no timeframe for when fitness classes can resume. This
leaves many boutique fitness studio owners on Staten Island with
reduced or no means of income -- indefinitely.

"This city and state have been draining the pockets of small
business owners for years through high taxes," said
Joseph Cannizzo, owner of Staten Island Judo Jujitsu Dojo in
Annadale, who is also part of the lawsuit. "Now they've forced us
to be closed for seven months and provided us with zero assistance.
We are broke, stacking up tremendous debt and hanging on by a
thread."

Said Camarda: "There's no difference between a boutique fitness
studio and a Big Box gym. We are willing to wear masks. All of our
members know that masks are mandatory."

She noted that she has been conducting outdoor classes for her
members at Staten Island Little League in Travis. "I am so thankful
for the Little League," she said.

In addition, Camarda said she is thankful for the support of the
New York Fitness Coalition (NYFC), a not-for-profit organization
that was formed to advocate for the safe reopening of gyms.

"Mayor de Blasio has exceeded his authority in keeping indoor
fitness classes closed past Sept. 2," said Charlie Cassara,
president and founder of NYFC, which now represents more than 2,000
fitness studios in New York state. "We have been proven to be able
to open safely. ...With our standards of operating and contact
tracing we are safer than most of the businesses fully opened."

Said Amanda Freeman, founderCEO of SLT and Boutique Fitness
Alliance: "Distinguishing between a gym and group fitness facility
is arbitrary and non-sensical.  We can be just as controlled, safe
and clean as gyms, if not more so.  We believe there is
unintentional gender bias in the decision in allowing more
male-dominated workouts to reopen and denying more female-dominated
workouts.  We [Boutique Fitness Alliance] are joining the lawsuit
against the city of a New York in an attempt to give businesses
like ourselves the chance to survive in this impossible climate and
to give our staff and clients the opportunity to return to what
they love."

STATE LAWSUIT STILL ACTIVE

On behalf of 1,500 fitness facility owners across the state,
Mermigis, earlier this month, filed a class action lawsuit in
Jefferson County, N.Y., against Cuomo, New York state and the state
attorney general.

"We are also proceeding to see if these executive orders were
constitutional or not," he said. "We are still going to proceed
against the state for just compensation." [GN]


ON DECK CAPITAL: Morrison Balks at Proposed $90MM Sale to Enova
---------------------------------------------------------------
IAN MORRISON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
ON DECK CAPITAL, INC., NOAH BRESLOW, DANIEL S. HENSON, BRUCE P.
NOLOP, NEIL WOLFSON, JANE J. THOMPSON, RON VERNI, CHANDRA
DHANDAPANI, MANOLO SANCHEZ, ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ENERGY
MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 654179/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
Sept. 1, 2020), is a stockholder class action against OnDeck and
its Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result
of their efforts to sell the Company to Enova International, Inc.,
and Energy Merger Sub through an unfair transaction valued at
approximately $90 million.

The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a July
28, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger. Under
the terms of the agreement, Enova will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.

OnDeck public stockholders, however, will receive only $0.12 cents
per share in cash and 0.092 shares of Enova common stock for each
share of OnDeck held, or approximately $1.38 per share of OnDeck,
based upon Enova's closing price on July 27, 2020. Significantly,
upon completion of the transaction, OnDeck shareholders will own
only approximately 16.7% of the combined entity, with Enova
shareholders owning approximately 83.3%.
On August 25, 2020, Enova filed a Registration Statement on Form
S-4 with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction. The
Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of
interest for management; (b) the financial projections for OnDeck
and Enova, provided by OnDeck and Enova to the Company's financial
advisor Evercore Group LLC for use in its financial analyses; and
(c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the
Company's financial advisor, Evercore.

OnDeck Capital Inc. operates an online platform for small business
leading in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Enova International, Inc. provides online financial services to
non-prime consumers and small businesses, providing access to
credit powered by its advanced analytics, innovative technology,
and world-class online platform and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com


OTTAWA: Agrees to Certify 2 Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Olivia Stefanovich at CBC News reports that the Canadian federal
government has consented to the certification of two class action
lawsuits over funding for First Nation child welfare services and
the state of health services for children on-reserve and in the
Yukon.

The certification of the class actions sets the stage for what
could be an umbrella settlement that could cover the two cases and
a separate First Nations child welfare compensation order issued by
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which is facing a judicial
review before the Federal Court.

The two class action lawsuits received certification. One was filed
by the Assembly of First Nations on behalf of former First Nation
foster children, while the other was filed by three law firms on
behalf of a former foster child from a Quebec and Nova Scotia First
Nation member who suffers from cerebral palsy.

The lawsuits are proceeding together in Federal Court.

"Consenting to certification marks a step forward in negotiating a
settlement to compensate those harmed by under-funding of child and
family services on reserve," says a media statement issued by
Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller and Justice Minister David
Lametti.

Ottawa is entering into mediation to settle the lawsuits, which are
seeking billions of dollars in compensation for First Nation
children affected by the on-reserve child welfare system and for
those who were denied services Ottawa was expected to provide under
what's known as Jordan's Principle.

Jordan's Principle states that First Nation children on reserves
must not be kept waiting for vital social services because
governments can't agree on who should pay for them.

In a media statement, Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry
Bellegarde welcomed Ottawa's certification.

"Canada's decision to work with the AFN and its allies in
addressing this tragedy is an important step," he said.

"It is crucial that Canada act in good faith in these upcoming
negotiations, provide fair compensation to all those who suffered
harm, and implement real change. Only then can we bring closure to
this sad chapter in our history."

Ottawa trying to settle 3 cases

The AFN lawsuit, filed on Jan. 28, is seeking $10 billion in
damages.

The AFN lawsuit claims that by shortchanging services for
Indigenous children, the federal government created an incentive to
remove them from their homes and place them in foster care as the
"first - not the last - resort."

The second lawsuit, which is seeking $6 billion in damages, was
filed in March 2019 on behalf of former foster child Xavier
Moushoom of La Nation Anishnabe du Lac Simon, Que., and Jeremy
Meawasige of Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia. Meawasige
was born with cerebral palsy, spinal curvature and autism.

In November, Lametti and Miller issued a joint statement saying the
federal government intended to settle the Moushoom and Meawasige
lawsuit.

At the time, the ministers indicated the negotiations would also
seek resolution to matters now before the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal involving similar facts and issues.

"We will be sitting down with parties and seeing where there is a
meeting of minds and move forward on a compensation package, a
compensation model that is fair and equitable," Miller said last
December.

Last fall, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the federal
government to pay $40,000 - the maximum allowed under the Canadian
Human Rights Act - to each child taken from their homes and
communities through the on-reserve child welfare system from Jan.
1, 2006, to a date to be determined by the tribunal.

Some estimates place the number of children that could be affected
at about 50,000, with the largest number in the Prairie provinces
and British Columbia. The ruling, like the AFN class action, also
covers First Nation children in Yukon.

The Trudeau government asked the Federal Court for a judicial
review of the tribunal order, saying that because it came down in
the middle of an election, there was not enough time to "have
conversations with communities, with leaders, to make sure we're
getting that compensation right."

That matter is still before the Federal Court.  [GN]


PAUL HESSE: Former Client Mulls Immigration Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a former client of disgraced immigration
lawyer Paul Hesse is seeking to form a class-action lawsuit,
alleging he defrauded an unknown number of people hoping to
immigrate to Canada by telling them to invest in companies
controlled by either him or his then-romantic partner.

In a statement of claim filed in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench
on Aug. 7, Haokuang Tian says he lost hundreds of thousands of
dollars after he hired Hesse to handle his immigration application.


Tian claims Hesse directed him to make investments in Canadian
companies in order to qualify under the provincial nominee program.
Tian agreed to invest $350,000 in a numbered company.

Unknown to him, the company had been incorporated only one month
earlier, and Hesse represented both the company and its sole
director.

Soon after the money was deposited into a trust account, the claim
says Hesse transferred the funds to a company known as Vidahlia
Corp., of which Hesse's partner, Patrick Maxwell, was a director.

"The scheme was: invest money in businesses that were controlled by
either Hesse and or his partner, and you will become a permanent
resident of Canada," said Kenneth Zaifman, a lawyer representing
Tian.

"None of these businesses have assets or operations. So they were,
in effect, shell companies, established solely for the purpose of
obtaining money from these individuals," Zaifman said.

CBC News has reached out to Hesse for comment. None of the
allegations have been tested in court. A statement of defence has
not yet been filed.

The lawsuit also names Hesse's former law firm, Pitblado LLP, as a
defendant. It alleges Pitblado knew, or should have known, that the
money was being transferred out of the trust account for a
suspicious purpose.

The lawsuit would include anyone who was a client of Hesse or
Pitblado, who paid for investment in a Canadian company for the
purpose of immigration and who suffered a loss as a result.

Pitblado managing partner Benjamin Hecht said his firm has been
served notice of the claim, but couldn't comment on a case that is
before the courts.

Hesse was dismissed as a partner at Pitblado in June 2019 and
suspended by the Law Society of Manitoba a month later.

Hesse, a former president of the Manitoba Liberal Party, joined the
law firm in August 2011 and became a partner in January 2014.

Zaifman says Hesse didn't tell Tian anything about the company that
he was investing in. Zaifman doesn't know how many people may be
potential class members, if the court grants certification, but the
amount of money invested through the scheme is potentially in the
millions, he said.

The lawsuit is seeking to recoup all money lost, as well as any
assets purchased by Hesse using the proceeds of the scheme.

A court date has not yet been set. [GN]


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Fowler Sues in Florida Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charles Fowler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Phoenix Financial Services LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
8:20-cv-02147 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2020).

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

Phoenix Financial is a revenue cycle management firm powered by
data driven analytics and backed by regulatory compliance, quality
assurance, data security and customer care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


POW! ENTERTAINMENT: Lee's Cybersquatting Suit Tossed; Fined $1MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned JOAN CELIA LEE v. POW! ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and DOES
1 through 10, Case No. 2:19-cv-08353-ODW(FFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Court GRANTS POW's (i) Motion to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE, and
(ii) Motion for Sanctions. The Court SANCTIONS JC Lee in the amount
of $1,000,000 and holds her attorneys JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY liable
for 25% of the amount, or $250,000. The sanctions shall be paid to
the Central District of California as a penalty. The Court also
permits counsel for POW to file a motion for attorney's fees.

