/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200930.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 196

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to Eastern District of Washington
ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit
ACUITY BRANDS: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 11th Circuit
ADESA CALIFORNIA: Chamu Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California
ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Ugale Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lee Files FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Garner Case
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ARIZONA: Shinn Files Cert. Petition in Parsons Prisoner Suit
ARTEX RISK: Dodges Class Action Bullet

BHP GROUP: Appeal in Samarco Bondholders' Suit Still Pending
BHP GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Australia
BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suits in California Ongoing
BMG RIGHTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
BP AMERICA: Zermay Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages

BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
BURGERIM: Sued Over Deceptive Sales Practices
CAMP COLLECTION: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CASABELLA: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Monopolizes Telescope Market, Riley Claims

CHENAULT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Claims
CINTAS CORP: Southwest Uniforms Cause Health Issues, Bearup Says
CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CNA FINANCIAL: Misclassifies Adjusters & Denies OT Pay, Mann Says
COLONY CREDIT: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action

CONTAINER STORE: NFB Appeals Order in ADA Suit to First Circuit
COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit
CREATIVE IMPACT: Faces Chavez Dancers Suit Alleging Tip Skimming
CUSTOMMADE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DIALOGDIRECT INC: Perez Sues in E.D. Michigan Over TCPA Violation

DIAMOND T SERVICES: Youker Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Pay
DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending
DOMO INC: Bid to Nix Volonte Securities Class Action  Pending
ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Putative Class Suit in NJ Remains Stayed
ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action

ENERGY RECOVERY: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
FASTLY INC: Habib Sues Over False Statements & Securities Losses
FIC RESTAURANTS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Bongiorno Sues Over Fraudulent Stock Offerings
GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Grant Files Request for Judicial Intervention

GOL LINHAS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
GOLDBELY INC: Faces Winegard ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Laidlaw Class Suit Pending in New Jersey
GREAT AU PAIR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Besera Suit Alleges
GREEN MESSENGERS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California

GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Seeks to Certify Employees Class
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
HARBORSIDE INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
HDFC BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Recruiters

INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Gender Discrimination
J SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers
JEAN DOUSSET: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over ADA Violation
KIMCO FACILITY: Hays Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Graziano Class Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES: Seckel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LITTLE PASSPORTS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
LLOYD'S LONDON: Gio Pizzeria Suit Moved From N.Y. to S.D. Florida

LPS SERVICES: Underpays Security Officers, Alleman Suit Alleges
M-I LLC: Last Suit Removed to Eastern District of California
MARY JANE'S CBD: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
MCCOY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 9 Deadline

MELT COSMETICS: Zanca Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website
MIDTOWN FOOD: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
NATIONAL GENERAL: Suits Over AllState Corp. Merger Deal Ongoing

NATURAL ESSENTIALS: Underpays Employees, Savanich FLSA Suit Says
NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending
NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
NET 1 UEPS: New York Securities Class Suit Concluded
NEW BROAD STREET: Morocho Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims
OLE HENRIKSEN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Stein Balks at Wrong Stock Split Vote Count
PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gonzales Claims
PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

POSTMATES INC: Faces Randolph Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PRANA TRANSPORT: Zielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & IWPCA
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sacchi HIPAA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
QUTOUTIAO INC: Faces Brown Suit Over 65.43% Drop in IPO ADS Price
R & D DELICATESSEN: Chantes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York

REAL GREEN: Faces Paulus Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Says
REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing
RH: Settlement in Securities Litigation Wins Final Approval
SILVERADO SENIOR: Zamiatowski-Powell Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Pay

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Canas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SOCAL PERMANENTE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Coffey Says
SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
STARWEST BOTANICALS: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
STECKER MACHINE: Faces Smeester Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

STUART WEITZMAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Suit Says
T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
TERMINIX INT'L: Faces Carranza Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
THEMAGIC5 INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TIKTOK INC: M.G. BIPA Suit Alleges Unlawful Use of Biometric Info

TOYBOX LABS: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TRUE NORTH ENERGY: Misclassifies Store Managers, Glazier Claims
TYCHE & ISET: Faces Angeles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
UMPQUA BANK: Camenisch Sues Over Casey Ponzi's Scheme Involvement
UNITED COLLECTION: Ausch Says Debt Collection Letter Is Deceptive

UNITED STATES: Parmeley Prisoner Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Keegan WARN Suit Removed to C.D. California
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
VERTICAL FITNESS: Faces McClain Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
WALGREEN CO: President Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California

WARRIOR CUSTOM GOLF: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. California
WOMEN'S LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages, Ohana Says
YAYYO INC: Faces Koch Suit Over 92.88% Decline in IPO Share Price
YAYYO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Securities Class Action

ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Blackmon Suit Says
ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 2021

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to Eastern District of Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled AARON ABBOTT, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No.
20201365-32, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, County of Spokane, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington on August 26, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00307 to the proceeding.

3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Ray Nelson, Esq.
          FOSTER GARVEY P.C.
          618 W. Riverside, Ste. 300
          Spokane, WA 99201
          E-mail: john.nelson@foster.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2020, that class discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services
filed on April 7, 2006, pending in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges that the company failed to provide legally
required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such
meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse
janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties
under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA).

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which
was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues.
The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision
in the appeal.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate
District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11,
2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying
class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a
meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class.

The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged
previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites.

On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery
related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would
be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in
July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial
court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to
maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest
breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned
to a new judge on January 6, 2020.

The parties are currently engaged in class discovery.

The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 are set
for trial on January 19, 2021, but this date may be delayed as a
result of the Pandemic.

Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity to, among other
things, seek decertification of the classes or engage in further
mediation if the company deems such actions appropriate.

ABM said, "We may engage in one or more such activities in upcoming
quarters."

ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The
Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial,
lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services
to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across
North America. The company is based in New York, New York.


ACUITY BRANDS: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Acuity Brands, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE ACUITY BRANDS,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 15,
2020, Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the Company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity
Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.).

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its stock between June
29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and,
subsequently, were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).

On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the
initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased our common stock between October 7,
2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of
its current officers and one former executive violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products
and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.

The appellate case is captioned as Acuity Brands, Inc., et al. v.
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Case No.
20-90018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
MISSISSIPPI, on its own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          Samuel C. Feldman, Esq.
          Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq.
          Evan R. Hoey, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087-5108
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com
                  sfeldman@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com
                  ehoey@ktmc.com
                  jwhitman@ktmc.com
                  azivitz@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
          Jarred Alexander Klorfein, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB, LLP
          75 14th St. NE, Ste. 2750
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5600
          E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
                  jklorfein@caplancobb.com

               - and -

          John J. Esmay, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Philip J. Leggio, Esq.
          Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
          Margaret Schmidt, Esq.
          Irina Vasilchenko, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
          140 Broadway, Fl. 34
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: jesmay@labaton.com
                  jjohnson@labaton.com
                  pleggio@labaton.com
                  mrogers@labaton.com
                  mschmidt@labaton.com
                  ivasilchenko@labaton.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Kirschberg, Esq.
          GADOW TYLER
          PO Bx 30309
          511 E Pearl St.
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 355-0654
          E-mail: jason@gadowtyler.com

               - and -

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, PA
          919 N Market St., Ste. 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners ACUITY BRANDS, INC., VERNON J. NAGEL,
RICHARD K. REECE, and MARK A. BLACK are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq.
          Joshua N. Mitchell, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 737-0500
          E-mail: jbucholtz@kslaw.com
                  jmitchell@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Cheri A. Grosvenor, Esq.
          Benjamin Lee, Esq.
          Michael R. Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: cgrosvenor@kslaw.com
                  blee@kslaw.com
                  mrsmith@kslaw.com


ADESA CALIFORNIA: Chamu Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JASMINE CHAMU, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ADESA CALIFORNIA, LLC; KAR AUCTION
SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV28957,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08533 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay all wages owed upon
termination of employment, failure to provide accurate wage
statements and unfair competition.

ADESA California, LLC, is a provider of wholesale vehicle auction
solutions with its headquarters located at 12085 Hamilton Crossing
Boulevard, in Carmel, Indiana. KAR Auction Services, Inc., is a
provider of whole car auction services in North America, with its
principal place of business in Carmel, Indiana.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           

         Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
         Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq.
         Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
         Joseph S. Persoff, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                 vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
                 npoper@bakerlaw.com
                 jpersoff@bakerlaw.com


ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Ugale Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JANET UGALE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Eastern District of California on August 26, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00629 to the proceeding.

Allen Distribution provides logistics services. The Company offers
warehousing, distribution, transportation, freight consolidation,
custom packaging, and logistics management services. Allen
Distribution serves customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
          Nolan Mccready, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92612-6507
          Telephone: (949) 271-3324
          Facsimile: (949) 271-3399
          E-mail: mgolper@goldbergsegalla.com
                  nmccready@goldbergsegalla.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lee Files FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP, et al. The case is styled as Kyungnan Lee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-08560 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Alltran Financial, LP, operates as an accounts receivable
management company. The Company offers collection services for
credit card, retail, commercial, and deficiency loan
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Garner Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN GARNER, et al., v. THE
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00900-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom entered an order:

   1. directing the Defendant to show cause why this case should
      not be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction
      by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 23, 2020;

   2. directing the Plaintiffs to file their Response (if any)
      by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7, 2020, after which
      the matter shall stand submitted to the Court;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class without
      prejudice and with leave to re-file, dependent on this
      Court finding it has jurisdiction over this case.

The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the class size is
less than 100 class members. They also assert that the parties'
initial understanding of the class size was about 41 class members,
and the Defendant only reached 97 potential class members by adding
to the class list certain employees from a separate segment in the
company who were never intended to be part of the class. The
Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendant tried to include more
employees who do not meet the class definition to "gerrymander the
scope of the class" a second time.

The Court says a class size of 97 is decidedly a class of "less
than 100," to which Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) explicitly
does not apply. Therefore, the Court questions whether it has
federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Additionally, the
Court questions whether the Defendant's efforts to meet the
jurisdictional threshold by including hypothetical future employees
is a proper basis to satisfy CAFA's requirements.

Anthem, Inc., is a provider of health insurance in the United
States. It is the largest for-profit managed health care company in
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2ZNHcd1 at no extra charge.[CC]

ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARCADIA RECOVERY
BUREAU LLC, et al. The case is styled as Braulio Vasquez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARCADIA RECOVERY
BUREAU LLC, JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-04585-EGS (E.D. Pa.,
Sept. 18, 2020).

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

Arcadia Recovery Bureau is a debt collection law office and is a
partner to clients nationwide, with a presence in Pennsylvania,
Ohio and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 351-0200
          Fax: (215) 922-3874
          Email: rcocco@rcn.com


ARIZONA: Shinn Files Cert. Petition in Parsons Prisoner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants David Shinn, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et
al., Petitioners v. Shawn Jensen, et al., Case No. 20-360.
Mr. Shinn is sued in his official capacity as director of the
Arizona Department of Corrections.

Response is due on October 19, 2020.

Defendants David Shinn, et al., filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to review the opinion of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the consolidated appellate cases,
VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA
RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT
CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH
HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW; CHARLOTTE
WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections; RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division
Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of
Corrections, Defendants-Appellants; VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN
JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE
THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE
CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; CHARLOTTE
WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CHARLES
L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; RICHARD
PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services,
Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants; and
VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA
RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT
CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH
HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and ARIZONA
CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW, Plaintiff v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director,
Arizona Department of Corrections; RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division
Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of
Corrections, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 18-16358, 18-16365,
18-16368, 18-16424.

The opinion addressed four consolidated appeals. First, Defendants
appeal from the Contempt Order (the Contempt Appeal, No. 18-16358).
Second, Defendants and Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the Attorneys'
Fees Order (the Attorneys' Fees Appeals, Nos. 18-16365 & 18-16424).
Finally, Defendants appeal from the following orders related to the
ongoing enforcement of the Stipulation (the Medical Needs Appeal,
No. 18-16368): the Termination Order, the HNR-Box Order, the
Millar-Plan Order, the Millar-Appointment Order, the
Compliance-Expert Order, the Stern-Appointment Order, the
Stern-Terms of Engagement Order, the Stern-Standard of Care Order,
and the Abplanalp-Appointment Order.

The Panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in
part, in consolidated appeals in a comeback case involving eleven
district court orders, arising from a class action by Arizona state
prisoners against Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
senior officials, challenging the ADC's provision of healthcare.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 12,
2019, District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered the parties to
select from the following three options regarding the future course
of case: (i) enforcement of stipulation, (ii) new settlement, and
(iii) trial.