On March 4, 2020, Defendant POW! Entertainment, Inc., ("POW") filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Joan
Celia Lee ("JC Lee"). POW argues that JC Lee's amended complaint is
barred by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
statute of limitations. On these grounds, POW also filed a motion
for sanctions against JC Lee.

Background

JC Lee is the daughter and trustee for the estate of comic book
author Stan Lee. Stan Lee is responsible for co-creating comic book
characters such as Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, and many
others. POW, a Delaware corporation, claims that Stan Lee assigned
to it the rights to his intellectual property.

On February 14, 2020, JC Lee filed her first amended complaint
against POW. JC Lee seeks to enforce the terms of an agreement made
in 1998 (the "1998 Agreement") between Stan Lee and Stan Lee
Entertainment, Inc. ("SLEI"). Specifically, JC Lee contends that,
under the terms of the 1998 Agreement, Stan Lee assigned full and
complete title to his name, likeness, and creator rights to SLEI in
perpetuity. As such, JC Lee seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
that SLEI, owns the rights to Stan Lee's intellectual property,
name, and likeness, and asserts a cause of action against POW for
cybersquatting in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(d).

POW, in response, seeks sanctions against JC Lee on the grounds
that her complaint is both frivolous and brought for an improper
purpose. Consequently, POW served JC Lee with notice of the instant
Motion using e-mail and first-class certified mail on April 7,
2020. On May 11, 2020, 34 days later, POW filed the Motion with the
Court.

After departing from Marvel in August 1998, Stan Lee formed SLEI,
to which he allegedly "conveyed clear title to his name, likeness
and all creator rights" on October 15, 1998. In January 2001, Stan
Lee accused Stan Lee Media, Inc. ("SLMI"), successor-in-interest to
SLEI, of being "in complete breach of the salary and benefit
provisions, inter alia, of the 1998 [A]greement so that he was
justified in terminating the agreement" (quoting Abadin v. Marvel
Entm't, Inc., No. CV 09-0715-PAC, 2010 WL 1257519, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2010).) Subsequently, due to a lack of operating capital
caused by a series of unfortunate events, SLMI filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.

Following the bankruptcy filing, in 2001, Stan Lee and others
formed POW. JC Lee alleges that the other founders of POW
manipulated Stan Lee into transferring ownership of his creator
rights and rights to his name and likeness "three years after he
divested himself of any further legal interest in those rights" to
SLMI per the 1998 Agreement.

When Stan Lee died in November 2018, JC Lee, as his only heir and
trustee of his estate, became the successor-in-interest of Stan
Lee's alleged obligations relating to the 1998 Agreement. She files
suit "to ensure the Lee Trust is able to perform the duties it
assumed under Stan Lee's [1998 Agreement] and act in accord with
the obligations under the Assignment by obtaining a Declaratory
Judgment to the effect all rights, title and interest to Stan Lee's
Name and likeness and Brand, along with copyrights and trademarks
now reside with [SLEI] in association with the Lee Trust."

Motion to Dismiss

Despite the numerous failed attempts to enforce the 1998 Agreement,
SLMI allegedly filed suit against Stan Lee's estate and reached a
settlement that was adopted by a court, although JC Lee fails to
provide further details. JC Lee now files this suit to satisfy the
estate's obligation under the terms of that settlement to "correct
the breach of the agreement" and "remedy the results of the various
invalid assignments made by Stan Lee."

The Court infers that SLMI has entered into a settlement prompting
JC Lee to file this suit for declaratory relief, though neither the
substance of the settlement nor the judgment have been provided to
the Court.

As POW has established all three factors, the Court finds that all
claims in this matter are barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. The Court DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE all claims in the FAC.

Motion for Sanctions

District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, says that even if a matter is
factually and legally baseless, the movant must establish that the
matter was filed without a reasonable and competent inquiry to
justify Rule 11 sanctions, citing Townsend, 929 F.2d at 1362. JC
Lee asserts that a reasonable inquiry was undertaken prior to
filing this action. JC Lee's attorney declares that he and his firm
spent "substantial time" reviewing the facts of the case, the
pleadings, the applicable law, and the application of Rule 11
sanctions and believes that the case has "strong merit."

The Court does not find this one-page declaration persuasive.
Regardless, the Court considers the reasonableness of the conduct,
not the subjective intent of the pleader or movant. The Court finds
it completely unreasonable to file a suit premised on an issue
debated and analyzed in more than five federal district courts over
the last decade. See Abadin, 2010 WL 1257519, at *4 ("Given the
pleading history here in this District, the Colorado State Court
proceedings, the three companion actions in the Central District of
California, the class action suit and settlement, and a 5 year
bankruptcy case, it is now time to call a halt."); SLMI I, 2012 WL
4048871, at *7 ("The Court therefore concludes that there is a
compelling public interest in bringing this matter to a close.")
Filing such a claim could only have been accomplished without a
competent and reasonable inquiry.

As the matter is factually and legally baseless and filed without a
reasonable and competent inquiry, the Court GRANTS the Motion for
Sanctions on the ground that the filing is frivolous.

As JC Lee stated at the hearing, wealth is relative. The Court
considers JC Lee's financial resources in determining a sanction
amount that will adequately deter her from repetition in the same
case, citing ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560
F.3d 1291, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("monetary sanctions must be
tailored to a party's ability to pay") (collecting cases from the
Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits). POW asserts that
she inherited $50 to $70 million from Stan Lee's estate and JC Lee
did not refute this assertion, either in her opposition or at oral
argument. Nor does she contest the five million dollar sanction
amount in her opposition. Indeed, her counsel did not argue that
such an amount would be excessive during the hearing despite the
oral argument by Mr. Knopfle that POW meaningfully chose the five
million dollar amount to deter future filings.

Considering the factors outlined in the advisory committee notes,
the requested sanction amount by POW, JC Lee's prior engagement in
this matter and her financial resources, the Court, intending to
deter both JC Lee and her attorneys, SANCTIONS JC Lee in the amount
of $1,000,000 and holds her attorneys JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY liable
for 25% of the amount, or $250,000. The sanctions shall be paid to
the Central District of California as a penalty. The Court finds
this amount consistent with the Rule 11 considerations and
commensurate with the egregiousness of the conduct, as well as the
burden this suit has imposed.

The Court further permits counsel for POW to file a motion for
attorney's fees. Failure to file the motion for attorney's fees by
the deadline may be deemed as a waiver of POW's right to obtain
attorney's fees and costs with respect to its Rule 11 motion.

Stan Lee, a superhero in his own right, served to inspire the
everyday hero. The Court urges parties to treat his legacy with
respect and cease engaging in meritless litigation, District Judge
Otis D. Wright, II, states.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycl3yjbt from Leagle.com.


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Breaches Plan Fiduciary Duties, Campbell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chantell Campbell, Marie Nellist, Brian Horton and Paulina
Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01887 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for breaches of
fiduciary duties.

The Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan was "formed on
January 1, 2006." The Plan is a "defined contribution" or
"individual account" plan within the meaning of ERISA, in that the
Plan provides for individual accounts for each participant and for
benefits based solely upon the amount contributed to those
accounts, and any income, expense, gains and losses, and any
forfeitures of accounts of the participants which may be allocated
to such participant's account.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing
a plan of similar scope. These twin fiduciary duties are "the
highest known to the law."

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (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, according to the complaint. It appears that in 2019,
nearly five years into the Class Period, the Plan switched to the
collective trust versions of the Fidelity target date funds. But
this was too little too late as the damages suffered by Plan
participants to that point had already been baked in. In accordance
with sound fiduciary practices, the Plan should have switched to
the Fidelity Freedom CIT target date funds at their earliest
opportunity. The majority of the collective trust versions of the
Fidelity Freedom target date funds were available as early as
2007.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
ERISA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan, investing in the options
offered by the Plan.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. is the Plan sponsor and is in the
business of buying hospitals throughout the United States, which
are experiencing financial distress.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Phone: (818) 788-0877
          Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
          Email: germain@lalawyer.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 233-4101
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

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



RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Suit Moved From Massachusetts to Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia McIntyre, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rentgrow, Inc. doing business as:
Yardi Resident Screening, Defendant; Transunion Rental Screening
Solutions, Inc., Interested Party, Case No. 18-cv-12141-ADB, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on Sept. 14, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-mc-00158-RBJ to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.

RentGrow is a provider of online resident screening services for
property management firms across the country.[BN]


ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Perry Sues in D. Nevada Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rozlin Financial
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kai Perry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rozlin Financial
Group, Inc., Debt Resolution Services, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01695-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Sept. 14, 2019).

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

Rozlin Financial Group, Inc. (RFGI) is a nationwide debt collection
agency located in Sycamore, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Tzall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TZALL
          1481 Warm Springs Rd., Suite 135
          Henderson, NV 89014
          Phone: (702) 666-0233
          Email: office@tzalllegal.com


SAN DIEGO UNIFIED: $6.6MM Settlement Reached in Rental Car Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Times of San Diego reports that a $6.6 million settlement has been
reached in a class-action lawsuit filed by a New Mexico man against
the San Diego Unified Port District over what he alleged were
illegal fees charged when he rented cars at San Diego International
Airport.

The suit filed by Jeffrey Garvin alleges a $3.50 fee charged to
rental car customers was actually a tax designed to collect fees to
fund a parking garage to be built adjacent to the proposed Chula
Vista Bayfront Convention Center.

Garvin alleged it was illegal, as any special tax must be approved
by two-thirds of voters, per Propositions 13 and 218.

The issue has led to numerous lawsuits filed in state and federal
court between Garvin, the port district and the various rental car
companies that collected the fees.

According to a settlement notice issued by the court, the
settlement includes anyone who rented vehicles from any rental car
company originating at San Diego International Airport, the
adjacent Rental Car Center or other locations on Port tidelands
between May 10, 2018 and July 24, 2020, and were charged the $3.50
fee.

The notice says potential class members have until Oct. 20 to
indicate whether they want to be part of the proposed settlement,
which still requires approval from a judge. A final approval
hearing is slated for Nov. 13 in San Diego Superior Court. [GN]

SCIPLAY CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of SciPlay Corporation (NASDAQ: SCPL) resulting from allegations
that SciPlay may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On May 3, 2019, SciPlay Corporation conducted its initial public
offering, selling 22 million shares for $16 per share and raising
$352 million. Since then, the Company's common stock has
consistently traded down because of softer-than-expected company
growth and poor performance relative to its peers.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by SciPlay investors. If you purchased shares of
SciPlay please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1706.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email 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.

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]


SPRAGUE OPERATING: Agudelo Files Suit in District of Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprague Operating
Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Ms. Eva Amanda Agudelo, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sprague
Operating Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00407 (D.R.I., Sept. 14,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

Sprague Operating Resources LLC retails petroleum products. The
Company offers home heating oil, diesel and residual fuels,
kerosene, low-sulfur diesel, bio fuels, bunker fuels, and gasoline
products. Sprague Operating Resources provides energy market
updates and fuel management services throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen E. Breggia, Esq.
          THE BREGGIA LAW FIRM
          395 Smith St.
          Providence, RI 02908
          Phone: 831-9100
          Fax: 831-0129
          Email: sbreggia@alphalaw.us


ST. BASIL'S: Facing Class Action Over COVID Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------
The Weekly source reports that just days after it reported on the
class action against Heritage Care over its Epping Gardens
outbreak, the same law firm has filed a writ on St Basil's Home for
the Aged in Fawkner, for alleged breaches of duty of care.

The writ lists Effie Fotiadis as the lead plaintiff in the case
against the home, after her 79-year-old father and resident,
Dimitrios, died from COVID-19.

It alleges St Basil's failed to act in Dimitrios' best interests,
as he was not properly isolated or given Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE), and was made to live "an unhygienic personal care
condition and unhygienic residential environment."

The home is also accused of alleged breaches including inadequate
use of PPE, inadequately trained staff and allowing workers to
enter the home from other facilities without self-isolating.

Carbone Lawyers, who will be representing the St Basil's families,
also alleges the home misrepresented information, and failed to
comply with legislations, regulations and professional standards.

The Fawkner home has seen one of the largest outbreaks in aged care
across Victoria, with 193 cases of COVID-19 and 31 resident deaths.
[GN]

STAR SNACKS: Andrews Files Suit in Northern District of Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Star Snacks Company
LLC. The case is styled as Mary Katherine Andrews, Individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Star Snacks
Company LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01357-AMM (N.D. Ala., Sept. 11,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Star Snacks is a manufacturer and distributor of nuts, trail mixes
& dried fruits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
          CHARLES M. THOMPSON PC
          2539 John Hawkins Pkwy., Suite 101-149
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Phone: (205) 995-0068
          Fax: (866) 610-1650
          Email: CMTLAW@aol.com


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Heyward Files FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stoneleigh Recovery
Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sharod Heyward,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stoneleigh Recovery Associates LLC, Cascade Capital LLC Series C,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-03251-DCC (D.S.C., Sept. 11,
2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC (SRA) provides state licensing
standards and laws. The Company offers debt recovery, security, and
corporate management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
          NORSWORTHY LAW LTD CO
          218 Trade Street, Suite D
          Greer, SC 29651  
          Phone: (864) 804-0581
          Fax: (864) 670-5009
          Email: kenorsworthy@me.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Ruiz Files Product Liability Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Jose Ruiz, Charles
Sineri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-12600 (D.N.J.,
Sept. 11, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          Fax: (973) 639-9393
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


TRUSTCO BANK: Livingston Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH J. LIVINGSTON, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. TRUSTCO BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 1:20-cv-01030-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Sept.
2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' wrongful charging of
overdraft fees to the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Trustco
checking accounts.

According to the complaint, the Defendants charged overdraft fees
even when sufficient funds exist to cover transactions that are
"initiated and authorized" into a positive balance. The charging
for such fees not only breaches the Defendants' contracts with its
members but also violates federal law as the Defendants failed to
follow basic prerequisites in its overdraft fee system as required
by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Trustco Bank is a federal savings bank headquartered in Glenville,
New York. Trustco Bank has assets of more than $5.2 billion, and
148 branch locations in five states in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Cherundolo, Esq.
          J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower I, 17th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 449-9500
          Facsimile: (315) 449-9804
          E-mail: jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com
                  plannon@cherundololawfirm.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  jeff@kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com


UNITED STATES: Bidon Sues in Federal Claims Court Over OT Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as NEIL BIDON, R.N., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No.
1:20-cv-01197-MHS (Fed. Cl., Sept. 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay--Overtime
Compensation.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Yaakov Statman, Esq.
          SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, 7th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Phone: (410) 653-9060
          Fax: (410) 653-9061
          Email: jstatman@sniderlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Suit v. DETR Still Moving, But Judge Gives Warning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
news3lv.com reports that the Reno attorney heading-up a class
action lawsuit against Department of Employment, Training and
Rehabilitation (DETR), on behalf of Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance(PUA) claimants, says his case is moving forward in the
Second Judicial District as well as at the Nevada State Supreme
Court.

"I know it doesn't look like it, but we actually gained some
ground," said Mark Thierman about the hearing before Judge Barry
Breslow. "The contempt is going forward, which is probably the best
vehicle to get from the District Court's position to get things
shaped up."

The contempt issue arose over the plaintiff's claim that DETR
hasn't obeyed Judge Breslow's previous mandates to begin paying PUA
claimants.

"It's not lost on the court that the plaintiff has filed a renewed
motion, or a second motion, seeking an order of this Court holding
the state in contempt for not fully following the writ of mandate,"
said Judge Breslow at the hearing. "This hearing, in part, was to
inform each side about what the efforts were of the state to
comply, and what efforts were made on the issues that had not yet
been ordered as part of the court's writ."

At times, the hearing became contentious. "DETR's not a person.
Okay? It doesn't bleed like a person. It doesn't have children it
has to feed like the plaintiffs. It doesn't have to make a car
payment," Thierman said.

Attorneys for DETR countered, saying DETR may not be a person, but
it is staffed with many people dedicated to doing everything
possible to get payments to claimants as quickly and efficiently as
possible.

Judge Breslow ultimately gave DETR a few more weeks to show
progress but gave them a warning.

"At some point in time, if this Court is concerned that those
payments have not resumed in full for those groups of people, then
there's going to be a reckoning," Breslow said. "That reckoning
will be after a hearing where the state will be able to come in and
convince the court that it has complied with the court's order."

Thierman says relief could come from the Nevada Supreme Court,
where he has filed an appeal. When asked how the state's high court
might respond, Thierman said he hopes it will rule in two ways.

"Anyone who got a letter that says you're approved, they [DETR]
have to start paying. They have about 20,000 of those," said
Thierman. "Anyone who got a letter saying you're not approved
because you're approved in this other program, start paying on the
other program, and that's 50,000. So, that's 70,000 people who
would get benefits immediately."

It is not known when the Nevada Supreme Court might rule on the
appeal, but Judge Breslow has set a September 10 date to continue
hearing the case in 2nd District Court.[GN]

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Andrade Labor Suit Seeks to Recoup Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON ANDRADE, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. URBAN
OUTFITTERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; URBAN OUTFITTERS;
ANTHROPOLOGIE; FREE PEOPLE; BHLDN, AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Case
No. 20STCV33377 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2020),
seeks to recover penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code, arising from the Defendants' unlawful
employment practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated various
provisions of the Labor Code by implementing policies and
practices, which led to unpaid wages resulting from their: (a)
failure to accurately pay overtime wages, (b) failure to pay
minimum wages (c) failure to provide meal periods and failure to
pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period;
(d) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four
hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an
additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (e)
failing to pay all wages earned; (f) failing to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation from the Defendants' employ; (g)
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (h)
knowingly and intentionally failing to maintain accurate and
complete records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for approximately
eight months as a non-exempt employee working as a back house
specialist/receiver specialist earning $14.50 per hour until her
separation from the Defendants' employ in May 2020.
Urban Outfitters, Inc., is a multinational lifestyle retail
corporation. The Company operates retail outlets, such as Urban
Outfitters, Anthropologie, Free People, and BHLDN, throughout
California and Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Cameron A. Stewart, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
                  Stewart@law-rm.com


US BANK: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in Thole
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., Stephen L. Saxl, Esq,. John K. Crisham,
Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq., and
David G. Thomas, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, report that in the case styled Thole et
al. v. U.S. Bank N.A. et al., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020), the Supreme
Court affirms Eight Circuit decision on Article III standing,
highlighting how a plaintiff must establish a concrete injury to
file suit and that an "equitable or property interest" is
insufficient.

This putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was pursued by plaintiffs James Thole
and Sherry Smith, retired participants in U.S. Bank's
defined-benefit retirement plan (the Plan). The Plan guaranteed
plaintiffs a fixed payment each month regardless of (1) the Plan's
value at any one moment and (2) the investment decisions that had
been undertaken by the Plan's fiduciaries. Nevertheless, plaintiffs
alleged that defendants, including U.S. Bank, "violated ERISA's
duties of loyalty and prudence by poorly investing the [P]lan's
assets," and requested repayment of $750 million to the Plan. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the
case and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiffs
lacked standing.

In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit's
decision on the ground that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing.
At the heart of this decision was the fact that the Plan was a
defined-benefit, and not a defined-contribution, plan; the latter
is typically tied to the value of an account and benefits can turn
on the plan fiduciaries' investment decisions, whereas the former
is not. As such, plaintiffs were not missing any vested pension
benefits.

The Court explained, "Thole and Smith have received all of their
monthly benefit payments so far, and the outcome of this suit would
not affect their future benefit payments. If Thole and Smith were
to lose this lawsuit, they would still receive the exact same
monthly benefits that they are already entitled to receive, not a
penny less. If Thole and Smith were to win this lawsuit, they would
still receive the exact same monthly benefits that they are already
slated to receive, not a penny more. The plaintiffs therefore have
no concrete stake in this lawsuit." The absence of a "concrete
stake in the lawsuit" means that plaintiffs could not satisfy the
first element of Article III standing, that is, a concrete,
particularized, and actual or imminent injury.

In so holding, the Court rejected plaintiffs' various attempts to
establish standing, including their analogies to trust law and a
contention that they had "an equitable or property interest in" the
Plan (and thus necessarily any injury to the Plan is an injury to
them as Plan participants). The Court highlighted that plaintiffs
could have established standing by sufficiently alleging that the
mismanagement of the Plan was "so egregious that it substantially
increased the risk that the [P]lan and the employer would fail and
be unable to pay the participants' future pension benefits." But
plaintiffs had not done so, providing only a "bare allegation of
plan underfunding."

Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. et al., — S. Ct.
—, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3544, 2020 WL 3633780 (2020)
Supreme Court finds 2015 government-debt exception to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA) unconstitutional, but
preserves general robocall restriction.