In October 2014, the parties, apparently in good faith, entered
into a stipulation to settle the litigation.  That stipulation
required the Defendants to "comply with the health care performance
measures" the parties agreed upon. The stipulation did not
contemplate perfect compliance with each performance measure but it
did require that, as of two years after the stipulation's effective
date, the Defendants would comply with every performance measure at
least 85% of the time.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners David Shinn, et al., are represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC
          3100 West Ray Road Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          E-mail: nacedo@strucklove.com


ARTEX RISK: Dodges Class Action Bullet
--------------------------------------
Jay Adkisson at Forbes reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit ruled on September 9, 2020, that a group of
plaintiffs who had failed risk-pooled 831(b) captive insurance
companies (a/k/a microcaptives) could not maintain a class action
arbitration against their captive manager, Artex Risk Solutions,
Inc., and associated outside professionals. The upshot is that each
plaintiff must now pursue their own independent and separate
arbitration cases against Artex, et al.

I previously wrote about this class action in my article of
December 10, 2018, and subsequent dismissal by the U.S. District
Court in my article of August 8, 2019, and will not repeat the
substance of those articles here. Suffice it to say that a group of
plaintiffs sued Artex, et al., for negligence and a bunch of other
things in connection with their microcaptives gone bad, and Artex,
et al., was able to get the class action dismissed on the grounds
that the plaintiffs had signed arbitration agreements with Artex
and could not sue in federal court because they had agreed to be
restricted to arbitrating all their disputes.

You can read the Ninth Circuit's opinion for yourself here, and
listen to the oral argument in the case here. The Ninth Circuit
made four major points in its opinion, which I shall elaborate on
below.

First, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the
arbitration agreements were not enforceable against them because
Artex, et al., had allegedly breached its fiduciary duties in not
explaining the arbitration clause to the plaintiffs, and that the
agreements had already terminated. The Court basically held that
the plaintiffs were "big boys", i.e., sophisticated parties who
should have understood the import of the arbitration clauses
themselves, and Arizona law imposed no duty upon Artex, et al., to
explain the clauses to the plaintiffs. This is sort of a different
way of saying caveat emptor, or caveat emptor tectumque tributum
(buyer beware the tax shelter) if you prefer.

Second, the Court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were
encompassed by the arbitration clause under Arizona contract law.
Although a party can only be forced to arbitrate the particular
issues that it had agreed to arbitrate, here the agreement was
pretty clear that it applied to all disputes between the parties.

Third, the Court held that because the arbitration clauses were
silent on the issue of class action arbitration, they did not
permit such an action. There are lots of gnarly issues involved
here, such as who decides the availability of class actions between
the arbitrator and the court. The Ninth Circuit decided in favor of
the court, and further held that where the arbitration agreement
lacks a specific reference to class action arbitration then that is
unavailable to the parties.

Fourth, and finally, the Court held that under the theory of
alternative estoppel under Arizona law, even the defendants who
were not signatories to the agreements containing the arbitration
clauses could compel arbitration under the circumstances. The
reasoning here is that these other defendants (actuaries,
underwriters, tax advisers, financial advisers, etc.) were so
intertwined with Artex that they should also get the benefit of the
arbitration provision.

Analysis

This opinion definitely represents a win for microcaptive managers
and other professionals, insofar as class actions are a nuclear
weapon that threatens to wipe out all defendants entirely, whereas
now those defendants will only have to face independent
arbitrations by each of these plaintiffs individually. It is a win
for the microcaptive industry in the sense that this opinion will
likely apply with equal fervor to other captive managers who had
arbitration clauses in their agreements (and all but the dumbest
did) and their associated professionals.

What this opinion does is allows the managers to escape one deep
cut, but still exposes them to potentially dying from numerous
smaller cuts. Sometimes defendants want class actions and even
force plaintiffs into them occasionally because they are efficient
from a litigation perspective, as opposed to having dozens if not
hundreds of individual cases out there being worked. The downside
to class actions is, of course, the potential for one huge award;
it is much like putting all of one's chips on either red or black
at roulette, instead of spreading the chips (and the risk) around
the table. Those in the industry can think of it as "litigation
risk distribution".

Or, think of it this way: If you were an accountant or actuary for
one of these captive managers under a promoter audit, with a class
action you might have been deposed once for a week but now you
might be deposed 200 times for a day. This probably isn't a big
deal for Artex, which has the deep pocket to afford the legal fees,
but it might be a big deal for the numerous other individual
defendants who might be quickly overcome with their own legal
expenses.

The real losers here are the plaintiffs' lawyers who lost the
chance to use the threat of an enormous award to leverage an early
settlement for relatively little work, but now have to grind it out
client-by-client in individual arbitration proceedings and really
earn their pay. It is entirely possible that at the end of the day
their clients will actually recover more than they would have
through a class action, but on a per-hour basis the plaintiffs'
lawyers aren't going to be nearly as happy. No, you don't get the
80-year long bomb one-play drive, but instead you get the
grind-it-out three yards at a time between the tackles drive.

As far as the individual plaintiffs go, the Ninth Circuit is right:
They were sophisticated parties, or at who least held themselves
out to be big boys looking for a big boy tax shelter deal, and they
should have known what they were signing when it came to the
arbitration agreements. So if they want to know why this isn't
going to be easy, they just need to look in the mirror for their
answer. Arbitration clauses in documents may be boilerplate, and
nobody cares about them when they think that nothing could go
wrong, but things do go wrong and boilerplate exists because the
courts long ago showed that they would enforce those provisions
like any others.

And big boys should know that. [GN]

BHP GROUP: Appeal in Samarco Bondholders' Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
BHP Group Plc  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2020, that plaintiff's appeal on the court's denial of the
motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint, is
still pending

On 30 October 2019, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint.

On 14 November 2016, a putative class action complaint (Bondholder
Complaint) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Samarco Mineracao
S.A's (Samarco's) 10-year bond notes due 2022–2024 between 31
October 2012 and 30 November 2015.

The Bondholder Complaint was initially filed against Samarco and
the former chief executive officer of Samarco. The Complaint
asserted claims under the U.S. federal securities laws and
indicated that the plaintiff will seek certification to proceed as
a class action.

The Bondholder Complaint was subsequently amended to include BHP
Group Limited, BHP Group Plc, BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda, Vale S.A.
and officers of Samarco, including four of Vale S.A. and BHP
Billiton Brasil Ltda’s nominees to the Samarco Board.

On 5 April 2017, the Plaintiff discontinued its claims against the
individual defendants. The amount of damages sought by the putative
class is unspecified.

On 7 March 2018, the District Court granted a joint motion from the
remaining corporate defendants to dismiss the Bondholder Complaint.


A second amended Bondholder Complaint was also dismissed by the
Court on 18 June 2019.

On 9 July 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
that decision or for leave to file a third amended complaint. On 30
October 2019, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint.

The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of both of those orders.
This appeal remains pending before the Court of Appeals.

BHP Group Plc operates as a resource mining company. The Company
focuses on minerals, metals, petroleum products, and oil and gas
extraction and processing activities, as well as provides marketing
services. BHP Group serves customers worldwide.


BHP GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BHP Group Plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2020, that a subsidiary continues to defend a shareholder class
action suit in the Federal Court of Australia

BHP Group Limited is named as a defendant in a shareholder class
action in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of persons who
acquired shares in BHP Group Ltd on the Australian Securities
Exchange or shares in BHP Group Plc on the London Stock Exchange
and Johannesburg Stock Exchange in periods prior to the Samarco dam
failure. The amount of damages sought in the consolidated action is
unspecified.

BHP filed an application for a temporary stay of the class action
pending resolution of certain Brazilian criminal proceedings.

On 17 March 2020, the Court declined to order the temporary stay.
Instead, the Court ordered that interlocutory steps in the class
action be considered on a case by case basis and allowed to proceed
only if any prejudice in connection with the Brazilian criminal
proceedings does not outweigh the other interests of justice.

On 12 May 2020, BHP Group Ltd filed an application seeking
declaratory relief which, if successful, would narrow the group of
claimants in the class action.

This application was scheduled to be heard on 7-8 September 2020.

BHP Group Plc operates as a resource mining company. The Company
focuses on minerals, metals, petroleum products, and oil and gas
extraction and processing activities, as well as provides marketing
services. BHP Group serves customers worldwide.


BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suits in California Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that  the company continues to defend numerous
purported wage and hour class actions in California.

The company is currently defending several purported wage and hour
class actions in California. The cases were brought by various
current and/or former California associates alleging various
violations of California wage and hour laws.

During the first quarter of 2019, upon consideration of these
matters, including outcomes of cases against other retailers, the
company determined a loss from these matters was probable and the
company increased its accrual for litigation by recording a $7.3
million charge as its best estimate for these matters in aggregate.


Big Lots said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against
the allegations levied in the remaining lawsuits."

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

Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community
retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967
and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


BMG RIGHTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BMG Rights Management
(US) LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. BMG Rights Management
(US) LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04384-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18,
2020).

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

BMG's parent enterprise is BMG Rights Management GmbH, a limited
liability company according to German law. The Company's objective
is "the marketing of music, as well as its development and
delivery" for use in media, at concerts and for other
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP AMERICA: Zermay Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY ZERMAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BP AMERICA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08555 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in transmitting
unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other
individuals nationwide, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants intentionally sent or
transmitted, or intentionally caused to be sent or transmitted on
their behalf, the same or substantially the same unsolicited text
messages that the Plaintiff received to thousands of phone numbers,
many of which had a Los Angeles area code. The Defendants' text
messages were unsolicited advertisements for discounts on gasoline
and oil change services, and the Defendants operate numerous gas
stations and convenience stores throughout California.

Neither the Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed class
provided their "prior express written consent" to the Defendant to
permit the transmission of text messages to the Plaintiff's number
or to any of the class' telephone numbers using an "automatic
telephone dialing system," the Plaintiff asserts.

BP America Inc. is a Houston, Texas-headquartered company, which
produces and retails oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Parker, Esq.
          Kevin Cole, Esq.
          PARKER COLE, P.C.
          6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207
          West Hills, CA 91307
          Telephone: (818) 292-8800
          Facsimile: (818) 292-8337
          E-mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com
                  kevin@parkercolelaw.com


BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Perrong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BROADLEAF MARKETING & SEO, LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-81698-DMM (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's campaign to
market its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing
calls, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant also sent multiple calls to residential telephone
numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which
is a separate and additional violation of the TCPA, according to
the complaint. The recipients of the Defendant's illegal calls,
which include the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled
to damages under the TCPA and because the technology used by the
Defendant makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their
recovery is a class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff contends.

Plaintiff Andrew Perrong is an individual citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC is a Florida limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                 rachel@kaufmanpa.com


BURGERIM: Sued Over Deceptive Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------
Jonathan Maze at Restaurant Business Online reports that a would-be
franchisee of Burgerim, who lost nearly $500,000 investing in a
location in Florida that was never allowed to open, has sued the
company in part to stop it from selling any more franchises in the
state.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Florida, names Burgerim,
the company's founder Oren Loni, as well as Mark Bastorous, who was
the area representative in the state. It accuses them of violating
various Florida laws regarding deceptive business practices as well
as the state's franchise regulations. The lawsuit seeks class
action status.

"There are still a lot of folks out there that invested in this
franchise," Adam Wasch, an attorney with the Florida-based law firm
Wasch Raines, said in an interview. "They're hurting. They've been
shut down or they're filing for bankruptcy. No one is taking the
reins and fighting back. My client authorized me to do that."

Burgerim, listed just a year earlier as the fastest-growing
restaurant chain in the U.S., abruptly shut down its headquarters
late last year after Loni left town and fled to Israel. With
communications shut off, a successor company operated by a
different person, Michel Buchbot, told franchisees the company was
considering a bankruptcy filing.

Loni's departure revealed a mess, as detailed in a Restaurant
Business investigation in January. The company sold franchises to
hundreds of people, convincing them to hand over at least $10,000
for the right to operate a franchise, frequently with promises of a
money-back guarantee. Most of those who bought into the franchise
had no experience. Many who ended up opening a restaurant closed
after a few months, unable to make a profit.

Some didn't even make it that far. Alex Damas, the franchisee
filing the Florida lawsuit, invested nearly $500,000 to open a
Florida restaurant. According to the lawsuit, Damas lost the
restaurant when Burgerim failed to pay a substantial amount of
past-due rent, leading the landlord to cancel the lease.

"Burgerim vanished and could not be contacted by the landlord," the
lawsuit said, resulting in Damas's eviction.

In an interview, Wasch said the immediate goal is to keep Burgerim
from selling franchises in Florida. The company has continued to
sell franchises even as numerous stores closed. At least six
states, including Indiana in July, have ordered the company to stop
selling franchises in those states. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.

"This is not the typical franchisee lawsuit that you're looking to
bark up a tree and see what you can get," Wasch said. "We're not
really expecting to get much out of Burgerim. What we are expecting
is to have other Burgerim franchisees know that someone is trying
to fight back."