This decision involved the scope of the TCPA, often the focus of
class action lawsuits. In this case, plaintiffs (the American
Association of Political Consultants and three other political
system organizations) filed a declaratory judgment action asserting
that their First Amendment rights were violated by the TCPA's
prohibition on making robocalls to cell phones, which they believed
would bolster their political outreach efforts. The District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina determined that the
robocall restriction with the government-debt exception implemented
in 2015 required strict scrutiny, but that the law survived strict
scrutiny because of the government's compelling interest in
collecting debt. The Fourth Circuit vacated that judgment, agreeing
that the robocall restriction, with its 2015 amendment, required
strict scrutiny but disagreeing that the law survived such
scrutiny.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit that (1) the
robocall restriction was a content-based restriction, which
required strict scrutiny, and (2) that the 2015 exception for debt
collection could not satisfy such scrutiny, making it
unconstitutional. But the Court found that the government-debt
exception could be severed, leaving the general robocall
restrictions in the TCPA. [GN]


VICTORIA: Anti-mask Lawyers Seeking $200,000 for Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
news.com.au reports that lawyers who urged Melburnians to reject
the chief health officer's mandatory mask directive are asking for
$200,000 worth of donations to take Daniel Andrews, Brett Sutton
and Jenny Mikakos to court.

G&B lawyers, based in Sydney, created a crowd-funding page to raise
money for a class action against the Victorian Government on which
has so far received almost $10,000.

They claim they are under "instructions" to file the action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf of Victorians who have suffered
directly because of "actions going well and truly beyond their
powers".

The fundraising page names ex-UFC fighter Viktor Grujic - who
claimed he would "never bow to a dictatorship" and never wear a
mask - and fishing and tackle shop owner Paul Lay as lead
plaintiffs. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Settles Lawsuit Over Lending Policies for Immigrants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that under a class action settlement
approved by a federal judge, Wells Fargo will change its lending
policies to extend student loans and other lines of credit to DACA
recipients on the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens.

It will also pay $18.7 million to compensate DACA recipients who
were turned down for student loans, credit cards, mortgages and
other loans because they did not meet Wells Fargo's citizen or
immigration status requirements.

The award will be divided into payments of $4,750,000 to
$13,100,000, depending on the number of people who file claims, and
the settlement says at least 50,000 DACA recipients are eligible
for payments.

Lead plaintiff Mitzie Perez is one of some 800,000 young people who
was granted protection from deportation through Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals.

The program created through executive order by President Barack
Obama in 2012 protects qualified applicants from deportation if
they were brought here as children and have clean records. They may
apply for and be granted work permits good for two years, which can
be renewed.

Perez sued Wells Fargo in 2017 while she was a junior at the
University of California, Riverside, after she was denied a student
loan through its website. Perez says the denial happened after she
answered a question about her citizenship status, a violation of
equal rights to enforce contracts under 42 U.S. Code § 1981.

Wells Fargo said through a spokesman that it was pleased that U.S.
District Judge Maxine Chesney approved the agreement, pointing to
its announcement in March about plans to expand DACA recipients'
access to credit.

Chesney also approved on a $1.185 million settlement between Wells
Fargo and a class of DACA recipients excluded from receiving auto
loans. The agreement estimates that roughly 400 people could
receive payments between $280,000 and $630,000, depending on the
number who file. [GN]

YAYYO INC: Rung Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IVAN RUNG, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YAYYO, INC, RAMY EL-BATRAWI, JONATHAN ROSEN, KEVIN F.
PICKARD, HARBANT S. SIDHU, JEFFREY J. GUZY, CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO,
PAUL RICHTER, AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC. and DOES
1-25 inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27876, 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
2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08017-PA-AGR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

YayYo, Inc., develops and delivers a rideshare booking and cost
comparison application. The Company offers a metasearch application
for smartphones that provides price comparison and booking of
available ride sharing, as well as taxi and public transportation
services.

Aegis Capital Corp. provides a variety of investment banking
services including equity financing, debt financing and private
equity banking. WestPark Capital, Inc. is a full service investment
banking and securities brokerage firm, which serves the needs of
both private and public companies worldwide, as well as individual
and institutional investors.[BN]

The Defendants are 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


[*] Greenberg Traurig Discusses Class Action Updates
----------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq. -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Stephen L.
Saxl, Esq. -- saxls@gtlaw.com -- John K. Crisham, Esq., Phillip H.
Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq.,
of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, report that in the case styled Johnson v. Enhanced Recovery
Co., 961 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit reiterates
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "unsophisticated consumer"
standard.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendant
debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) by sending misleading letters to consumers. On appeal,
plaintiff argued that, by including the date of May 26, 2016 with
the first listed settlement offer, and stating that the delinquent
account "may be reported" to credit bureaus, followed by the
assurance that "[p]ayment of the offered settlement amount will
stop collection activity on this matter," the letter gave the
impression that credit reporting could be avoided by accepting the
first listed settlement offer and paying by May 26, 2016. The
Seventh Circuit first ruled that the district court had properly
denied defendant's motion to dismiss because it was plausible that
a debtor would be misled by such language.

The panel then addressed the district court's decision to grant
defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to
present any evidence beyond her own opinion that the letter was
misleading. Plaintiff argued that no further extrinsic evidence was
necessary upon a showing of ambiguity in the language of the
letter, as the ambiguity itself should be enough to show confusion.
The Seventh Circuit noted that it had rejected the "least
sophisticated consumer" standard used by other circuits in favor of
its own "unsophisticated consumer" standard, under which a letter
must be confusing to "a significant fraction of the population."
The panel further explained that, when the debt collection language
is not deceptive or misleading on its face but could be construed
so by the unsophisticated consumer, plaintiff cannot prevail
without producing evidence showing that unsophisticated consumers
are in fact confused or misled. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that,
although plaintiff explained how the letter could be read,
plaintiff failed to present evidence on how the letter is actually
read by consumers and thus failed to meet her burden.  

Rios v. Bayer Corp., 2020 IL 125020 (Ill. 2020)
Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Illinois courts lack personal
jurisdiction over nonresident defendants when there is no
meaningful link between defendants' conduct in Illinois and the
nonresident plaintiff's claims.

This appeal addressed a jurisdictional dispute between a nationwide
group of 95 plaintiffs and defendant manufacturers of a
contraceptive device. Plaintiffs argued that "Illinois courts had
specific personal jurisdiction over" defendants because defendants
marketed the product in Illinois while also "us[ing] Illinois to
develop, label, or work on the regulatory approval for" the
product. The Court disagreed, highlighting the need to "assess
whether the nonresident defendants' contacts with Illinois suffice
to satisfy both federal and Illinois due process." Relying on
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.
Ct. 1773 (2017), the Illinois Supreme Court found that plaintiffs'
theory of specific personal jurisdiction failed. The Court held
that, despite defendants' activity in Illinois, where they
conducted clinical trials and developed marketing strategies, these
activities did not have any meaningful relation to plaintiffs'
claims and thus failed to provide a basis for specific personal
jurisdiction.

Lewis v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, 2020 IL 124107 (Ill. 2020)
Illinois Supreme Court rules that plaintiffs cannot maintain a
claim that rests solely upon economic injury without having
suffered an economic loss.

This case involved a class action under Illinois' Family Expense
Act and Public Aid Code. After having their children undergo blood
lead screening in accordance with the Illinois Lead Poisoning
Prevention Act, plaintiff parents asserted a variety of allegations
against defendants to recover costs for the blood tests. While
plaintiffs conceded that the testing had been paid for by Medicaid
and third-party insurers, they argued that, under the
collateral-source rule that these payments did not negate their
economic injury. The circuit court disagreed and granted
defendants' motion for summary judgement, dismissing all claims.
The court determined that plaintiffs had no liability nor
obligation to pay for the blood testing under state or federal law
and held that plaintiffs had suffered no injury.

The Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs' claim was invalid
due to the absence of an economic injury. The Court determined that
arguments based on the collateral source rule "put the cart before
the horse, as the relevant threshold question was whether
plaintiffs could establish an injury at all." In assessing both the
Family Expense Act and Public Aid Code, the Court determined that
neither act created any obligation or liability for plaintiffs.
Based upon this finding, the Court determined that plaintiffs had
failed to establish an economic injury, a required element of their
intentional misrepresentation claim.

Eighth Circuit Class Action Update Summer 2020
Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 3477011 (8th
Cir. June 26, 2020)

Eighth Circuit affirms $34 million jury verdict in favor of a
class.
This case involved allegations that the defendant life insurer had
impermissibly included non-enumerated factors when it calculated
the Cost of Insurance (COI) fees assessed on plaintiffs' life
insurance policies. Defendant allegedly had "deducted from the
monthly premium payments more than what [their policies] stated
would be included in the COI fees" thus violating the terms of the
policies. The district court certified the class and eventually a
jury returned a $34 million verdict in the class's favor.

On appeal, defendant argued that some class members received a
credit during the period in which the alleged overcharges occurred
and that the credit "created a set-off that left the class members
without any damages." Because of this, defendant argued that the
class members did not suffer an injury, did not have standing, and
their inclusion in the class caused class certification to be
inappropriate.  The panel rejected this argument, reiterating the
holding in Stuart v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 910 F.3d
371 (8th Cir. 2018). Specifically, the Vogt panel concluded that
this argument went to the merits of the plaintiff's claims – not
standing – because "a party to a breached contract has a
judicially cognizable interest for standing purposes." Because of
this, and because the district court amended "the class definition
following the jury trial to exclude those class members who
suffered no damages," the panel affirmed the district court's grant
of class certification.

Tenth Circuit Class Action Update Summer 2020
Amy G. v. United Healthcare, No. 17-cv-413, 2020 WL 3065414 (D.
Utah June 9, 2020)
District of Utah denies motion for class certification because
proposed class lacked commonality.
In a case involving health insurers' denial of insurance coverage
for wilderness therapy programs, plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of "any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA in
the time frame from May 17, 2013, to the present whose health
benefit plan was administered by Defendants, who paid for a
wilderness therapy program, and for whom Defendants refused to
authorize or pay the wilderness therapy program claim based on an
exclusion that the wilderness therapy was experimental,
investigational, or unproven." Their efforts failed, though,
because the District of Utah held, among other things, that the
proposed class lacked commonality.

Before plaintiffs' class certification motion, the parties had
engaged in discovery showing that some individual's claims for
wilderness therapy had been paid in full or in part by defendants.
According to the court, the existence of those individuals
"undercut[] the premise that defendants [had] a uniform policy of
exclusion based on wilderness therapy being experimental,
investigational, or unproven." The court also explained that there
were "[d]ifferences in the proposed class members' medical
conditions, the type of wilderness therapy and programs for which
coverage was sought, and the terms of the proposed class members'
benefits plans." As such, the court held that there were no "common
question of law or fact . . . capable of classwide resolution" and
denied the motion for certification. [GN]


[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Litigation Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq., David R. Golder, Esq., and Eric
R. Magnus, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, report that employers continue to grapple with
an ongoing, unprecedented public health crisis caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic and its after-effects, which have profoundly
disrupted the nation's economy and U.S. workplaces. With little
advance warning, employers were forced to close worksites,
transition employees to home offices, furlough or lay off large
segments of the workforce, and protect "essential workers" from the
hazards of a global pandemic. U.S. businesses also had to quickly
interpret and comply with official directives from state, local,
and federal governments, an especially challenging endeavor for
multistate employers navigating varying and complex mandates at
several locations. With the U.S. economy ramping up again and
businesses cautiously reopening, employers must determine who, and
how many, to recall; return homebound staff to the office; and
implement new safety practices and protocols, often in the face of
employee resistance.

Employers must reimagine the workplace in order to manage
litigation risk in this post-COVID-19 "new normal." They must
revisit and update existing employment policies and practices as
the evolving nature of the global pandemic unfolds. As employers
strive to operate a business and manage a workforce amid a volatile
economic climate and evolving pandemic, they simultaneously must
consider what is sure to be a surge in
COVID-19 related class litigation in the coming months.

In this issue of the Class Action Trends Report, attorneys in the
Jackson Lewis Class Actions and Complex Litigation Practice Group
discuss the most pressing workplace class action litigation risks
arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, and how best to minimize them.

Disability and leave-related challenges
As employers turn their attention to reopening, they must contend
with new laws and rules at the federal, state, and local levels. As
a result, novel disability accommodation and employee leave issues
are arising that, if not handled properly, could open the door to
class litigation. Disability accommodation and employee leave cases
typically arise as individual employee actions. However, with the
pandemic comes a heightened risk of multi-plaintiff cases,
threatening potential classwide liability if employment policies
and practices are not up to par.

The nature of COVID-19 means there is a real possibility that
groups of workers may fall ill, or take (and return from) leave to
care for themselves or others. Legislation has been rushed through
Congress with little time for employers to prepare. Indeed,
employers already are defending claims alleging they failed to
provide required leave under newly enacted federal law.

Is COVID-19 a disability? The law is unclear whether COVID-19 is
itself a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). However, employers must avoid regarding employees who are
diagnosed with COVID-19, or have recovered from the virus, as being
disabled or having a record of a disability, and taking adverse
actions against them based on those perceptions.

In fact, officials in the New York district office of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted that the agency had
received an increasing number of charges relating to the COVID-19
pandemic, all of which alleged violations of the reasonable
accommodation mandate of the ADA. The New York State Division of
Human Rights, and its New York City counterpart, also indicated a
growing number of such complaints, many of which were brought by
workers with disabilities who contend their employer refused to
recall them due to health and exposure concerns.

"Regarded as" disabled. Because there is no clear guidance on
whether COVID-19 is a disability under the ADA, it's also unclear
whether regarding someone as having COVID-19 would be a violation
of the law. Employers can expect litigation surrounding these
issues. We expect to see regarded-as-disabled claims by employees
who are perceived to have pre-existing conditions, are
immunocompromised, or have COVID-19.

To avoid the potential for classwide "regarded as" or "record of"
claims, managers should be trained not to automatically assume that
employees who return after recovering from COVID-19 are unable to
perform their duties fully. Handle each employee's situation
individually. Allow vulnerable employees to self-identify if they
fall within a "high-risk" category.

Requests not to return to work. As states and municipalities loosen
their stay-at-home rules and employers begin to reopen, employers
are fielding employee requests not to return to the workplace, for
reasons varying from a disabling medical condition to generalized
fear. While these requests may be unique to the COVID-19 crisis,
the rules around reasonable accommodation have not changed, and
they apply in this setting. Employers may request that the employee
provide a reason(s) for the request not to return to the workplace
so that it can determine if the apprehension is due to a valid
physical or mental medical condition.

Begin the interactive process if the employee's stated reason for
refusing to return to work is due to: (1) the individual's status
as part of a vulnerable population; (2) being a caretaker or
residing with someone who is part of a vulnerable population; or
(3) having been advised by a medical care provider to isolate due
to a medical condition. Even if there is not a documented medical
reason for an employee's reluctance to return, the employer should
nonetheless treat the matter with sensitivity and consider
temporarily allowing telecommuting or unpaid leave, if feasible.

What if an employee refuses to return?
Request the employee provide reason(s), in writing. Consider the
reason(s).

Determine whether any state/local or federal leave laws would
apply.

If protected leave is not applicable, should you

consider a disability accommodation analysis?

If so, engage in the interactive process.

Consider an unpaid leave of absence or eligibility for benefits.

If the employee has safety concerns, advise the employee of all the
safety protocols and policies the company has put in place.

Requests not to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Can an
employee refuse to wear a mask, or other PPE, if company policy
requires this safety measure? Mask-wearing has become a politically
charged topic, and some individuals are adamant about not wearing
one. An employer need not honor philosophical objections,
particularly given the risk posed to other employees.

Employers already face suits alleging that emergency FMLA or paid
sick leave should have been granted under the new law but they were
denied -- or worse, were discharged in retaliation for seeking
leave.

However, some requests to be excused from a mask requirement may be
based on legitimate medical reasons. An employer should treat such
requests as it would any other accommodation request. Follow the
same steps, including documentation. Even if there is a disability
at issue, allowing the employee to come to work without a mask or
other PPE may pose an undue hardship if it puts other employees at
risk. In this instance, working from home or unpaid leave may be an
option.

Reasonable accommodations. Is telecommuting a reasonable
accommodation for a disability? Has the employer operated
successfully with administrative staff working remotely due to
shelter-in-place orders? If so, the employer may want to reconsider
restrictive blanket policies against telecommuting and be mindful
when relying on the undue burden defense as a reason to deny an
employee's request to continue telecommuting as an accommodation.

Other possible accommodations in addition to telecommuting include
paid or unpaid leave, and implementation of additional safety
precautions at the employee's worksite that will allow the employee
to safely perform the essential job functions. Also, keep in mind
that the duty to accommodate does not cease just because employees
are working from home.

How long must an accommodation be in place? Determining the
duration of an accommodation presents another challenge,
particularly given the unpredictability of COVID-19 itself. Like
all accommodation analyses, the duration of this accommodation must
be evaluated based on the particular workplace and the individual
employee's needs, not a companywide policy.

FFCRA presents novel leave issues. With the swift passage of the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), employees have
expanded rights to seek protected leave or reasonable
accommodations. Employers covered under the FFCRA are required to
make Emergency Family and Medical Leave and Emergency Paid Sick
Leave available to employees. Employers already face suits alleging
that emergency FMLA or paid sick leave should have been granted
under the new law but they were denied -- or worse, were discharged
in retaliation for seeking leave.

There is also litigation addressing the threshold question whether
an employer is covered under the federal statute. Scrutiny of
whether an employer was subject to the requirements of the FFCRA
will be ongoing. The statute's 500-employee rule, which limits
statutory coverage to employers with fewer than 500 employees, has
been applied differently by different companies. Some have grouped
subsidiary or parent companies together to meet the numerical
threshold, for example; this will likely result in a legal
challenge.

An employee may not be entitled to leave under the FFCRA while on
furlough; however, recalling employees can trigger leave
entitlements. An employer cannot simply place a recalled employee
on furlough if the employee indicates they are unable to return due
to an FFCRA-covered reason, such as to take care of a vulnerable
family member or a child who is unable to attend school or daycare
due to the pandemic. In these instances, the employer can request
information from the employee, including the identifying
characteristics of the child and their school, and require the
employee to certify that there is no other suitable person
available to care for child.

Discrimination claims
As employers reorganize their workplace, they are forced to make
difficult decisions, about layoffs, furloughs, and which employees
will be brought back once operations resume. These decisions, which
necessarily treat some employees more favorably than others, are
always subject to legal challenge; the sheer number of furlough and
layoff decisions necessitated by COVID-19 increases the risk of
class actions by magnitudes.

Layoffs and furloughs. Employers may face disparate impact
discrimination claims if layoff and furlough decisions
disproportionately affect certain groups of employees based on a
protected characteristic. Claims arising out of mass layoffs
typically allege discrimination based on age, gender, and
disability. The risk of a claim is greater when employers are
forced to lay off or furlough a small segment of a larger
workforce; the risk tends to drop when such decisions affect whole
departments or the entire company.

Recalling employees. With reopening, employers must consider which
positions must be restored to work, and adopt neutral,
nondiscriminatory selection criteria -- such as seniority,
performance, or job classification -- in deciding which employees
to return to fill those positions. Make sure that return-to-work
policies and selection criteria do not have a disparate impact on a
protected category of individuals. Do not assume that certain
employees cannot or should not return based on childcare needs or
caregiving responsibilities, for example; these assumptions may
lead to discrimination claims.

Employers also may not keep from recalling individuals they
perceive to be at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 or
suffering severe complications from the virus, due to their age,
disability or preexisting health condition, or pregnancy. Those
considered particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 include people over
65 years of age; people who are immunocompromised; and those with a
serious heart condition, severe obesity, diabetes, or liver
disease. An employer may not ask an employee if they have one of
these conditions; however, if the employee requests a
COVID-19-related accommodation, the employer may inquire into
whether the employee has a condition that makes them vulnerable.

This can get tricky, particularly given the unusual amount of
discussion at present about employees' medical conditions and
current symptoms, which provides more opportunity for missteps.
Moreover, it may seem intuitive to want to protect vulnerable
employees. However, the instinct to do so exposes the employer to
disparate impact claims (as well as individual disparate treatment
actions). Consult legal counsel for guidance in addressing safety
concerns about high-risk employees and about the proper handling of
accommodation requests.