Burgerim used high-pressure sales tactics to push franchisees to
send in their upfront franchise fees immediately, so sales
representatives can collect their commissions. The company took
anyone, regardless of net worth or financial health or experience.
Many franchisees were given verbal assurances of how much they
would make running a restaurant even though the company does not
provide a detailed accounting of operator finances on its franchise
disclosure documents.

The result led hundreds of people to sign up for a franchise, while
the company did little to support operators in the system. Burgerim
collected $45 million in franchise fees between 2016 and 2018,
according to the company's franchise documents.

The lawsuit says Burgerim violated Florida law in making
"intentional misrepresentations" regarding the chances for one of
the restaurant's success. [GN]

CAMP COLLECTION: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camp Collection Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Camp Collection Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04401 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020).

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

CAMP Collection designs and sells clothing items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASABELLA: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casabella, LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Casabella, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07731
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020).

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

Casabella L.L.C. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells house furnishings
products such as blankets, bedspreads, sheets, table clothes,
towels, and shower curtains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Monopolizes Telescope Market, Riley Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIM RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTO-ELECTRICAL
TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD. OLIVON
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC, SKY-WATCHER CANADA,
SKY-WATCHER USA, SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SW
TECHNOLOGY CORP., SYNTA CANADA INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD., and
SYNTA TECHNOLOGY CORP. OF TAIWAN, Case No. 5:20-cv-06527 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix prices, allocate the
market and customers, and unlawful monopolistic conduct in the
United States for consumer telescopes.

The complaint alleges that the consumers in the U.S., including the
Plaintiff and the class members, have collectively paid hundreds of
millions of dollars in illegal overcharges for telescopes since
2005 as a result of the Defendants' long-running conspiracy to gain
an unlawful monopoly in the country for telescopes, causing the
prices of telescopes to be raised beyond competitive levels.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for
violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff
also seeks compensatory damages to be trebled in accordance with
antitrust laws, injunctive relief, and costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sold telescopes that
were sold and purchased throughout the United States during the
Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          600 B Street, 17th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3299
          E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          David S. Corwin, Esq.
          CORWIN LAW GROUP, LLC
          1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1490
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 685-8849
          Facsimile: (314) 287-4583
          E-mail: dcorwin@corwinlawgroup.com


CHENAULT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chenault Consulting Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-00954-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act to recover unpaid overtime pay.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek or approximately 80 hours of weekly work
for the Defendant. However, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was
paid a day rate or an hourly rate of pay, the Defendant allegedly
fails to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 during each and every workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pipeline inspector
from July 2005 until January 2019.

Chenault Consulting, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation specializing
primarily in oil and gas related project management and
maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


CINTAS CORP: Southwest Uniforms Cause Health Issues, Bearup Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BEARUP Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CINTAS CORP., Case No. 3:20-cv-05844 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class working for
Southwest Airlines and who have been required to wear defective
company-branded uniforms manufactured by Cintas Corporation.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that since the introduction
of the Uniforms in 2017, Southwest employees, including the
Plaintiff, immediately began suffering a myriad of health problems
from the uniforms, including itchiness, rashes, hives, coughing,
trouble breathing, tightness of the chest, hair loss, ear pain,
blurry vision, anxiety, and lethargy.

According to the complaint, the reactions to the Uniforms have
become so severe that many Southwest employees are forced to miss
work and seek medical attention. Other Southwest employees fear
reprimand and are hesitant to complain about their Uniforms,
instead choosing to suffer in silence. It is estimated that over
20,000 flight attendants, customer-service agents, and operations
agents wear pieces from the Uniform collection manufactured by the
Defendant.

Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate
identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats,
restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire
protection, and first aid and safety services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maggie Diefenbach, Esq.
          GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
          520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 676-7539
          Facsimile: (206) 676-7575
          E-mail: mdiefenbach@gth-law.com

               - and -

          Kent T. Brandmeyer, Esq.
          Yuk K. Law, Esq.
          Trevor C. Wong, Esq.
          L&B LAW GROUP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 820
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 304-9500
          Facsimile: (626) 243-4799
          E-mail: kent@pasadenalawfirm.com
                  chuck@pasadenalawfirm.com
                  trevor@pasadenalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Keith Griffin, Esq.
          GIRARDI & KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com


CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RYAN SHINN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CMR CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC,
Case No. CACE-20-012923, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court
for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61891-RAR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class
members using an automatic telephone dialing system.

CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC is a company that provides
roofing, siding, and sheet metal services and installation, with
its principal place of business located in St. Ann, Missouri.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         Alan S. Feldman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FELDMAN, P.A.
         10396 West State Road 84, Suite 106
         Davie, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 465-7655
         E-mail: afeldman@alanfeldmanlaw.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Misclassifies Adjusters & Denies OT Pay, Mann Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI MANN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02839 (D.
Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly
classified by the Defendant as independent contractor, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in September 2017 as an
adjuster.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the class members have
been denied overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek as a result of the Defendant's misclassification of its
employees.

CNA Financial Corporation is a Colorado-based insurance company
that sells various insurance products to companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


COLONY CREDIT: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Colony Credit
Real Estate, Inc. (: CLNC) common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the combination
of Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar") and NorthStar Real
Estate Income Trust, Inc. ("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate
Income II, Inc. ("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the
"Merger"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Company's common stock was registered with the SEC in
connection with the Merger. Following the Merger, Colony Credit's
common stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("") without
an initial public offering: stockholders of NorthStar I received
0.3532 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each share
of NorthStar I common stock they owned; and stockholders of
NorthStar II received 0.3511 shares of the Company's Class A common
stock for each share of NorthStar II common stock they owned.

On August 8, 2019, Colony Credit issued a press release to report
its second quarter 2019 financial results, in which it reported a
$119 million provision for loan losses.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.00 per share, or
more than 12%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at
$14.05 per share on August 12, 2019.

On November 8, 2019, the Company announced a portfolio bifurcation
of certain assets and disclosed a $127 million provision for loan
losses.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50 per share, or
nearly 18%, to close at $11.75 per share on November 8, 2019.

As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Colony Credit's
shares last closed at $5.40 per share, representing a more than 78%
decline from the $25 book value per share valued at the time of the
Merger.

The complaint, filed on September 10, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (i) that the credit quality of certain of the
Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger and were
continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii) that
certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of
approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were
substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure
the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid;
(iii) that, as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the
Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets
contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value
than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the
Registration Statement; (v) that, as a result, the Company's
financial condition, including its book value, was materially
overstated; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
positive statements in the Registration Statement about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

                          About Bragar Eagel

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]

CONTAINER STORE: NFB Appeals Order in ADA Suit to First Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind, et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 18, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND,
on behalf of their members and themselves, MARK CADIGAN, MIKA
PYYHKALA, LISA IRVING, ARTHUR JACOBS, JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, and
HEATHER ALBRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE GROUP, INC., Case No.
15-CV-12984-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 12,
2019, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiffs' motion for entry
of judgment and writ of enforcement.

The dispute arises out of a decision of the First Circuit Court of
Appeals to affirm the Court's denial of the Container Store's
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of its Loyalty
Program. Following that decision in 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for
entry of final judgment and injunctive relief with respect to the
subject arbitration provision.

In 2015, the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB") and Mika
Pyyhkala, Lisa Irving, Jeanine Lineback, Arthur Jacobs, Mark
Cadigan and Heather Albright filed a complaint against the
Container Store, alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and other state discrimination
statutes.

In response, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and
enforce class action waivers, pursuant to the terms of its
Perfectly Organized Perks ("POP!") Loyalty Program against all
individual plaintiffs except Cadigan and Albright.  The Court
denied that motion. The Container Store sought interlocutory
review under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which provides a
statutory exception for interlocutory appeal where final judgment
has not been certified by the district court.

In late 2018, the First Circuit affirmed the Court's order denying
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. It held that for the
plaintiffs who enrolled in the Loyalty Program at the store
(Pyyhkala, Irving and Jacobs), there was no contract formation with
respect to the arbitration clause because those in-store plaintiffs
lacked actual or constructive notice of the arbitration clause at
the time of their acceptance.

Following the First Circuit's decision, the Plaintiffs moved for
entry of final judgment with respect to the arbitration provision
of the Loyalty Program under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and national
injunctive relief under the All Writs Act.  They allege that final
judgment is warranted because both the Court and the First Circuit
have held that the terms of the Loyalty Program are illusory. They
further submit that national injunctive relief is appropriate
because 1) the Defendant continues to use the illusory terms in its
Loyalty Program agreement and 2) it will ensure the protection of
the rights of current customers in the Loyalty Program, including
the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant rejoins that the denial of its motion to compel does
not implicate Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) because 1) the motion to compel
arbitration is an embedded proceeding, not a final decision and 2)
interlocutory review of a denial of a motion to compel under the
FAA does not completely dispose of any claims. It further contends
that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief under the
All Writs Act because 1) no justiciable controversy exists, 2) the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the
unnamed Plaintiffs, 3) the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
requirements for injunctive relief under the All Writs Act and 4)
the issue is moot because the Defendant is in the process of
amending the terms of its Loyalty Program.

Judge Gorton finds that although the First Circuit's decision
resolves the issue of whether the Defendant can compel arbitration,
the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have satisfied the
finality requirement with respect to the additional relief they are
seeking. Nor have the Plaintiffs persuasively demonstrated why
final judgment should be entered. Moreover, there is no evidence
that the Defendant has attempted to enforce arbitration on the
Plaintiffs' claims underlying the lawsuit, thus mitigating any
claim that final judgment must be entered immediately. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b)
will be denied.

With respect to the prospective injunctive relief that the
Plaintiffs seek, the Judge finds that the All Writs Act does not
apply. That Act is used sparingly and only in the most "critical
and exigent circumstances". Only where the legal rights at issue
are "indisputably clear" and relief is necessary or appropriate in
aiding the Court's jurisdiction will courts consider providing
injunctive relief. Because the Defendant is not attempting to
enforce the arbitration provision and is in the process of revising
the contract terms, the Plaintiffs can only suggest the
hypothetical harm of future arbitration.  Such a hypothetical harm
does not rise to the level of "critical" or "exigent circumstances"
and should such harm become likely, the Plaintiffs may then seek
injunctive relief again. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for
writ of enforcement under the All Writs Act will be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Gorton denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
entry of judgment and writ of enforcement.

On September 23, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment based on the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The
Defendant's motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed. The
court recommends that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
be granted.

The appellate case is captioned as NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
BLIND, on behalf of their members and themselves; MARK CADIGAN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; MIKA PYYHKALA,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; LISA
IRVING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
ARTHUR JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; HEATHER ALBRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE
CONTAINER STORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1894, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, on behalf
of their members and themselves; MARK CADIGAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; MIKA PYYHKALA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; LISA IRVING, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated; ARTHUR JACOBS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; HEATHER
ALBRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC
          4610 South Ulster Street, Suite 150
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (303) 209-0266
          Facsimile: (303) 353-0786
          E-mail: jeisinger@eisingerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Y. Weltman, Esq.
          HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C.
          265 Franklin Street, Seventh Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-3113
          Telephone: (617) 728-0050
          Facsimile: (617) 728-0052
          E-mail: jweltman@hermesnetburn.com
               
               - and -

          Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
          LABARRE LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          1660 S. Albion Street, Suite 918
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: (303) 504-5979
          Facsimile: (303) 757-3640
          E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy Elder, Esq.
          TRE LEGAL PRACTICE
          1155 Market Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 873-9199
          Facsimile: (415) 952-9898
          E-mail: telder@trelegal.com

               - and -

          Albert Elia, Esq.
          TRE LEGAL PRACTICE
          4226 Castanos Street
          Fremont, CA 94536
          Telephone: (415) 873-9199
          E-mail: aelia@trelegal.com

               - and -

          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: kgilbride@publicjustice.net

Defendant-Appellee The Container Store, Inc. is represented by:

          Gregory F. Hurley, Esq.
          Michael J. Chilleen, Esq.
          SHEPPHARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, FL 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          E-mail: ghurley@sheppardmullin.com
                  mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Howard E. Stempler, Esq.
          James A. Vevone, Jr., Esq.
          SEDER & CHANDLER
          339 Main Street, Suite 300
          Worcester, MA 01608
          Telephone: (508) 757-7721
          E-mail: hstempler@sederlaw.com
                  jvevone@sederlaw.com


COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Coty Inc.
("Coty" or "the Company") (NYSE: COTY) for violations of Sec10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 3,
2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 3, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Despite being no stranger to beauty brand
acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures
in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty
Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions. As a result, the Company
overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics.
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 Coty, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

CREATIVE IMPACT: Faces Chavez Dancers Suit Alleging Tip Skimming
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIA CHAVEZ; DAPHNE HAWKINS; KINNLYN NOICE; and GRACIELA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CREATIVE IMPACT, INC., dba BANDAIDS SHOW LOUNGE; JAMES ZANZUCCHI;
MARK CUMMING; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01652-CDB (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2020), is brought on behalf
of dancers accusing the Defendants of charging illegal kickbacks
and illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers. They
also accuse the Defendants of evading the mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Creative Impact, Inc., dba Bandaids Show Lounge, is a night club
that provides a range of adult entertainment activities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310-507-7924
          E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com


CUSTOMMADE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Custommade, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Custommade, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-04385-WFK-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020).