Exposed employers
Either due to the types of claims that are amenable to class
treatment or the essential nature of the employer's operations,
certain industries are most acutely affected by the pandemic, and
the litigation surge:

Healthcare

Retail employers

Restaurants and hospitality

Casinos, movie theaters, and entertainment

Airlines, cruise lines, and other travel businesses

Gyms and other membership organizations

Colleges and universities

Wage and hour pitfalls
Without warning, COVID-19 forced employers to quickly cut payroll
costs, leaving them with hard choices. For some, widescale layoffs
were inescapable; others were able to implement full or partial
furloughs, curtail overtime, or cut wages. Employers also were
faced with the equally critical need to ensure that employees who
remained on the payroll were kept safe from the dangerous virus to
the fullest extent possible.

The difficult choices made, both to control costs and protect
employees, bring potential wage and hour liability. Class wage and
hour claims are always fertile ground for plaintiffs' lawyers;
however, employers can anticipate a surge in the number and variety
of wage claims arising from the pandemic and the strategies pursued
by employers in response.

Exempt employee errors. The biggest wage and hour risk with respect
to exempt employees is that a COVID-related change to duties or
salary will result in those employees losing their overtime-exempt
status. Committing these errors in an effort to control payroll
expenses in the short term can wind up costing a significant amount
in the long term if employees are inadvertently converted to
nonexempt (and overtime-eligible) status:

Slashing salary. Employers have cut exempt employees' pay in order
to contain costs in the short-term. But if the reduction drops
their pay below the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) salary
threshold of $35,568, they are no longer exempt.

Botching the salary-basis test. For the FLSA overtime exemption to
apply, an employee must be paid on a "salary basis." Employers that
adopt partial-week furloughs, and link a reduction in pay to a
corresponding reduction in work hours, will fail the salary basis
test. Exempt employees must get paid for the entire week, even if
they are moved to a four-day workweek during the pandemic.

Performing too much nonexempt work. Exempt managers have been
taking on more nonexempt duties to cover staff who were laid off or
had their hours cut, stocking store shelves, performing
administrative tasks, and other functions. When nonmanagerial
activities take up too great a share of an exempt employee's time,
then the manager's primary duty may no longer be management, and
they are no longer exempt. In a July 20 guidance, the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) indicated that "during the period of a
public health emergency declared by a Federal, State, or local
authority with respect to COVID-19, otherwise-exempt employees may
temporarily perform nonexempt duties that are required by the
emergency without losing the exemption." Unclear, however, are
which duties will be deemed "required by the emergency," how long
this temporary reprieve will last, and what criteria will be used
to mark its expiration.

"Outside salespersons" who are not travelling. Due to stay-at-home
orders, other travel restrictions, and closures of customer
facilities, outside salespersons may no longer be spending the
requisite amount of time away from their employer's place of
business engaged in sales activities. Restrictions on travel and on
visiting actual and prospective customers may therefore cause these
salespersons to fall outside of the "outside salesperson"
exemptions available under the FLSA and various state laws.

Off-the-clock concerns. Nonexempt hourly workers are taking on
additional productive work, and preventive work, in light of the
pandemic, for which they may require extra compensation. Consider
these workplace scenarios currently unfolding:

Donning, doffing, temperature checking. Getting ready to work takes
longer due to COVID-19. In one class complaint already filed, for
example, county correctional officers claimed they weren't being
paid for the 20-30 minutes they spent each shift, at the beginning
and end of their shifts, sanitizing themselves, their uniforms, and
their PPE, tasks made essential by the pandemic. Consider the extra
time employees will spend donning masks, gloves, or other
protective gear pre-shift, or sanitizing their workspace
post-shift. Many employers will require employees to undergo
temperature checks before entering the jobsite. Is this time
compensable, or will it be so brief as to be "de minimis"? It will
depend in part on the facts: How quickly can you move employees
through the temperature screening? How long must they wait in line
before getting their foreheads swiped? It will also depend on the
law, including which state's "de minimis" principle applies to
waiting-time claims.

Tracking telework. Administrative employees working from home
maximize their safety and the safety of on-site staff. However,
when nonexempt employees telecommute, productive time may intrude
on off-the-clock time. Are employees answering emails well into the
night? Are they attending Zoom meetings through lunch? Insist that
they carefully document their time, and prohibit them from working
overtime without prior approval. Make it clear that failure to
document work time or working extra hours without supervisor
approval will be grounds for disciplinary action. (If an employer
knows or has reason to know about employees' extra work time, it
likely will be compensable.)

Post-pandemic training. How has the work, and the workplace,
changed because of COVID-19? Will employees require training on new
"contactless payment" devices and procedures, or additional safety
measures now required of them? Employees must be compensated for
the time spent in training.

State-law provisions. Compliance with state-law mandates is a
particular challenge for employers that operate in numerous states,
especially when those states include California, New York, or other
jurisdictions with significantly more employee-protective wage and
hour laws. Here, too, COVID-19 adds to the complexities.

Meal and rest breaks. With social distancing restrictions, lunch
and break time will be markedly different. Break rooms may be
off-limits to deter employees from gathering in close proximity.
Lunch periods may be staggered to eliminate crowded cafeterias.
Some employees will be wary of going out to a restaurant for lunch;
some employers are carefully restricting what comes into the
workplace, including takeout food. And some employees will simply
find it's not worth the bother to don and doff PPE to take their
lunch hour. The end result is many employees will work through
lunch, taking lunch at their desks and being interrupted by
coworkers who don't know they're on their lunch hour. The situation
is ripe for meal and rest-period claims.

Expense reimbursements. Many states have statutes that govern
employer reimbursement for the costs of telecommuting, such as
internet, laptops, and cell phones. Employees working on-site may
have to be reimbursed for mandatory PPE. While employers are
hard-pressed to take on added operational costs right now, the
failure to reimburse these incidental expenses can be even more
costly, particularly when computed on a classwide basis.

Payment upon termination. State laws govern when employees must be
paid, including when they must be given their final wages, and
unused, accrued time off. Such compensation is typically required
within a certain time after termination of employment. But
compliance is not straightforward, particularly when employers are
grappling with whether furloughed employees will be called back or
finally be terminated. When a furlough becomes a layoff, final
payment due (of any accrued vacation pay, and the like) may be
deemed untimely.

Nonpayment of wages. Abrupt business shutdowns caused by COVID-19
have left a historic number of employees without work. Regrettably,
many former employees have been left without paychecks for hours
already worked. (Indeed, the DOL has reported a sharp uptick in
such claims.) Nonpayment of wages is a fairly clear-cut violation
of the law, and can typically be addressed through state and
federal labor agencies. However, some state laws provide a private
right of action for employees who were denied their final
paychecks, allowing additional relief above backpay.

New and novel claims. In one recent minimum wage and overtime
complaint, a class of tipped servers and bartenders sued their
employer, which operates a chain of restaurants in Ohio. The
employees are usually paid at the tip-credit rate (a sharply
reduced minimum-wage rate for employees who earn a portion of their
earnings through customer tips) and retain the tips they receive
from customers. However, they allege that since May, the employer
has been paying them a set weekly rate, rather than the reduced
tip-credit rate, and keeping 100 percent of the tips paid to them
by credit card. In addition, they now must share their cash tips
with nontipped employees (a violation of the FLSA's tip-credit
provisions). The employees claim that the employer altered the
compensation scheme so as to maximize its COVID-19 loan forgiveness
under the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). By
compensating tipped employees in set wages (and cutting the portion
of pay they earn in tips), the employer is looking to compensate
these employees using solely forgivable PPP money -- while shorting
them on pay, they contend.

In addition, the FFCRA contains a wage and hour trap for the
unwary. The statute provides that violations of its paid-sick leave
provisions constitutes a failure to pay minimum wages, creating yet
another potential cause of action for employers to heed. It is
vital that employers stay abreast of these and other unique,
COVID-19-specific potential claims.

Amenable to class treatment? The wage claims that arise in the
context of the COVID-19 shutdown are particularly susceptible to
class and collective actions because they tend to be based on
sweeping, companywide decisions, affecting large numbers of
employees on a common basis. Therefore, for wage and hour
violations, the stakes are quite high. As employers reopen, it is
essential they pay close attention to ensuring their wage and hour
practices are fully compliant.

WARN Act suits
COVID-19 has forced many employers to abruptly shutter their
operations or lay off large numbers of workers, making a steady
rise in Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act
class actions likely. WARN Act claims already have been filed by
workers alleging they were terminated during the pandemic without
receiving advance notice, as required under the WARN Act, and there
will be more coming in the next six-to-12 months. For example,
employees of a restaurant chain sued, on behalf of a putative class
of nearly 700 employees, after restaurant closures prompted their
layoff without notice. A rental car franchise faces a class action
by employees who were initially furloughed, then terminated,
without proper WARN Act notice. Such lawsuits are not surprising in
this sudden, drastic economic downturn.

Even if phase one of the pandemic seemingly arrived out of nowhere,
whether a second wave can be considered "unforeseen" under the WARN
Act at this point will perhaps be a thornier question for employers
to contend with.

As employers continue to adjust the size of their workforce during
this uncertain business climate, understanding the WARN Act's
notice obligations and implementing layoff decisions with an eye to
warding off potential WARN Act liability is critical.

The WARN Act requires employers with at least 100 employees to give
60 days' notice before closing a plant, on a temporary or permanent
basis, or before conducting a mass layoff lasting for more than six
months. There are a multitude of legal issues in dispute in WARN
Act cases, including whether the employer's action was a "plant
closing" or "mass layoff" (i.e., affecting 33% of the workforce or
at least 500 employees, excluding part-time workers) that triggers
the notice requirement, and whether the given actions amounted to
an "employment loss" (under the statute: job loss exceeding six
months, or a reduction in hours of more than 50% in each month).

Unforeseen business circumstances? The question that looms largest
is whether the COVID-19 pandemic is an "unforeseen business
circumstance," to which an exception to the WARN Act notice
requirement applies. Under WARN Act regulations, an "unforeseen
business circumstance" is not reasonably foreseeable; the
"circumstance is caused by some sudden, dramatic, and unexpected
action or condition outside the employer's control."

The WARN Act regulations do not clearly state what does, or does
not, constitute an unforeseen business circumstance. The
regulations provide examples of unforeseeable business
circumstances, however, such as "an unanticipated and dramatic
major economic downturn." At first glance, this example would
suggest the pandemic, stay-at-home orders, and economic downturn
would easily provide an unforeseen business circumstances defense
against a WARN Act claim. While the pandemic arguably would
qualify, the question will be litigated, and employers should not
assume a court will automatically accept this defense. Whether the
exception applies is decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on
an employer's unique business circumstances.