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

CustomMade is an online custom jeweler. Until 2015, the business
operated as an online marketplace connecting customers with
independent artisans, who produce custom-designed furniture,
jewelry, home decor, and other personalized items. CustomMade is
the world's first and largest online seller of custom
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIALOGDIRECT INC: Perez Sues in E.D. Michigan Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DialogDirect, Inc.
The case is styled as Manuel Perez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DialogDirect, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-12562-LVP-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 18,
2020).

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

DialogDirect, Inc. provides marketing services. The Company offers
campaign management, customer engagement, data analytics,
e-commerce, and direct marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


DIAMOND T SERVICES: Youker Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Youker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DIAMOND T SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00069 (W.D.
Tex., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
proper overtime compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff
worked.

The Plaintiff regularly worked over forty hours in a one-week
period but the Plaintiff and other Senior Operators were not paid
overtime wages for hours worked over forty per week, according to
the complaint. The Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff and other
Senior Operators of overtime compensation for all of the hours
worked over 40 per week. The Defendant knew or showed reckless
disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant first as an Operations
Manager, and then as a Senior Operator.

The Defendant is a foreign, for-profit corporation and maintains a
website at https://diamondtservices.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the motion to dismiss the securities class action suit
entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No.
2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, is pending.

In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was
filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.

On April 7, 2020, the court granted EXKAE Ltd.'s motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with the Company's June 2018
initial public offering and during a purported class period from
June 28, 2020 through September 5, 2019.

On July 8, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The motion will not be fully briefed until September 18, 2020, and
a hearing has not yet been scheduled.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.


DOMO INC: Bid to Nix Volonte Securities Class Action  Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class
action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No.
19-04-01778, is pending.

In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and seeking unspecified damages.

In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte
action in favor of the Patton action. On July 22, 2020, the court
denied the defendants' motion to stay.

On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint.

The motion will not be fully briefed until September 9, 2020 and a
hearing has not yet been scheduled.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.


ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Putative Class Suit in NJ Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2020, that the purported class action suit initiated
by Richard Raschke is still stayed.

On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr.
Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and
misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public
statements by or on behalf of Company.

The Class Action asserts claims against all defendants for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Act"), violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the
Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b) against Mr.
Giguiere.

The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of
plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3)
an award of reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants have moved to stay this action.

By consent of the parties, the Court has agreed to suspend this
matter pending resolution of the consolidated derivative action in
Hawaii.

Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused
company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and
alternative medicine industry. Its services include business
location, localized communications between consumers and business
operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and
payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii.

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

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

The ERII lawsuit alleges that Energy Recovery, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company had different strategic perspectives regarding
commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ERII:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9220&from=1

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

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

          J. Klein, Esq.
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue
          59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 616-4899
          Fax: (347) 558-9665
          E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

ENERGY RECOVERY: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Energy
Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ERII)
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 August 2,
2017 and June 29, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 21, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Energy Recovery and Schlumberger
Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger") had differing strategies with
regards to the future of the VorTeq technology. This strategic
difference created a considerable risk of early termination of the
Company's licensing agreement with Schlumberger. The disagreement
resulted in the Company's guidance on future license revenues to be
false and lacking a reasonable basis. 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 Energy Recovery, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

FASTLY INC: Habib Sues Over False Statements & Securities Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMI HABIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASTLY, INC., JOSHUA BIXBY, and ADRIEL LARES, Case No.
5:20-cv-06454 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making false and misleading statements to conceal a
material risk that would adversely impact Fastly's business.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have made a false and/or
misleading statements on May 8, 2020, when they filed a Form 10-Q
quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2020, which was
signed by the Individual Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose that Fastly's main customer was ByteDance,
operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks
and was under intense scrutiny by the U.S. officials.

The truth was revealed by Defendant Bixby when Fastly hosted an
earnings call for its Q2 results. As a result of Defendant Bixby's
news, Fastly's share price has declined to $89.64 per share on
August 6, 2020. Additionally, on that same day, when President
Trump issued an executive order that prohibit any U.S. company or
person from transacting with ByteDance, Fastly's shares continued
to drop to close at $79.33 per share on August 7, 2020.

The Plaintiff was one of those who acquired Fastly securities
between May 6, 2020, and August 5, 2020.

Fastly, Inc., provides edge cloud platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Ave., 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Tel: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

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


FIC RESTAURANTS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANI KIRBY, KAREEM
SULLIVAN, AND JENNIFER PARK Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. FIC RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-01306-FJS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order granting final approval of the revised settlement of this
class action, along with an award for professional fees and costs
and service awards, and such other relief the Court sees fit.

The Revised Settlement Agreement creates a fund of $750,000 to
settle this action on behalf of tipped servers and non-server
hourly employees who worked at Friendly's restaurants in New York
at any point from October 18, 2013, through the date of the Court's
Order, and tipped servers and non-server hourly employees who
worked at Friendly's restaurants in Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia, Rhode Island, and
Pennsylvania at any point from October 18, 2016 through the date of
the Court's Order.

                          *     *     *

Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. granted the Motion for final
approval of class action settlement during the fairness hearing
held September 24.  Written order to follow.

The Court on June 29 entered an order granting preliminary approval
of class action settlement.

A fairness was previously scheduled but had to be adjourned. The
Court was present on that date in the event any class members
appeared. No class members appeared.

FIC Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant company that operates under
an iconic brand name (Friendly's).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Bongiorno Sues Over Fraudulent Stock Offerings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. WILLIAM BONGIORNO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WILLIAM BAQUET, FRANK M. DELAPE, CHARLES
GIORDANO, PHYLLIS HENDERSON, BOB SAGARINO, BRUCE INGLIS AND
REMCHAND BEHARRY individually and in their respective corporate
capacities, FORDHAM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INC., FORDHAM HOLDINGS
GROUP INC., SIX DIAMONDS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL INC., SIX DIAMONDS
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL S.A., LANDBRIDGE HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL,
S.A., and THINKEQUITY, a Division of FORDHAM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07288 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' acts in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, the
Investment Company Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970, including the dissemination of
materially false and misleading information for fraudulent
securities offerings.

The lawsuit is a federal class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of persons, who purchased the securities of the Fordham
Holdings Group, Inc., Fordham Financial Management Inc. and Six
Diamonds Resorts International Inc., and who were allegedly scammed
into providing certain bridge loans ostensibly collateralized by
Panamanian land or were otherwise enticed to invest in a Panamanian
version of a Florida swampland speculators scam.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' class period
representations were materially false and misleading because the
Defendants: (a) made a series of fraudulent securities offerings
and/or continuing false representations concerning those offerings
involving a series of cumulative dividend preferred stock; (b)
falsely promised cumulative dividends to be paid yearly which they
misrepresented to investors would pay "cumulative annual interest"
creating the impression that these series of preferred stock were a
dependable species of secured debt; (c) falsely represented that
such loans were collateralized and promised that they would
eventually be paid; (d) sold ostensibly safe securities, such as
serial preferred stock to a myriad of investors.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, as well as common law
fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duties and seeks
disgorgement of ill-gotten plus prejudgment interest and financial
penalties.

Fordham Financial Management, Inc. is a New York City-based
registered broker-dealer and member of the National Association of
Securities Dealers. Fordham is owned by Fordham Holdings Group Inc.
ThinkEquity LLC, a division of Fordham Financial Management, is a
U.S. investment banking firm focusing on performing IPO's,
secondaries, at-the-market (ATM) programs, selected private
placements, PIPEs, Debt Placements and M&A Advisory services.

Six Diamonds Resorts International, S.A., is a Panamanian Society
Company, which attempts to develop world class real estate resorts
and communities in Panama for tourism and retirement destinations.
Six Diamonds is a subsidiary of Six Diamonds Resorts International,
Inc. Landbridge Holdings International, S.A. is a company
incorporated in Panama on July 25, 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Bongiorno, Esq.
          JOSEPH R. BONGIORNO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          250 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-2405


GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Grant Files Request for Judicial Intervention
--------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial interference was filed on September 8, 2020,
in the case styled as BESANTE FITZGERALD GRANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GLOBAL AIRCRAFT DISPATCH
INC., Case No. 720074/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 8,
2020).
   
The case type is stated as E-Filed Contract. The case is assigned
to Judge Donna Golia.

Global Aircraft Dispatch is a full service aviation management
company with a broad based range of service in the United States
and abroad.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Ave.
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Ste. 410
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 247-0404


GOL LINHAS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A.
("GOL" or "the Company") (NYSE: GOL) investors that acquired
securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.

On July 23, 2020, GOL announced it had fired its auditor, KPMG
Auditores Independentes, which had issued an audit dated June 29,
2020 that concluded "the Company has a negative net working capital
and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about
its ability to continue as a going concern." On this news the
Company's shares fell sharply in value.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

GOLDBELY INC: Faces Winegard ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldbely Inc. The
case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Goldbely Inc. doing business as:
www.goldbelly.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04409 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19,
2020).

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

Goldbely, Inc. provides online marketplace services. The Company
lists food items from various restaurants, creating an online
marketplace to connect eaters and regional food
establishments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Laidlaw Class Suit Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing a
purported stockholder class action suit entitled, Laidlaw v.
Ardila, et al., Docket No. EF-169565.

On June 11, 2020, Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("GSBD"), entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan
of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") with Goldman Sachs
Middle Market Lending Corp. ("MMLC"), Evergreen Merger Sub Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of GSBD ("Merger
Sub"), and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership and investment adviser to each of GSBD and MMLC
("GSAM").

The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
MMLC, with MMLC continuing as the surviving company and as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of GSBD, and, immediately thereafter, MMLC
will merge with and into GSBD, with GSBD continuing as the
surviving company (the "Merger").

On August 17, 2020, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Hudson
County, against GSBD, the members of the Board of Directors of GSBD
(the "GSBD Board"), as well as against GSAM, entitled Laidlaw v.
Ardila, et al., Docket No. EF-169565 (the "Merger Litigation").

The complaint alleges that the members of the GSBD Board breached
their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due
care in connection with GSBD's entry into the Merger Agreement. The
complaint further alleges that GSBD and the members of the GSBD
Board breached their fiduciary duties through making materially
inadequate disclosures and material omissions in GSBD's definitive
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") pursuant to Rule 497 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), on August 4, 2020 and mailed to
stockholders of GSBD on or about August 11, 2020 (the "Proxy
Statement").

Finally, the complaint alleges that GSAM aided and abetted GSBD and
the members of the GSBD Board in breaching their fiduciary duties
to plaintiff and GSBD's other shareholders.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the closing of the Merger until trial
or until GSBD makes corrective and complete disclosures as well as
certain other equitable relief, including compensatory and/or
rescissory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants believe that GSBD has previously disclosed all
information required to be disclosed to ensure that its
stockholders can make an informed vote at the Special Meeting and
that the additional disclosures requested by the plaintiff are
immaterial. Accordingly, defendants believe these claims are
without merit.

However, in order to reduce the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, GSBD has determined to voluntarily
supplement the Proxy Statement.  

GSBD and the GSBD Board specifically deny all allegations in the
Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is
required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3iZuwaL.

Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc. operates as a non-diversified, closed-end
management investment company. The Company invests primarily in
middle-market companies in the United States.


GREAT AU PAIR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Besera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIETA BESERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREAT AU PAIR, LLC; MARC HOM; and MARIE LOUISE HOM,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03862 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Besera was employed by the Defendants as caregiver and
housekeeper.

Great Au Pair, LLC, provides job matching service used by families
to find caregivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Felix Q. Vinluan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FELIX VINLUAN
          6910 Roosevelt Ave., 2nd Floor
          Woodside, NY 11377
          Telephone: (718) 478-4488
          Facsimile: (718) 478-4588
          E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Manuel B. Quintal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL QUINTAL, PC
          291 Broadway, Suite 1501
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212)-732-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 587-8933
          E-mail: quintallaw@aol.com


GREEN MESSENGERS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HANS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GREEN MESSENGERS, INC.; AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20CV369262, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-06538 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, failure to indemnify for necessary
business expenses, failure to provide accurate written wage
statements, failure to pay all final wages, and unfair
competition.

Green Messengers, Inc. is a company that provides courier and
delivery services based in Santa Ana, California. Amazon.com
Services, LLC is a company that offers Web service platforms, with
its corporate headquarters and principal place of business located
in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                        
   
         John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
         Max Fischer, Esq.
         Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
         Karen Y. Cho, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
                 max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                 brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                 karen.cho@morganlewis.com


GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Seeks to Certify Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WARD, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a
BARTECH GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing
      notice be sent to:

      "all hourly Bartech employees who were paid straight time
      for overtime at any time during the past 3 years (the
      "Straight Time Employees")";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms;

   3. approving the phone, email, and text message scripts;

   4. directing Bartech to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each Straight Time Employee within 10
      days;

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time
      Employees to join this case;

   6. authorizing an identical reminder notice halfway through
      the notice period; and

   7. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time
      Employees by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
      forms return as undeliverable to obtain updated contact
      information.

The Bartech Group, Inc. provides staffing services. The Company
provides engineering, information technology, and administrative
staffing, as well as offers related outsourcing services and
solutions.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iIONB5 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjoesphson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
          Telephone: 248-542-6300
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

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

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

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in GWRE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9220&from=1

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

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

          J. Klein, Esq.
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue
          59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 616-4899
          Fax: (347) 558-9665
          E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

HARBORSIDE INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Harborside
Inc. ("Harborside" or "the Company") (OTC PINK:HSDEF) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 2,
2019 and August 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 9, 2020. [GN]

HDFC BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB)
between July 31, 2019 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for HDFC Bank investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the HDFC Bank class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1922.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
as a result, HDFC Bank maintained improper lending practices in its
vehicle-financing operations; (3) accordingly, earnings generated
from HDFC Bank's vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable;
(4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to
have a material negative impact on HDFC Bank's financial condition
and reputation; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1922.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

  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
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Recruiters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Rivera, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840 (D.
Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other physician recruiters were paid a salary
with no overtime compensation when working more than 40 hours a
week, according to the complaint. The Defendant's pay practice
violates the FLSA because it paid non-exempt employees a salary
with no overtime.

Ms. Rivera was employed by HealthTrust as a physician recruiter
from September 2017 until October 2018. She brings this lawsuit to
recover the unpaid overtime and other damages the Defendant owes to
her and to the other recruiters like her.

HealthTrust provides nationwide medical staffing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Santiago and Scarlett Osorio, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated female employees v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC.,
and JEFF NEUMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07688 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020),
is brought to redress the alleged unlawful employment practices
committed against the Plaintiffs, including the Defendants'
discriminatory treatment towards them due to their gender and/or
race.

The Plaintiffs also seek redress for unlawful retaliation due to
their complaints of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of
1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

As one of the original innovators in big data, IRI is part of an
elite cadre of professional services firms that influence industry
standards and practices, according to the complaint. But rather
than use its vast resources to stamp out gender discrimination, IRI
actively perpetuates it, the Plaintiffs allege. They note that
women are conspicuously absent from IRI's leadership. Among the 10
members of IRI's executive team, only one, IRI's Chief Legal
Officer, is female. Similarly, of the ten members of the board of
directors, none, or 0% are female.

According to the complaint, IRI's gender hierarchy is all the more
jarring considering women have entered into the consulting industry
in record numbers for decades. As an employee of IRI, women and
other minorities, fare far worse than the industry average. The
above makes it clear that while white male, female, or people of
color ("POC") may begin their careers on roughly equal flooring,
their paths sharply diverge as they ascend up the hierarchy,
particularly at IRI.

At IRI, discrimination is not always so subtle, according to the
complaint. High performing female managers are viewed as
interlopers by their male managers, as threats by their male peers,
and as individuals unworthy of respect by their male subordinates.
As soon as these women come within reach of management, they are
suddenly--without warning or provocation--chastised and removed
from the promotion track before they can infiltrate IRI's "good old
boys" network. By contrast, male employees who "have an issue
working with women" (including the Individual Defendant)
effortlessly ascend through the ranks at IRI.

In the aftermath of the racist murder of George Floyd, the
Defendants began a discussion about initiatives to allow employees
to talk about their feelings concerning IRI and the inherent sexism
and racism of the Company, according to the complaint. It is no
surprise that the Defendants would announce these initiatives
during a moment which has been described as "a turning point in
race relations." These measures would appear, on their face, to be
genuine efforts to talk about diversity and inclusion at IRI but
they fail to put into practice any substantive measures to help
promote women, or POCs.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs contend, time and time again, IRI has
utterly failed when it has had to actually look itself in the
mirror and decide whether it wants to truly address its
deep-seated, racially unjust policies that have resulted in
alarmingly low and disproportionate numbers of female and POCs
amongst its ranks, and in particular, its executive ranks. Rather
than seriously examine its own role in perpetuating inequalities in
hiring, pay and promotion, and in fostering toxic workplace
cultures, IRI has instead repeatedly stopped short of any
meaningful major overhauls during this opportunity for change, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs suffered discrimination in pay, denial of
promotional opportunities, discrimination as a result of
race/gender, and a hostile work environment.

IRI is part of an elite cadre of professional services firms that
influence industry standards and practices.

Information Resources, Inc. provides big data and predictive
analytics solutions. The Company offers market tracking information
and insights, forecasting, and data management software for retail
executives. Information Resources serves manufacturing, retail,
health care, and pharmaceutical companies worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com


J SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARGUETA PALMA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J. SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; and
JOEL SCHENKMAN, Case No. 7:20-cv-06715 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020),
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Palma was employed by the Defendants as landscaper.

J. Schenkman Landscape Contractors, Inc. provides variety of lawn
and garden services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32 nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


JEAN DOUSSET: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jean Dousset Jewelry
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Krishna Jariwala, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jean Dousset
Jewelry LLC, a California limited liability company; DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-01860-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18,
2020).

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

Jean Dousset Jewelry LLC (trade name Jean Dousset Diamonds) is in
the jewelry, precious stones and precious metals business.[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


KIMCO FACILITY: Hays Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISTI HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KIMCO FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05467
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the overtime and anti-retaliation
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt
Cleaner in May 2017 up to the present, alleges that the Defendant
had a practice of altering employees' timesheets to make it appear
as though they worked fewer hours than they had in fact worked and
recorded, thereby, failing to pay them their lawfully earned
overtime for all hours they worked in excess of 40.

Although the Plaintiff tried to complain several times about the
incorrect paycheck that she and other similarly situated employees
received, inaccurate wages, as well as their altered timesheets,
the Defendant consistently failed to take any action, according to
the complaint. Instead, she was being removed from the AT&T site
despite consistently receiving excellent reviews from the store
manager, and his hours and compensation were significantly
reduced.

Kimco Facility Services, LLC offers cleaning and maintenance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Shaun Hanschen, Esq.
          Diedre Peters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BLANTON, NICKELL, COLLINS, DOUGLAS
          & HANSCHEN, LLC
          219 S Kingshighway
          Sikeston, MO 63801
          Tel: 573-471-1000
          E-mail: shanschen@blantonlaw.com
                  dpeters@blantonlaw.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Graziano Class Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JENNA GRAZIANO, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT
STORES, INC.; and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01315-NJ,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on August 26, 2020.

The Eastern District of Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01315 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
Pamela Pepper.

Kohl's Department Stores Inc. retails merchandise. The Company
focuses on apparel, shoes, accessories, decorations, electronic,
pet accessories, and house wares targeting middle income
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  mcassorla@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Lexinfintech Holdings, Ltd. ("Lexinfintech") (NASDAQ:
LX) between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lexinfintech-holdings-ltd-information-request-form?prid=9218&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low
delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make
payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to
enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance
sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the
Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to
Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Lexinfintech you have until November 9,
2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES: Seckel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chanda Seckel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01462
(E.D. Wis., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks to recover, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived Plaintiff
and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages
earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including
at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful
compensation system failed to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates
of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA
and WWPCL.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Direct Service
Professional/Caregiver.

The Defendant is a privately-owned company headquartered in
Appleton, Wisconsin, that provides residential care, supportive
home care, daily living skills training, respite care, and
psychosocial rehabilitation to adults with behavioral healthcare
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lindblad Expeditions,
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lindblad Expeditions,
LLC d/b/a Expeditions.com, Case No. 2:20-cv-04386 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
18, 2020).

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

Lindblad Expeditions is a ecotourism company that offers about 50
small-ship cruises to Antarctica, Alaska, Egypt, Galapagos, and
other remote corners of the Earth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LITTLE PASSPORTS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LITTLE PASSPORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07695-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff recently visited the
Defendant's Web site, http://www.littlepassports.com/,in September
2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. Due to the
inaccessibility of the Defendant's Web site, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination, violating their rights under the ADA.

Little Passports, Inc. is a kids monthly gift subscription company
that owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the
Company ensures the delivery of throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LLOYD'S LONDON: Gio Pizzeria Suit Moved From N.Y. to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GIO PIZZERIA & BAR HOSPITALITY,
LLC; and GIO PIZZERIA BOCA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,
LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBERS ARP-74910-20 and ARP-75209-
20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01315-NJ, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26,
2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-61741-RS to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Rodney Smith.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          10940 West Sam Houston Prkwy. North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                  skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Evan Janush, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          126 East 56th Street, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-2800
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com

              - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2302
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                  jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                  jbair@bbblawllp.com
                  fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Armando Pedro Rubio, Esq.
          Fields Howell, Esq.
          9155 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1012
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (786) 870-5600
          E-mail: arubio@fieldshowell.com

               - and -

          Peter Joseph Fazio, Esq.
          AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 593-5458


LPS SERVICES: Underpays Security Officers, Alleman Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SASHA ALLEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated persons v. LPS SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-04830-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 15, 2020), challenges the
Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Wage Laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate her
and other similarly situated security officers for the 10 minutes
pre-shift work that was required to them by the Defendant prior to
their start time to allow for proper change of shift procedures.
Consequently, the Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully
earned overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt security officer providing oilfield security for
approximately 6 months until August 2020.

LPS Services, LLC provides "full-service private security" in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


M-I LLC: Last Suit Removed to Eastern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled DONOVIN LAST, individually and of all others
similarly situated v. M-I, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
BCV-20-101210, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on August 26, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-JL to the proceeding.

M-I LLC provides services to the oil & gas industry. The Company
services include supplying drilling and completion fluid systems
and services, solids control equipment, and waste management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
         THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
         4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Telephone: (225) 906-4245
         Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
         E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com


MARY JANE'S CBD: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Jane's CBD
Dispensary, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mary Jane's CBD
Dispensary, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07700 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18,
2020).

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

Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary is a retail chain of CBD Dispensaries
across the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCOY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCoy Corporation.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. McCoy Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-07701 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020).

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

McCoy Corporation of United States was founded in 1966. The
Company's line of business includes the selling of lumber and other
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

MELT COSMETICS: Zanca Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA ZANCA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. MELT COSMETICS, Case No. 1:20-cv-07669-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17,
2020), is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind and visually
impaired consumers by denying them full and equal access to its
website, http://www.meltcosmetics.com/.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access
barriers that hinder visually impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, to fully use it like sighted individuals do. These
barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text
or a text equivalent on graphical images which prevents screen
readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
(2) empty links that contain no text which causes the function or
purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; and (3)
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) address which results in additional
navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users.

As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these
access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it.

Melt Cosmetics is a cosmetic products manufacturer and retail
company that owns and operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
            
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


MIDTOWN FOOD: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odilon Hernandez Rojas and Iturbide Policarpio, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. MIDTOWN FOOD CORP. (D/B/A
KOSHER DELUXE), JOSHUA SCHWARTZ, ISIS DOE, NORMAN DOE, and AARON
DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-07737 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the New York Labor
Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the
hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day.

The Plaintiffs were employed as meat cutters, salad preparers, a
busboy, and a counter dispatcher at the restaurant. They also
allege that the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay them wages on a
timely basis. They add that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring them to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a kosher restaurant,
located in the City of New York under the name "Kosher
Deluxe."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Morris, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. MPC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PLATTE RIVER INSPECTION
SERVICES, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840 (D. Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked for the
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week, according to the
complaint. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Platte improperly paid the
Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a horizontal directional
drilling inspector.

Platte provides inspection services to the oil and gas industry.
Platte's services include the inspection of pipeline and facility
construction, maintenance and operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. TREPETA, on behalf
himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. NATIONAL
CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-MSD-LRL (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class
of consumers defined as follows:

   "all natural persons residing in the Fourth Circuit (a) who
   requested their consumer disclosures from Equifax, (b) within
   the two years preceding the filing of this action and during
   its pendency (the "Equifax Class Period"), (c) for whom, at
   the time of the request, NCTUE had credit files, and (d) who
   received consumer disclosures from Equifax that did not
   include any information from the consumers' NCTUE credit file
   or the sources of information in the consumers’ NCTUE credit
   file."