Importantly, the unforeseen business circumstances exemption does
not relieve employers from providing WARN Act notice altogether;
rather, it allows employers to provide less than 60 days' notice.
The employer must give layoff notice as soon as practicable.
Whether timely or "as soon as practicable," employers should
document when they give the requisite notice to employees.

What of the widely anticipated "second wave" of the COVID-19
pandemic? Even if phase one of the pandemic seemingly arrived out
of nowhere, whether a second wave can be considered "unforeseen"
under the WARN Act at this point will perhaps be a thornier
question for employers to contend with.

Telecommuters and multiple worksites. Even before the COVID-19
pandemic, a growing number of employees performed work outside of
their employer's physical location. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, more than 26 million people worked from home, at
least some of the time, in 2018. The COVID-19 pandemic, of course,
has added exponentially to the ranks of telecommuters.

However, for WARN Act notice requirements to apply, a mass layoff
or plant closing must have occurred at a "single site of
employment." This raises the question of where telecommuters fit
into the "single site" analysis. WARN Act regulations state that
for workers who are out-stationed, or whose primary duties involve
work outside any of the employer's regular worksites, the single
site of employment is:

the location to which workers are assigned as their home base;

the location from which workers are assigned duties;

or the location to which they report.

On its face, it may appear that a potential class of telecommuters
could establish a single site of employment. However, federal
courts disagree on whether the WARN Act applies to teleworkers at
all. For example, the Fourth Circuit has held that the single site
of employment regulation only applies to "mobile workers" who lack
a regular, fixed place of work, not a telecommuter who works at
home. The answer thus may vary by jurisdiction. Employers should
confer with counsel to determine whether WARN Act protection
extends to telecommuters in their jurisdiction.

Rolling layoffs. The WARN Act's 90-day aggregation rule requires
employers to prepare for subsequent rounds of layoffs. Under this
"look back" provision, if a subsequent round of layoffs related to
the first round passes the numerical threshold for WARN Act
coverage, an employer may be liable for failure to provide notice
during the first round.

Many employers understandably have chosen to furlough employees
given the uncertainty, but as those furloughs approach six months,
the WARN Act will come into play and likely be the subject of
litigation. When "furloughs" become layoffs, the duty to provide
notice may arise. Given the present economic uncertainty and the
impending second wave, employers should prepare for the possibility
of additional layoffs in the coming months that may implicate the
aggregation rule, and continue to evaluate their potential WARN
obligations in a rolling fashion until the employer's normal
operations are fully restored.

Practice pointers. Consider these measures to protect the
organization from WARN Act liability:

Documentation. Carefully document and maintain all information
relied on in making furlough and layoff decisions, include the
decision-making timeline.

Provide notice as soon as practicable. The WARN Act exemptions and
defenses do not relieve an employer from the law's notice
requirements; they simply allow employers to provide less than 60
days' notice. Even with the unpredictable nature of the COVID-19
pandemic, employers should provide notice of closings or layoffs as
soon as practicable.

Conditional notice. Employers can provide conditional notice when
it is unclear whether layoffs will occur. The notice must specify
the event that would trigger layoffs. Given the uncertainty of the
COVID-19 pandemic, employers, especially those that have remained
open or have recently reopened, should discuss the possibility of
providing conditional notice to employees.

Follow "mini-WARN" laws. Many states have their own WARN statutes
which have unique notice periods for plant closings and mass
layoffs, or a different threshold of employment losses before
notice requirements are triggered. Determine whether your
organization is subject to any "mini-WARN" mandates and ensure
compliance with any state-law requirements that are more stringent
than the federal WARN Act. (Some states have suspended temporarily
their WARN law's notice requirements in light of the public health
crisis.)

A global pandemic of this magnitude is unlike anything in modern
history; consequently, there is little guidance or precedent upon
which employers (or courts) can rely in deciding complex WARN Act
issues. However, one reliable constant is that these cases turn on
factual inquiries. In analyzing COVID-19-related layoffs under the
WARN Act -- and in particular, whether the public health crisis
excused compliance with notice requirements -- courts will consider
the company's own fiscal health, as well as the state of the
economy, directives from local, state, and federal government
officials, and the state of the pandemic itself.

COBRA notice actions
Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers were
contending with an explosion of class litigation under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). COBRA
notice claims have emerged as the latest "gotcha" causes of action
(much like the Fair Crediting Report Act wave that preceded it)
alleging purely technical violations of a complex statute resulting
in little harm to the plaintiffs. In fact, COBRA notice class
actions have been growing more rapidly than almost any other type
of ERISA litigation.

Many employers have responded to the economic turmoil brought on by
COVID-19 by furloughing employees and keeping them on their
company's benefits plan (and paying the premiums). Still, class
actions can be expected over whether notices should have been
provided when employees were furloughed and whether employees are
covered by their employer's insurance policies. Many other
employers have had no choice but to eliminate staff, spurring a
wave of COBRA-qualifying events (including classwide qualifying
events) and, with it, a new wave of claims. At present, new class
action COBRA suits are being filed every week.

Privacy and data security breach litigation also was rising sharply
pre-COVID-19 and, with the current crisis, the upward trajectory
will be steeper.

Employees can lose employer-provided health benefits when they are
laid off or terminated; they also can lose employee benefits when
their work hours are cut from full-to part-time. COBRA entitles
these individuals to continue coverage for a temporary period
(although they must pay the employer's share of premium
contributions toward coverage). Employers must notify covered
employees of that entitlement in timely fashion following the
qualifying event.

COBRA and its implementing regulations require employers to provide
specific forms of notice to covered individuals. The DOL has a
model COBRA notice that employers can use in its entirety and be
confident they have satisfied their statutory notice obligations.
Commonly, though, employers tailor the model notice for clarity, or
to strike provisions that seemingly don't apply. Herein lies the
risk. Although there is no case precedent holding that an
employer's notice must be identical to the model notice in order to
comply with the COBRA regulations, class action suits have charged
that these deviations from the model render the employer's notice
"deficient." According to these complaints, the employer's notice
did not include a termination date, did not clearly identify the
plan administrator, or were otherwise allegedly insufficient.

For plaintiffs' counsel, the appeal in bringing such claims are the
statutory penalties: $110 per day, per person, for violations.
These can rapidly amount to millions of dollars in damages. COBRA
complainants also seek equitable relief and medical expenses
incurred after expiration of their coverage. However, employers
have strong defenses to these claims on the merits, on standing
(particularly, no showing of harm or prejudice to plaintiffs), and
as to the propriety of class certification.

Many COBRA cases have survived motions to dismiss, however, which
means employers must continue to incur the considerable costs of
defending such claims. Consequently, it's essential that employers
take steps to mitigate exposure:

Know what notice is required under COBRA and its regulations, and
stay abreast of regular changes to these requirements.

Look carefully at the DOL's model notice to ensure that any
deviations in form or substance nonetheless conform to the
essential notice requirements reflected therein.

Work closely with your third-party COBRA vendor to ensure
compliance.

Finally, don't lose sight of the employee benefits implications of
the workplace strategies you undertake as you steer the
organization through the current crisis.

Privacy and data security threats
Privacy and data security breach litigation also was rising sharply
pre-COVID-19 and, with the current crisis, the upward trajectory
will be steeper. Pre-COVID-19, there were many factors driving such
claims, including new statutory protections, which have ushered in
new causes of action; expanded uses of technology; and new forms of
cyber-criminal activity, leaving employees' and consumers' private
information more vulnerable to hacking. With COVID-19 and the
economic downturn, several other factors have come into play,
including the sudden, rapid growth in telework; the reliance on
video conferencing for work, church, and social activities; and the
collection and dissemination of protected health information to
control the spread of the virus.

Government stay-at-home orders have forced millions of U.S. workers
to work remotely. However, the emergency transition gave employers
little lead time to institute protection protocols, implement
written data security policies, train employees in remote
cybersecurity best practices, and prepare for the spike in IT
demand. This presents a ripe opportunity for data hackers,
especially given that the typical home office will have far fewer
cybersecurity protections than the on-site work environment.

No organization is immune from cyberattacks. Every employer, large
and small, has sensitive data of interest to hackers: employee
Social Security numbers, direct deposit account information, and
other valuable information. Moreover, every employer is subject to
the double jeopardy of a data breach class action on top of the
cyberattack. More about these risks, and how to avoid them, can be
found in the Summer 2019 issue of the Class Action Trends Report.

Video meetings. Video conferencing has allowed individuals to
conduct work and personal business, to meet virtually with friends,
to attend remote church services and graduation ceremonies. The
technology also has allowed for legal depositions, Congressional
hearings, and nightly cable punditry. However, the security of
videoconferencing has been called into question. Recently, a class
action lawsuit was filed in California under the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) alleging a videoconferencing company
failed to properly safeguard the personal information of its users.
The proposed class included "all persons and businesses in the
U.S." whose personal information was collected or disclosed to a
third party "upon installation or opening" the app. This is just
the beginning of these kinds of claims.

Employers should review their videoconferencing procedures and
platforms and other technologies used to support work-from-home
arrangements. Read the fine print in those vendor agreements.
Employers not only want to avoid class action lawsuits, but also to
protect their company's proprietary information and the personal
identifying information of their employees and customers.

Contact tracing. Contact tracing can play a crucial role in helping
ensure a safe and healthy workplace. The practice entails using
tools and processes to determine who in the workforce has had close
contact with an employee known or suspected to have COVID-19.
However, before implementing such technology, employers must study
the privacy considerations and legal risks. Employee health
information should generally be treated as confidential, attendant
with the requirements of a host of employment laws, such as the ADA
and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), among
others.

Assessing contact tracing devices
Consider the following when evaluating whether to adopt contact
tracing applications or devices:

What information is being collected and is all the information
necessary for this purpose?

If an app is installed on an employee's personal device, will the
app collect information beyond that needed to determine close
COVID-19 contacts, e.g., cookies or other personal information?

If an app or device collects data on an employee's location outside
of work, will it give employers information they do not need or
want?

Where is the data stored, how long is it stored, and can the
collection be limited to the minimum amount of data necessary?

Do current employment policies and procedures address contact
tracing, or affect the implementation of contact tracing?

Will the employer notify affected employees directly, or will
affected employees receive automatic notice through the app?