   Excluded from the class definition are any employees,
   officers, or directors of Equifax, any attorney appearing in
   this case, and any judge assigned to hear this action.

NCTUE is a credit reporting agency.  Equifax provides data
solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2E8EG9B at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Amy Austin, Esq.
          Kevin Dillon, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road, Ste. 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
          Kevin Biniazan, Esq.
          BREIT CANTOR GRANA BUCKNER, PLLC
          Towne Pavilion Center II
          600 22nd Street, Suite 402
          Virginia Beach, VA 23451
          Telephone: (757) 622-6000
          Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
          E-mail: jeffrey@breitcantor.com
                  kbiniazan@breitcator.com

NATIONAL GENERAL: Suits Over AllState Corp. Merger Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
National General Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated September 22,
2020, that the company is defending against suits, including a
class action, related to its merger with The Allstate Corporation.

On July 7, 2020, National General Holdings Corp., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), The Allstate Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and Bluebird Acquisition Corp, a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

The transaction is expected to close in early 2021, subject to
regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. On
August 26, 2020, the Company filed and commenced mailing its
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy
Statement").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, a purported class action complaint and two
individual complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of
the Company against the Company and members of the board of
directors of the Company in the United States District Courts for
the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York. The
three complaints are captioned as follows: Post v. National General
Holdings Corp., et al, Case 1:20-cv-01069 (D. Del), Murray v.
National General Holdings Corp., et al., Case 1:20-cv-06549
(S.D.N.Y) and Wang v. National General Holdings Corp., et al.,
Case:120-cv-06867 (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaints are substantially identical and allege violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as
well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control
person provisions of the Exchange Act, because the Proxy Statement
allegedly omitted material information with respect to the Merger,
thus rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

The complaints seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with
the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the
Merger is consummated, a declaration that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and
awards of the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The Company believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the litigations may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the
expense of defending such actions, the Company wishes to
voluntarily make supplemental disclosures related to the Merger.

The Company specifically denies all allegations in the lawsuits
that any additional disclosure was or is required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3mM0OYV.

National General Holdings Corp., a specialty personal lines
insurance holding company, provides various insurance products and
services in the United States, Bermuda, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The
company was formerly known as American Capital Acquisition
Corporation. National General Holdings Corp. was founded in 1939
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


NATURAL ESSENTIALS: Underpays Employees, Savanich FLSA Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSTY SAVANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NATURAL ESSENTIALS, INCORPORATED, Case No.
5:20-cv-02088-SL (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
and non-exempt manufacturing employee between April 2020 and July
2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other
similarly situated manufacturing employee for the time spent
performing work for the Defendants amounted to approximately 15 to
30 minutes per day, including the time spent changing into and out
of personal protective equipment. Additionally, the Defendant
unlawfully docked the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees' daily hours by 15 minutes.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff
says he and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were
not appropriately paid by the Defendant for all the time they
worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked over 40
each workweek.

Natural Essentials, Incorporated, is a cosmetics manufacturer and
supplier of natural ingredients to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the appeal taken by intervening
class members from the court's denial of their request for
exclusion from a class action settlement remans pending.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. (NI) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action").

Subsequently, 17 additional putative class action lawsuits were
filed in various United States district courts, (together with the
Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions").

Some of the U.S. Actions named both International Corporation (NIC)
and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian
Actions. More specifically, one or more of the Canadian Actions and
the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to
certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United
States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar
vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR
engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI
failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class
Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of
warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and
negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action").

On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the MDL Action
filed a consolidated complaint, which was subsequently amended
multiple times.

In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement
agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions.
The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for
preliminary approval on May 28, 2019.

The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural
persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped
with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010
emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction
technology, provided that the vehicle was purchased or leased in
the U.S.

Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the
parties establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash
(the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total
value of $135 million (the "Settlement Fund"); (2) NIC and NI
contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay
all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys" fees
and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class;
(3) NI commit to make available rebates with a face value in the
aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement
class release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and
potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the
U.S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to
third-party property.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value
remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims
are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other
fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the "Waterfall").

The Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in
the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind,
and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way.
On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash
Fund. Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped
at $35 million.

The company is waiting for the final adjudication of the claims by
the administrator. It is possible that a Waterfall from the Rebate
Fund to the Cash Fund could occur, Navistar said.

On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement
Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of
the class who opted out will not receive any benefit from the
Settlement Agreement or be bound by it.

Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement
Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court
entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement
to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the
motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Final Order and Judgment.
In February 2020, three class members intervened in the MDL Action
and filed motions asking the court to exclude them from the
settlement or to permit them to opt out after the opt out deadline.


In April and June 2020, the court denied these motions. In May
2020, two of the intervening class members appealed the court's
April 2020 order. The Company's opposition brief was filed on
August 19, 2020.

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the company, together with
Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour
International Trucks, continues to defend class action suits
related to MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation
(NIC), Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour
International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (the "N&C Action").

Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action
lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including
Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (together with the N&C
Action, the "Canadian Actions").

On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased
heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11,
MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA
regulations.

On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016
decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether
misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials.
The next step will be an attendance before the case management
judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be
given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set.

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

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


NET 1 UEPS: New York Securities Class Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative securities class action
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York has been concluded.

On December 5, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, or the Court, against the company and Herman
G. Kotze, the company's chief executive officer and Alex M.R.
Smith, the company's chief financial officer.

The complaint sought damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning our internal control
over financial reporting, classification of an investment in Cell C
Proprietary Limited, and our consolidated financial statements for
fiscal 2018.

The complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The proposed class period was September 12, 2018, through November
8, 2018, inclusive. On March 25, 2020, the Court appointed the lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of lead counsel. Their motions
had been unopposed.

Thereafter, the company negotiated a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint and its response thereto with the plaintiff.

On June 3, 2020, the company and the lead plaintiff filed a
stipulation and proposed order of dismissal whereby the lawsuit
would be dismissed as against all defendants with prejudice on
behalf of the lead plaintiff, and without prejudice with respect to
any unnamed plaintiffs or other class members.

On June 4, 2020, the Court so ordered the stipulation and proposed
order of dismissal. The action is thus terminated.

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. holds a non-exclusive worldwide
license to the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS). The
Company commercializes the smart card based service through
alliances with banks, card services, and retail organizations. The
company is based in Johannesburg, South Africa.


NEW BROAD STREET: Morocho Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Galo Morocho; Jose Estrada and Luis Zambrano, and other similarly
situated employees v. New Broad Street Automotive, Inc.; and
Michael Masi, Case No. 7:20-cv-07738 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation.

The lawsuit also seeks to recover unpaid "spread of hours: premium
for each day they worked in excess of 10 hours; damages for failure
to give required notices and wage statements; liquidated damages on
those amounts and civil penalties pursuant to the New York Labor
Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment
and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs either the federal or New
York State minimum wage, the FLSA overtime rate (of time and
one-half), and the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law
and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants run a mechanic automobile body shop in the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY
          Phone: (718) 669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Nikola and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
entitled "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership
With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report").
The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had gathered
extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola's founder
Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, inter alia,
the Company's battery, and fuel cell technology and the size of the
Company's order book.  The Hindenburg Report further claimed that
Milton used these misrepresentations to substantially grow the
Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies.

On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.33%,
to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020.

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

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

OLE HENRIKSEN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OLE HENRIKSEN OF DENMARK, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-07722-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act as a result of its failure to maintain and operate its website
in a way to make it fully accessible for the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Upon visiting the Defendant's website,
http://www.olehenriksen.com/,the Plaintiff quickly became aware of
Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to
make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or
visually-impaired people, according to the complaint. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.

The Plaintiff is visually impaired and legally blind, in that he
has visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a skin care production company that owns and
operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Stein Balks at Wrong Stock Split Vote Count
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated stockholders of PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION v.
PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, LISA C. IM, BRADLEY M. FLUEGEL,
WILLIAM D. HANSEN, JAMES LACAMP, and ERIC YANAGI, Case No.
2020-0791- (Del. Ch., Sept. 17, 2020), seeks to remedy the alleged
erroneous tabulation of stockholders' votes with respect to the
reverse split proposal in conformity with the Defendants'
disclosures in the proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

According to the complaint, the members of the board of directors
of Performant had miscounted the stockholder votes on a proposal to
approve an amendment to the Company's certificate of incorporation
to authorize a reverse stock split at a ratio ranging from 1
share-for-5 shares up to a ratio of 1 share-for-20 shares. After
the Director Defendants told stockholders, including the Plaintiff,
that uninstructed shares would have the effect of votes against the
reverse split proposal, it instead counted uninstructed shares as
"For" votes, thereby, swinging the outcome of the vote.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Director Defendants failed to
fulfill their fiduciary duties by allowing uninstructed shares to
be purportedly "cast" as votes "For" the proposal notwithstanding
their unambiguous statement in the proxy that uninstructed shares
would be recorded as broker non-votes, which would have the same
effect as votes against the reverse split proposal. By telling
stockholders that inaction would result the recording of broker
non-votes and allowing broker representatives to purportedly vote
uninstructed shares, the Director Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, the suit says.

Performant Financial Corporation provides technology-enabled audit,
recovery, outsourced services, and related analytic services in the
United States. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sadams@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1370 Broadway, 5th Floor, #5100
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500
          E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com
                  ckupka@fksfirm.com
                  sshukurov@fksfirm.com


PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gonzales Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIO GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY ENERGY, INC. and OMAR
PIMENTAL, Case No. 4:20-cv-03207 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt chemical advisor from June 2019 to July 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not compensated by
the Defendants for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per week at
a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
as required by the FLSA. Despite working more than 40 hours, the
Defendants paid him on a day-rate basis only without overtime.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and
pay records for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees, and post and keep posted the notice required by the
law.

Petroleum & Geology Energy, Inc., is an oilfield services company.
Omar Pimental supervised or controlled P&G Energy employee
schedules or conditions of employment, determined the rate or
method of payment, and maintained employee records.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) between
April 24, 2020 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PGE investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the PGE class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PGE downplayed risks with its trading activity in
wholesale electricity markets; (2) PGE's wholesale energy trading
activity would result in at least $127 million of realized and
unrealized losses; (3) as a result, PGE would need to significantly
cut its per-share guidance; (4) as opposed to defendants'
statements, PGE was not focused on and achieving low operating
expenses; (5) PGE had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; and (6) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200911005512/en/

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

POSTMATES INC: Faces Randolph Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICK RANDOLPH v. POSTMATES, INC., Case No.
37-2020-00032793-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Sept. 17,
2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Private Attorney
General Act of California Labor Code by misclassifying the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated couriers as independent
contractors.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a courier since
March 2020. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to
reimburse them for all reasonably necessary expenditures incurred
in performing couriers' duties, to ensure that they receive the
applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked, impermissibly
counting customers' tips toward their minimum wage obligations, and
to pay the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime hours
worked beyond 40 hours per week.

Postmates, Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery
of restaurant-prepared meals and other goods, headquartered in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
            
         Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
         Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
         651 Arroyo Drive
         San Diego, CA 92103
         Telephone: (619) 696-9006
         Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
         E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com


PRANA TRANSPORT: Zielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & IWPCA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerzy Zielinski and Scott Clark, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prana Transport, LLC; Daniel Katz;
RDX, LLC; Case No. 1:20-cv-05577 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 19, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid wages as a result of the Defendants'
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Despite the Plaintiffs being contractually identified as employees
by the Defendants and despite being controlled by the Defendants,
they were misclassified by the Defendants as independent
contractors for payment purposes, according to the complaint. The
Defendants inform their drivers, upon hire, that, for their wages,
they will be paid 75% of the "load." Furthermore, without informing
the Plaintiffs, the Defendants made unauthorized "below the line"
deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages for various items, including
the following deductions: "Truck Payment," "Maintenance," "2290,"
"IFTA," Insurance," "Plates," "Trailer," "Pre- Pass," "Cash-Adv,"
"fedex charge," "elog," "Tire Fine," and "Chains."

According to the complaint, the deductions are taken by the
Defendants from the Plaintiffs' wages without informing the
Plaintiffs beforehand about the deductions and without providing
any support or explanation. These deductions were made in
contravention of the Defendants' agreement to pay their drivers 75%
of the "freight." These deductions were not agreed to in writing by
the Defendants' drivers as required by the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act. In fact, the Plaintiffs were not informed in
any manner about the deductions until after they were taken from
their pay.

The Plaintiffs were employed as truck drivers for the Defendants.

Prana Transport LLC is a freight shipping and trucking company
located in Lincolnwood, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Phone: 847-986-5889
          Fax: 847-673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sacchi HIPAA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOHN SACCHI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED,
RAMONA WELDON, GITA "DOE" and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. MON-L-1503-20, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of New Jersey, Monmouth County Vicinage to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-12804 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996
and the HIPAA Privacy Rule by refusing to provide the Plaintiff and
Class members with required Protected Health Information within 30
days of request, deliberately refusing to repair Quest's lab test
notification system and refusing to change its company-wide policy
that refuses to provide Protected Heath Information to patients,
and breaching the statutory duty they owe to the Plaintiff and
Class members.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical laboratory
company based in Secaucus, New Jersey.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                        
   
         Michael T. Hensley, Esq.
         BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
         325 Columbia Turnpike
         Florham Park, NJ 07932
         Telephone: (973) 514-1200


QUTOUTIAO INC: Faces Brown Suit Over 65.43% Drop in IPO ADS Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD BROWN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QUTOUTIAO INC., ERIC SILIANG TAN, LEI LI, JINGBO WANG,
XIAOLU ZHU, SHAOQING JIANG, JIANFEI DONG, and OLIVER YUCHENG CHEN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07717 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that: (a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
September 2018 initial public offering; and/or (b) purchased or
otherwise acquired Qutoutiao securities between September 14, 2018,
and July 15, 2020, inclusive.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form
424B4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part
of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 13.8
million ADSs at a price of $7.00 per share. The Company received
proceeds of approximately $85.8 million from the offering, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions.

On December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report,
alleging, among other things, that the Company had overstated its
revenues by recording nonexistent advances from advertising
customers.

On July 15, 2020, hosts of a consumer rights gala stated that
Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or
impossible claims from weight-loss products. A couple of days
after, Chinese media reported that Qutoutiao's app had been removed
from domestic Android app stores. By the commencement of this
action, Qutoutiao's ADSs last closed at $2.42 per share on
September 17, 2020, representing a 65.43% decline from the $7.00
per share IPO price.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to
investors the material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects: (i) that Qutoutiao replaced its
advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing
third-party oversight of the content and quality of the
advertisements; (ii) that the Company placed advertisements on its
mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and
thus were considered false advertisements under applicable
regulations; (iii) that, as a result, the Company would face
increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (iv) that, as
a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely
to decline; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Qutoutiao Inc. offers a mobile application called Qutoutiao that
aggregates articles and short videos from professional media and
freelancers and presents customized feeds to users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


R & D DELICATESSEN: Chantes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & D Delicatessen
Corp. The case is styled as Hugo Mendez Chantes, Silverio Mendez
Chantes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
R & D Delicatessen Corp. doing business as: Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria;
JYCH, Inc. doing business as: Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria; Younsun Yi
doing business as: Jenny; Chang Song Yi also known as: Jay; Joung
Hee Yo doing business as: Jenny; Un Chil Yo also known as: Bruc;,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for denial of overtime compensation.

Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria is a restaurant located in Long Island City,
New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


REAL GREEN: Faces Paulus Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RON VON PAULUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REAL GREEN SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-23819-RNS
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has transmitted a
prerecorded telemarketing message to his cellular telephone number
ending in 3091 on September 2, 2020, without obtaining his prior
express consent to be contacted with a prerecorded call. The
Plaintiff was harmed and inconvenienced by the Defendant's
unsolicited prerecorded call, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

Real Green Systems, LLC, sells, operates, and services service
management software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-533-4092
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com


RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07666
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design its Web site to be fully accessible by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the
Defendant's Web site, http://www.reliefband.com/,the last
occurring in September 2020, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied him of full and equal access to the
facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. The lawsuit further alleges that the
Defendant's actions not only violated the ADA but also the New York
State Human Rights Law and therefore the Plaintiff invokes his
right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.

ReliefBand Technologies LLC is a nausea relieving products
manufacturer and retail company, and owns and operates the Web
site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services and which the Company ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action related to the company's January 2017 initial public
offering (IPO).

A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a
consolidated state putative securities class action are pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of
putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or
traceable to its January 2017 IPO, purchasers in its secondary
offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from
October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018.

The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the
Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and
state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending
before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018.

The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of the
consolidated federal action.

Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative
classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect
to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same
in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017
offering.

Two purported derivative actions, which have since been
consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019
against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal
defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in
the consolidated federal securities litigation.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.

REV Group said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this
time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits,
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may
have on the Company or its operations."

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

REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It
operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and
Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty
Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November
2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


RH: Settlement in Securities Litigation Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
RH said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020,
that a California court has granted final approval of the
settlement in the consolidated suit entitled, In re RH, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone.

On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class
action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties.

On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The
consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).

The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of our common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016.
The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll
out of the RH Modern product line and our inventory levels.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and
other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2019, the company and the individual defendants in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case. The settlement amount is $50 million, which was funded
entirely by our insurance carriers.

On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement together with a settlement
agreement executed by both parties.

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions
including court approval following notice to our shareholders, and
a hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

On June 21, 2019, the court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement
on October 25, 2019.

RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the
home furnishings. It offers products in various categories,
including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, decor, outdoor
and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The company
was formerly known as Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to RH in January 2017. RH was founded in 1979 and
is headquartered in Corte Madera, California.


SILVERADO SENIOR: Zamiatowski-Powell Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA ZAMIATOWSKI-POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01461-SCD (E.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated licensed practical nurses overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a licensed
practical nurse in Wisconsin since May 2019.

Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. is a privately-owned
senior living management company with a principal address located
at 6400 Oak Canyon, in Irvine, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
         
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Canas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS CANAS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-04937
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as factory worker.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when the Defendant's
workers received the $5 per hour Responsibility Bonus, their
overtime rate (the so called "regular rate") would also take this
payment into account. However, the Plaintiff contends, the
Defendant did not factor the Responsibility Bonus into the overtime
rate and, therefore, substantially underpaid its workforce when
they worked overtime.

Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. operates as a consumer packaged
meat company. The Company offers frozen barbecues and chilies,
peanuts, and pork products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630)355-7590


SOCAL PERMANENTE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Coffey Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOCAL PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00029409-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 21, 2020), is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Socal Permanente Medical Group provides medical and surgical
hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          William G. Anderson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ganderson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MATTHEW ELIAS, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. SPOTIFY
USA INC., THE EXECUSEARCH GROUP, LLC; COURTNEY HOLT; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24671, was removed from the Superior
Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08530 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code including retaliation, wrongful discharge,
defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of
employment contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and promissory estoppel.

Spotify USA Inc. provides an entertainment software with its
principal place of business located in New York City. The
ExecuSearch Group, LLC is a professional recruitment and temporary
staffing agency based in New York City.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
         Annie H. Chen, Esq.
         Kayla D. Grundy, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         1000 Marsh Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Telephone: (650) 614-7400
         Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
         E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com
                 annie.chen@orrick.com
                 kgrundy@orrick.com

                - and –

         Julie A. Totten, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
         Telephone: (916) 447-9200
         Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
         E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com


STARWEST BOTANICALS: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starwest Botanicals,
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Starwest Botanicals, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-07709 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020).

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

Starwest Botanicals, Inc., manufacturers and distributes spices.
The Company offers dried herbs, organic herbs, bulk spices, loose
leaf organic teas, organic essential oils and aromatherapy
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


STECKER MACHINE: Faces Smeester Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TODD SMEESTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STECKER MACHINE CO., INC., Case No. 20-cv-1457 (E.D.
Wis., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all
other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all
hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, by: (1) shaving time from the Plaintiff's and all other
hourly-paid, nonexempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift,
post-shift, and in-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the
detriment of said employees and to the benefit of the Defendant;
and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in all regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes, both in violation of the FLSA and
WWPCL.

The Plaintiff was hired into the position of quality engineer
working at the Defendant's Manitowoc, Wisconsin production facility
from approximately 2013 to July 2020.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, Stecker Machine Co., Inc. is
a privately-owned company that provides computer numerical control
machining and related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


STUART WEITZMAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STUART WEITZMAN RETAIL STORES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01632-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 21,
2020), alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
website, https://www.stuartweitzman.com/home/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.

Stuart Weitzman Retail Stores, LLC was founded in 2005. The
Company's line of business includes providing various business
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS NUNEZ and ROANDY MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated v. T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM INC., BEST SERVICE STATION
INC. d/b/a BP on the Run, JUN XING QU, and LIN HAI QU, Case No.
1:20-cv-04347 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the new York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees the applicable
minimum wages for all hours worked and the required overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class members
"spread of hours" premium for each day they worked a shift in
excess of 10 hours.

The Defendants have also allegedly failed to keep true and accurate
time and pay records for all hours worked by the Plaintiff and the
Collective Action Members, and to provide accurate wage statements
and wage notices as required by the law.

T-Maxx @ Amsterdam Inc. and Best Service Station Inc. are single
integrated enterprises owned and operated by the same owners, Lin
Hai Qu and Ju Xing Qu.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


TERMINIX INT'L: Faces Carranza Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME CARRANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 3:20-cv-01819-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 15,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an automated
text messages to his cellular telephone number (760) 315-XXXX from
the number 626-705-8944, that is allegedly owned by the Defendant,
on February 8 & 11, 2019 and on April 19 & 22, 2019. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendant did not obtain his prior express written
consent to send text messages to his cellular telephone number by
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Moreover, although the Plaintiff advised the Defendant to
discontinue sending him emails and calls, the Plaintiff says he
received yet another automated message from the Defendant on August
7, 2020, via a short code 710-96. The Plaintiff was annoyed from
continuance messages from the Defendant because it drained his
phone battery and caused Plaintiff additional electricity expenses,
as well as wear and tear on his phone and battery.

The Terminix International Company, Limited Partnership, provides
termite and pest control services to residential and commercial
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com


THEMAGIC5 INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THEMAGIC5 INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07698-ALC (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
http://www.themagic5.com/,and, therefore, denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the website
violates the ADA.

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

The Defendant is a custom fitted swimming goggles manufacturing
company that owns and operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIKTOK INC: M.G. BIPA Suit Alleges Unlawful Use of Biometric Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.G., through his father and legal guardian BARTOSZ GRABOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TIKTOK INC.; and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05305 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 8, 2020), seeks damages to redress the Defendants'
unlawful collection, storage, use, and disclosure of biometric
identifiers and biometric information in violation of the Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants use the audio and visual
features of their popular mobile application, TikTok App, to
collect, store and use the "face templates" and "voiceprints" of
their users, including the Plaintiff. The Defendants do this
without notifying their users or making available any policies
governing use or destruction of this immutable data, much less
obtaining users' consent. The Defendants' use the "biometric
identifiers" that they have collected to derive other personally
identifying "biometric information" pertaining to their users,
including age, gender, race, and emotional state, all of which is
then linked with the user's name, e-mail address, and other unique
identifiers in their database.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the other Illinoisans, who have
had their biometric data surreptitiously collected and stored by
the Defendants, are entitled by law to have this sensitive data
permanently destroyed. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks not only the
damages available by law, but also restitution, and an injunction
barring the Defendants from transferring their biometric data to
any other entity.

Plaintiff M.G. and his father and natural legal guardian Bartosz
Grabowski are citizens of the State of Illinois.

TikTok Inc. is a video-sharing social networking service owned by
ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is
used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent
videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          NICK LARRY LAW LLC
          55 E Monroe St., Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (773) 694-4669
          Facsimile: (773) 694-4691
          E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  jarisohn@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


TOYBOX LABS: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOYBOX LABS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07696-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
https://shop.make.toys/, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered, thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the website
violates the ADA.

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

The Defendant is a 3D printed kids toys company that owns and
operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUE NORTH ENERGY: Misclassifies Store Managers, Glazier Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL GLAZIER, RANDI WRIGHT, AMANDA CAPE and KEELY ROBARE,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TRUE
NORTH ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-12540-MFL-APP (E.D. Mich.,
Sept. 16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged
misclassification of its gas station/convenience store managers as
exempt from overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated non-exempt store managers at Defendant's gas station and
convenience stores were consistently and regularly working more
than 40 hours per week because they were required by the Defendant
to support their assigned store 24 hours per day and seven days per
week. However, the Defendant deprived them of overtime compensation
for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per week due to unlawful
misclassification.

True North Energy, LLC, is a for-profit company that operates a
large chain of gas station/convenience stores in Illinois, Ohio and
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          NACHTLAW, P.C.
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 555
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Tel: (734) 663-7550


TYCHE & ISET: Faces Angeles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TYCHE & ISET LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07689-JMF (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, http://www.tycheandiset.com/,and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is an eyewear company that owns and operates the Web
site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


UMPQUA BANK: Camenisch Sues Over Casey Ponzi's Scheme Involvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELA CAMENISCH; and DALE M. DEAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UMPQUA BANK, Case 3:20-cv-05905
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant aid and abet
in Ken Casey's Ponzi scheme.