To guard against employee medical privacy claims, carefully
consider who will be permitted to access and view the personal
health information collected through contact tracing. Organizations
still need to be mindful of the ADA's confidentiality requirements,
potential for discrimination, and state laws that prohibit
employers from making adverse decisions based on employees' lawful
off-duty conduct (which may be exposed during the COVID-19
monitoring process). A confidentiality agreement addressing privacy
and security obligations is one way of alleviating these concerns.

. . . the coronavirus pandemic has spawned novel classwide theories
of liability for alleged safety breaches.

Workplace safety violations
Employee health and safety, of course, has been employers' dominant
concern throughout the pandemic crisis, as evidenced by their
actions to ensure the well-being of their workforce, including
temporarily ceasing operations. Certainly, there will be employees
who fear the employer is not doing enough to protect them; of
course, there will be employees who contract COVID-19 on the job or
elsewhere. Claims arising from workplace safety concerns are
typically not the purview of class action defense counsel; these
matters are routinely addressed through the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) or state-agency equivalents. In
addition, workers who suffer actual on-the-job injuries find
recourse in state workers' compensation systems.

However, the coronavirus pandemic has spawned novel classwide
theories of liability for alleged safety breaches. One recently
filed litigation against a public employer, involving 10,000
corrections officers, asserts a cause of action under the state
constitution. The officers contend that, as a result of COVID-19,
they were forced to work additional overtime with insufficient rest
between shifts. They also claim that their employer failed to
mandate that coworkers who have contracted COVID-19 test negative
for the virus before returning to work. Consequently, they allege,
they suffered a constitutional threat to their bodily integrity.

Numerous class action suits have been filed by fast-food employees
who contend that their franchise employers have not adequately
protected them from COVID-19.

In an effort to evade the preemptive reach of workers' compensation
laws, the employees brought their claims under a "public nuisance"
theory. They hope to force employers to beef up safety precautions
and provide compensatory damages to employees who have fallen ill.
These cases have had some traction: in one case, a judge denied the
employer's motion to dismiss and granted a preliminary injunction
ordering it to enforce mask wearing and social distancing
requirements. The ruling came just days after a California judge
entered a TRO in a public nuisance case alleging the franchise
employees were told to wear coffee filters as masks.

It is the hope that these lawsuits are anomalies, spirited more by
public sentiment over the pandemic than traditional legal
principles; courts generally find that compliance with OSHA
standards and guidance from other enforcement agencies demonstrates
good faith by employers sufficient to defend against liability.

Other COVID-19 claims
Businesses are facing both class and individual litigation over
myriad COVID-19-related issues, including:

Negligence actions by families of deceased employees who allegedly
contracted COVID-19 on the job

Class action suits brought by furloughed and laid-off employees
alleging their employer misused CARES Act funds on expenditures
other than payroll costs

Class reimbursement claims against gyms and other membership-based
businesses whose members are seeking return of fees assessed while
the facilities were shut down Whistleblower and retaliation suits
alleging an employer disciplined or terminated an employee for
raising concerns about an unsafe workplace

Independent contractor "gig" workers seeking "employee" status so
they may be eligible for certain paid leave protections and
reimbursement for masks, hand sanitizers, and other COVID-19
necessities

Suits against assisted living facilities under Title III of the ADA
and its precursor, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
contending a failure to safeguard residents' health and safety

"Price-gouging" class actions against online and brick-and-mortar
retailers that allegedly hiked prices on hand sanitizers,
disinfecting wipes, and other high-demand products

Breach of contract actions against suppliers that, due to
COVID-19-related supply chain difficulties, failed to satisfy
delivery obligations

Commercial and residential landlord-tenant lease disputes over
pleas for rent forgiveness in light of the COVID-19-related
economic downturn

Class actions against universities by students seeking
reimbursement for the costs of room and board for the period after
residence halls were closed down.

In the litigation life cycle, the COVID-19 pandemic is still fairly
young. Expect to see a variety of novel cases, which stand to
impose significant liability, as the pandemic crisis continues to
unfold.

These are the class litigation trends we anticipate as the pandemic
persists and the economy responds in earnest. However, these are
uncharted waters. The current state of affairs is
ever-changing, and many of the legal issues in play are as yet
unsettled. Employers must continue to stay abreast of the state of
the pandemic and of new COVID-19-related laws and litigation.

Best practices are the best defense
"There will likely come a day when every employer will need to
defend one or more decisions made during this pandemic," said
Adler-Paindiris. "In order to do so, employers must ensure they
maintain clear and contemporaneous documentation to support every
decision, provide sound reasons for the decisions made, and are
able to competently back up the reasons why the employer took the
actions it took."

Higher education at risk
More than 200 class actions have been filed thus far by students
against colleges and universities challenging their institutions'
responses to the COVID-19 crisis. The students argue they are
entitled to refunds because the institution failed to provide them
with all the benefits of an on-campus education for which they
paid. They are challenging their institutions' responses to the
COVID-19 crisis in putative class-action lawsuits seeking
reimbursement for tuition, room and board, and more following
campus closures due to COVID-19.

These putative class action lawsuits generally allege: (1) the
students paid for amenities such as room and board, dining plans,
and access to facilities, which they cannot receive because they
are not on campus; (2) the quality of their education has been
lessened by the forced, online curricula because studies show that
students learn better in classrooms than online and because they
are unable to gain the benefit of personal connections with faculty
and classmates; (3) their degree will be less valuable to them in
the marketplace because a degree from an online program is not as
valuable as a degree from an in-person program. [GN]


[*] Parents File Nation-Wide Class Action Due to School Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC, in an article for jdsupra.com, reports
that more than 100 parents of students with disabilities commenced
a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against "every school district in the United
States" and each state's department of education. The lawsuit
essentially alleges school districts improperly denied special
education to students with disabilities when defendants closed
schools, or caused schools to be closed, due to the COVID-19
pandemic. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Equal
Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and state constitutions requiring the education of all students.
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants changed students'
placements and did not comply with individualized education
programs (IEPs) during periods when remote instruction was
provided.

The lawsuit seeks an order requiring all schools to (a) immediately
reopen or issue "pendency vouchers" with which parents can obtain
alternative services; (b) conduct independent evaluations of
students; (c) establish and provide compensatory education plans
based on independent evaluations due to regression resulting from
the closures; (d) pay compensatory damages to parents for
out-of-pocket expenses related to their failure to educate students
per IEPs currently in place; and (e) pay punitive damages.  

The Southern District of New York's clerk of the court has only
issued summonses to the New York City Department of Education, New
York State Education Department, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the
Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and only
those parties have been served. Absent the issuance of summonses
naming each individual school district in the United States, the
plaintiffs cannot serve additional districts with process or
subject them to the court's jurisdiction. Any decisions made by the
court in the absence of the school districts, other than perhaps
dismissal on the merits, will not be binding on districts other
than the New York City Department of Education. Bond will continue
to monitor this lawsuit and advise its school district clients if
the procedural status of this matter changes.

At this time, school districts, other than the New York City
Department of Education, do not need to take any action. While
summonses have not yet been issued naming additional school
districts, that may change, and plaintiffs may eventually be able
to serve every school district in the United States. If and when
you are served, you should contact your insurer and your counsel to
determine your next steps.[GN]

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorneys Discuss PPP MDL Court Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- Donald R.
Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Cameron Goodwin,
Esq., Lucus A. Ritchie, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, report that in four separate decisions
issued on August 5, 2020, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation declined to consolidate for pretrial purposes dozens of
actions against national banks arising from their roles as
participating lenders in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that
provides relief for small businesses affected by the COVID-19
pandemic. For background on this recent category of class action
litigation, please see our earlier alerts Developments in Class
Action Litigation Surrounding the Paycheck Protection Program and
COVID-19 Payment Protection Program: Lender Guidelines Subject to
Litigation Risks.

Certain plaintiffs sought to consolidate two separate categories of
PPP-related class action suits against national banks: first, suits
claiming that lenders allegedly failed to administer PPP loans on a
"first-come, first-served" basis, and second, suits asserting that
lenders allegedly failed to pay fees owed to "agents" of borrowers
under the PPP.

Concerning the first-come, first-served suits, the Panel ruled on
three separate petitions that there would be no benefit to
streamlining any of the cases because the facts of the underlying
lawsuits in each proposed group were distinct.

In one petition, all plaintiffs supported centralization, and the
defendant opposed. In the other two petitions, plaintiffs were
divided on whether the cases should be centralized and the
defendant opposed centralization. As a basis for the denial, the
Panel reasoned: "We conclude that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation." See MDL No. 2954, MDL No.
2952, MDL No. 2944.

The Panel also observed "that individualized factual issues
concerning the circumstances of each loan application will
significantly diminish the potential efficiencies from
centralization," and that the small number of actions involved
created "a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is
appropriate." Having found that the petitioners failed to meet that
bar, the cases will proceed as individual actions in the courts
where they were filed.

As for the agent fee petition, the Panel declined to consolidate
the 12 actions pending in 10 districts identified in the petition,
noting the additional 50 related actions pending in an additional
16 districts. Of the more than 100 lender defendants, all but two
opposed centralization as sought by the moving plaintiff. As a
basis for its denial, the Panel observed: "the actions involve
dozens of different lenders, and there is no common or predominant
defendant across all actions." See MDL No. 2950. Although the
actions "undoubtedly allege similar policies and practices by the
defendant banks, . . . the policies and practices for paying agent
fees are unique to each lender which differ significantly across
the actions."

The Panel was also persuaded by the fact that the vast majority of
defendants were named in only one action. The Panel also refused to
consolidate actions on a lender-by-lender basis, noting that each
lawsuit named multiple lenders as defendants and recognizing the
inefficiencies that would occur from dividing the claims from each
lawsuit into multiple actions. Pointing to alternatives to
centralization that could "minimize duplicative pretrial
proceedings," including intra-district consolidation and
inter-district coordination, the Panel directed the individual
actions to proceed in the districts in which they were filed.

For both categories of PPP class actions, the individual cases will
proceed before the courts in which each of the complaints were
filed. However, even though the Panel denied consolidation on a
nationwide basis, cases may be formally consolidated if they were
filed within the same federal district and they may be informally
coordinated among the parties and the involved judges. There are
many options to increase efficiency available that may minimize the
potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial
rulings. It is likely that, as a next step in many of these cases,
the parties may propose such measures or the assigned judges may
urge the parties to propose efficient procedures.

These class actions are in their early stages, and Pierce Atwood
will continue to provide updates on class actions related to the
PPP and the COVID-19 pandemic. A comprehensive list of these
actions is available on our Filed and Anticipated Cases tracker.
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***