According to the complaint, for the last several decades, Ken Casey
has offered investors safe, steady returns backed by Marin County
commercial real estate. When Casey died suddenly in May, however,
it quickly became apparent that his investment business was
actually a long-running Ponzi scheme likely to cost investors more
than $100 million.

There was nothing particularly clever or original about Casey's
Ponzi scheme, according to the complaint. It would have been
obvious to anyone with access to Casey's financials. Casey was
raising hundreds of millions of dollars from mostly local mom and
pop investors, by promising returns that income from the properties
couldn't cover. To make the promised interest payments and fund
Casey's lavish lifestyle, the business was depositing money from
new investors into company accounts and then using those funds to
pay previous investors and for Casey's personal benefit.

Mr. Casey's Ponzi scheme was so obvious that within a month of his
death, the scheme was publicly exposed, the Securities and Exchange
Commission had opened an investigation, and the business had to
suspend monthly payments to existing investors due to inadequate
funds, according to the complaint. Someone did have a clear view of
Casey's financials far earlier--Umpqua Bank, the financial
institution where Casey maintained every account he used to operate
his multi-decade Ponzi scheme. But rather than expose Casey's
fraudulent business, Umpqua chose to profit from it.

The Plaintiffs were among those investors, who have lost their
savings as a result of Casey's Ponzi scheme and Umpqua Bank's
knowing participation in that scheme. Casey's investment companies
are now in bankruptcy and will not be able to make full
restitution. But on behalf of themselves and other investors like
them, the Plaintiffs seek to hold Umpqua liable for aiding and
abetting Casey's Ponzi scheme and require it to make amends to the
scheme's victims.

Umpqua Bank, an Oregon state-chartered bank, is engaged primarily
in the business of commercial and retail banking and the delivery
of retail brokerage services. The Bank provides asset management,
mortgage banking and other financial services to corporate,
institutional and individual customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Linda Lam, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  lpl@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: 954-755-4799
          Facsimile: 954-755-4684
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Ausch Says Debt Collection Letter Is Deceptive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZALMEN AUSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04356 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a debt that was
allegedly incurred to Fifth Third Bank, N.A., who contracted with
the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the
Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on August 17,
2020, offering a settlement to resolve the full balance for less
than the amount owed. However, the letter is deceptive and
misleading because it has statement which implied that Internal
Revenue Service regulations require that it report forgiveness of
debt.

The letter allegedly failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that there
is a distinction between principal and interest in regards to IRS
requirements. As a result, the Plaintiff has been damaged by the
Defendant's unlawful debt collection practices, the Plaintiff
asserts.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Parmeley Prisoner Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Jason Parmeley, Marco Anthony Guirlando, On
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v.
Donald J. Trump, WILLIAM BARR, M. D. CARVAJAL, ADAM COHEN, Sgt.
Williams, Warden, Captain Richard Mitcham, Case No. 1:20-cv-01290,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas on Sept. 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01046-SOH-BAB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United
States.

Plaintiff Jason Parmeley, who is currently incarcerated at
Greenville Federal Correctional Institution, in Greenville,
Illinois; and Plaintiff Marco Anthony Guirlando, who is currently
incarcerated at Union County Criminal Justice Facility, in El
Dorado, Arkansas, appear pro se.[BN]


UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Keegan WARN Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MIKE KEEGAN, WILLIE DAVIS, and MICHAEL
WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, INC.; UNIVERSAL
INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC.; ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC;
MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS2014389, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 17,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01937 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by
failing to provide the required 60-day notice written notice.

Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc. is a full-service provider of
customized transportation and logistics solutions based in
Michigan. Universal Intermodal Services, Inc. is a provider of
customized intermodal solutions based in Dallas, Texas.

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC is a company that provides
transportation services based in Peachtree City, Georgia. Morgan
Southern, Inc. is a company that offers trucking transportation,
truck loading, warehousing, and consolidation services based in
Conley, Georgia.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           
      
         Christian Keeney, Esq.
         Alis M. Moon, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com
                 alis.moon@ogletree.com


VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc.
("Verrica" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:VRCA) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Verrica securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/vrca.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's proprietary applicator used for
VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not
properly followed; (2) as a result, Verrica would incorporate
certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) the addition
of the user feature would require additional testing for stability
supportive data; (4) as a result of the foregoing, regulatory
approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 29, 2020, Verrica announced that it received a letter from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as part of the FDA's
ongoing review of the Company's New Drug Application for VP-102
(cantharidin 0.7% topical solution), Verrica's lead product
candidate for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. According to
the Company, the letter cited deficiencies that preclude discussion
of labeling and post-marketing equirements/commitments at this
time. While Verrica stated that the letter did not specify any
particular items, it noted that the FDA's periodic requests for
additional information pertained to chemistry, manufacturing, and
control aspects of the drug-device combination. The Company also
stated that its ability to address the requests had been
"significantly impacted" by COVID-19 disruptions. Following this
announcement, Verrica's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or
21.75%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020.

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

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

VERTICAL FITNESS: Faces McClain Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNITHA F. McCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VERTICAL FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a XPERIENCE
FITNESS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01452-LA (E.D. Wis., Sept. 16, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she received an unsolicited text message
from the Defendant on July 17, 2018, in an attempt to collect
payment on a cancelled gym membership. When the Plaintiff responded
on July 18, 2018, to stop contacting her, the Defendant started
placing harassing collection calls to her cellular phone. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's phone calls and text
messages invaded her privacy and have caused her actual harm.

Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, d/b/a Xperience Fitness, operates
fitness clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: President Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KENNETH PRESIDENT, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV368984, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-06530 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
hourly and overtime wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide
accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final
wages, and unfair competition.

Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store
chain in the United States with its principal place of business in
Deerfield, Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                        
   
         Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
         Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
         Sharlene Meno, Esq.
         Bernice E. Diaz, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
         Irvine, CA 92612-4414
         Telephone: (949) 223-7000
         Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
         E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
                 christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                 sharlene.meno@bclplaw.com
                 bernice.diaz@bclplaw.com


WARRIOR CUSTOM GOLF: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrior Custom Golf,
Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Warrior Custom Golf, Inc. doing
business as: www.warriorcustomgolf.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04408
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2020).

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

Warrior Custom Golf, Inc., develops, manufactures, and markets
custom golf clubs for golfers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Patrick Healy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., DOES 1
through 5, Case No. 37-02020-00028238-CU-MC-NC, 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. 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01838-CAB-MSB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[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:

          Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 509-6000
          Fax: (858) 509-6040
          Email: jessica.lohr@troutmansanders.com


WOMEN'S LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages, Ohana Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA SARIT OHANA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WOMEN'S LEAGUE COMMUNITY RESIDENCES, INC., Case No.
517456/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's engagement in illegal and improper wage practices,
including failure to pay proper overtime wages, in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other assistant managers as exempt from the overtime
laws and failed to pay overtime of time and one-half-their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant
also failed to provide the Plaintiff and the class members with an
accurate statement with every payment of wages, listing accurate
gross wages, deductions and accurate net wages as required by the
NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 16, 2019,
until April 22, 2020, as an assistant manager.

Women's League Community Residences, Inc. is a New York-based
company, which is part of the mental health and substance abuse
services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105


YAYYO INC: Faces Koch Suit Over 92.88% Decline in IPO Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM KOCH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YAYYO, INC., RAMY ELBATRAWI, JONATHAN ROSEN, KEVIN F.
PICKARD, JEFFREY J. GUZY, CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO, HARBANT S. SIDHU,
and PAUL RICHTER, Case No. 2:20-cv-08591 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false
and misleading statements resulting to the trading of the Company's
common stock significantly below the initial public offering
price.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired YayYo common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with YayYo's November 13, 2019 initial public
offering.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other class members
have suffered significant losses and damages following the
revelation of certain corrective disclosures. The most recent one
was on April 28, 2020, where FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund,
LLC filed a complaint against underwriters for the IPO in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.
l:20-cv-03327. Among other things, FirstFire alleges that the
Registration Statement used to conduct the IPO was materially false
and misleading because it concealed Defendant El-Batrawi's ongoing
control over the Company and its IPO process. FirstFire further
alleges that when the underwriters for the IPO were unable to raise
the full $10 million required by NASDAQ to close the IPO, Defendant
El-Batrawi fabricated a $1.2 million commitment purportedly from a
trust, which turned out to be a lie.

FirstFire also alleges that the underwriters for the IPO and
Defendant El-Batrawi solicited creditors and shareholders to invest
more money to close the IPO, and "sought to sweeten the attraction
of such further investment" by agreeing that YayYo would
"immediately" pay them back from the IPO proceeds, an "unlawful
act" that would "materially misrepresent the Offering and
fraudulently mislead investors."

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement,
YayYo's stock price has fallen significantly below its IPO price,
damaging Plaintiff and Class members, the lawsuit says. As of the
filing of the complaint, YayYo's stock last closed at $0.285 per
share on September 18, 2020, representing a 92.88% decline from the
price the stock was offered at in the IPO. Additionally, because of
the materially deficient Registration Statement, the Defendants
have also violated their independent, affirmative duty to provide
adequate disclosures about adverse conditions, risk, and
uncertainties.

YayYo, Inc. purports to, through its subsidiaries, operate an
online peer-to-peer booking platform that rents standard passenger
vehicles to self-employed ridesharing drivers and manages a fleet
of standard passenger vehicles to be rented directly to drivers in
the ridesharing economy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


YAYYO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein")
announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased YayYo, Inc. ("YayYo" or
the "Company") ( YAYO) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering conducted on November 14, 2019
(the "IPO" or "Offering") in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

All investors who purchased shares of YayYo, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of YayYo, Inc., you may,
no later than November 9, 2020, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

The filed complaint 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 that:

defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority,
and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a
day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of
the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in
marketing YayYo's IPO;

defendant El-Batrawi never sold the 12,525,000 "Private Shares" and
continued to own a controlling interest in YayYo despite the
NASDAQ's insistence that he retain less than a 10% equity ownership
interest in connection with the listing agreement; defendants
promised certain creditors of YayYo that in exchange to their
agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO in order to permit the
Underwriter defendants to close the IPO YayYo would repurchase
those shares after the IPO;

defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of
YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds:

YayYo owed its former President, CEO, and Director a half of
million dollars at the time of the IPO;
YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality, Inc.) $426,286 in
unpaid social media costs, most of which was more than a year
overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted to
complete its IPO; and

that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
In November 2019, YayYo completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold approximately 2.7 million shares of
common stock at $4 per share.

Then, on February 10, 2020, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors had decided to delist YayYo's common stock from the
NASDAQ.

Since the IPO, the Company's shares have traded as low as $0.25, or
94% below the IPO price.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.


         Gregory Stone
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com [GN]

ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Blackmon Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES R. BLACKMON; JUSTIN M. ROZELLE; ERIC A. MYERS; and JARED
MUNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC.; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ZACHARY
HOLDINGS, INC.; THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY
HOLDINGS, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:20-cv-00988 (W.D.
Tex., Aug. 21, 2020), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, at all times during the Class Period,
August 21, 2014, through the date of judgment, the ZHI 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") had more than $482 million
dollars in assets under management. At the end of 2017 and 2018,
the Plan had over $766 million dollars and $753 million dollars,
respectively, in assets under management that were entrusted to the
care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under management
qualify it as a large plan in the defined contribution plan
marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States.

As a large plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power
regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against
participants' investments, the Plaintiffs assert. The Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the Plaintiffs
allege.

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

Zachry Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers engineering, procurement and
construction, plant operation, turnaround, and fabrication
services. Zachry Holdings serves power, energy, chemical,
manufacturing, and industrial markets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig A. Harris, Esq.
          Natalie A. Sears, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
          500 N. Akard St., Suite 3800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 855-7500
          Facsimile: (214) 855-7584
          E-mail: charris@munsch.com
                  nsears@munsch.com

                - and –

          James A. Ray, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
          1717 W. 6th Street, Suite 250
          Austin, TX 78703
          E-mail: jray@munsch.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1,
2020, that court overseeing the case, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., has
tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for
class certification to April 15, 2021.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us
in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division
under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.  

Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.  

The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based.  

In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October
2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for
judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018.  The company's opening
appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's
answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.  The company's
reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed
on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February
4, 2019.  

On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019.

On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time
pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense
reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting
time pay question to the California Supreme Court.  

On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc
to certify the reporting time pay question to the California
Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to
the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn
filed a reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc on
May 1, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The
case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
for further proceedings.

The court has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing
a motion for class certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant's
tentative deadline to file an opposition to the motion on June 15,
2021.

Zumiez saids, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.



                            *********

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 ***