/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201001.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 197

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY AUTO: Faces Francois Suit Over Unlawful Service Fees
AARP INC: Nichols Seeks Charges for Illegal Insurance Commissions
ABBVIE INC: CoolSculpting Causes Lasting Deformities, Elkins Says
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Faces 3 Class Lawsuits over Investment Deal
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Shah Challenges Proposed Sale to Nestle

AIRBUS SE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 5 Deadline
AJT DIABETIC: Moore Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
ALEXIS DINER: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mejias Claims
ALTRU HEALTH: Faces Class-Action Over Retirement Investments
AUSTRALIA: Teens Bring Climate Change Class Action Lawsuit

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Contracts, Port 22 Claims
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Serri Suit Claims
BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Thomas Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reporting
BARRETT BUSINESS: Walker Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on 2 Classes in Moser Suit Pending

BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2 Securities Suits on MDP Merger Plan
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Belin et al. Class Suit
BURGERIM GROUP: Faces ADXX Suit Over Deceptive Franchise System
CAMILLA CARE: Faces CAD25MM Class-Action Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Amara Appeals Denial Orders in ERISA Suit to 2nd Cir.

CONAGRA BRANDS: Cohen Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Circuit
CREDIT CORP: Gabrielsen Files FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
DAIMLER AG: Reaches Agreement in Principle in Emissions Litigation
EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Russo Sues Over Defective Roofing Work
ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Asks 3rd Cir. to Vacate Retransfer of Rice

ENVIRONMENTAL OIL: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Customers File $1.5 Billion Class-Action
FAIRLIFE LLC: Ynfante Sues Over Deceptive Core Power Milk Labels
FANATICS INC: Hit With Lawsuit Over Employee Layoffs
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed

FASKEN OIL: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Crabtree Suit Claims
FASTLY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 26 Deadline
FIVE POINT: Still Faces Bayview Hunters Point Litigation
FLUIDIGM CORP: Saintjermain Sues Over 51% Decline in Share Price
GEO GROUP: New Lawsuit Asserts Poor Handling of COVID-19

GMRI INC: Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
GREAT SOUTHERN: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, DeAngelis Claims
GRUBHUB INC: Still Defends Stockholder Class Action in Illinois
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Mendez TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
HERNAN AND BROTHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morocho Alleges

HSBC BANK: Vasquez Appeals Rulings in RICO Suit to 2nd Circuit
HSN INC: Smith Product Liability Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ICONIC BARBERSHOP: Cole Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages to Barbers
INDEMNITY INSURANCE: Schatzi Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action Brought by a Group of Homeowners

JBLK ENTERPRISES: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
JERNBERG INDUSTRIES: Ervin BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gill Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Thomas Sues Over Breach of Contract and Robocalls
KIM CHEE PRIDE: Ramiro Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

L.A. COUNTY, CA: Pandemic-Driven Mall Closings Bring Class Action
LAST RESORT: Ex-Workers File Suit Under FLSA Over Back Wages
LOREX CORP: Mapstead Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
LUIS FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Robles Suit Alleges
MAGNITE INC: Suits v Telaria over Merger Deal Dismissed

MCESSY INVESTMENT: American Family Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MDL 2036: Avery Appeals Ruling in Overdraft Suit to 11th Circuit
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Harmet Files Personal Injury Suit in Illinois
MID CITY CANNABIS: Faces Matthews Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
MIDLAND CREDIT: Miller Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 11th Cir.

MONTGOMERY LYNCH: Faces Henry Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
MOUNTAIN RUN: Reynolds Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. Arkansas
NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Adjourned to Oct. 30
NANTHEALTH INC: Court Wants Report on Costs in Deora Suit
NATIONAL TIRE: Settlement in Exum Class Suit Gets Final Approval

NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Hogan Balks at Sale of Personal Viewing Data
NEUMAN'S KITCHEN: Sanchez Seeks Service Staff's Withheld Tips
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 25 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEWTEK BUSINESS: Dismissed from American Video Suit Over PPP Loans
NEXTCURE INC: Zhou Sues Over Misleading and Incomplete SPO Docs

NOVA TRANSPORTATION: Calderon Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
ORACLE: Face Class Action Lawsuits Over Online Ad Tracking
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Hodges Sues Over Crew Members' Unpaid OT Wages
PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Litigation over Line 901 Incident Underway
PROGENITY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 27 Deadline

PROGENITY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
PSRG INC: Faces Hamsayeh Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
QUICKEN LOANS: Voss Suit Over Mortgage Record Moved to S.D. Ohio
R&L CARRIERS: Perez Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
REALPAGE INC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in McIntyre FCRA Suit

REALREAL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Marin County
RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint in IV Meloxicam Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso Appeals E.D. Mo. Order to 8th Circuit
RLC LABS: Truax Sues Over Distribution of Subpotent Thyroid Pills
ROTOLO CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Suit Says

RUBICON OLDFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Knox Suit Alleges
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Velasquez-Reyes Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
SARA COMPANION: RJI Filed in Jefferson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Franckowiak Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval

SEIU: Bosses Back Down, Settle Class-Action 1st Amendment Lawsuit
SEQUIUM ASSET: Towers Sues in Connecticut Over Violation of FDCPA
SONY MUSIC: Reaches $12.7MM Deal in Rick Nelson Contract Dispute
STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline
STOCKX: Faces Class Action Over August 2019 Data Breach

STRUCTURES DEREK: Reese Employment Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
T&C ROBINSON: Pettieway Seeks Overtime Wages for Health Workers
TERRAFORM POWER: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Claims Still Pending
TOMS KING: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Thomas Consumer Credit Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Shoemaker Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York

TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Appeals W.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir.
TVI INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Melead Employment Suit
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Ravi Sues Under Tucker Act in Federal Claims Court

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Condry Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Court Dismisses Amended Dinerstein Lawsuit
VINCE LLC: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over Violation of ADA
VISALUS: To Pay $925 Million Award for Alleged TCPA Violations
VISIONS FEDERAL: Petrey Commences Class Suit in N.D. New York

WALGREEN CO: Samuel Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
WILLIS TOWERS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Regents Securities Suit
YUMA WAY: Wasif Sues in District of Colorado Over TCPA Violation

                            *********

21ST CENTURY AUTO: Faces Francois Suit Over Unlawful Service Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL FRANCOIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 21ST CENTURY AUTO GROUP, INC; DMITRY ZELDIN; and CARINA
ZELDIN, Case No. MER-L-001592-20 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty., Sept.
9, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful conduct of charging
service fees in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
Automotive Sales Practices Regulations and the Truth in Consumer
Contract Notice and Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other New Jersey consumers were
charged by the Defendants an unitemized documentary service fee
while also being overcharged for title and registration fees,
without itemizing what services were provided or the price of each
service in motor vehicle transactions.

Additionally, the Plaintiff brings individual claims against the
Defendants pursuant to violations of the Used Car Lemon Law and the
New Jersey Motor Vehicle Advertising Practices Regulations as a
result of the Defendants' unconscionable and deceptive commercial
practices by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose the car had
been in prior automobile accidents and had more than one previous
owner.

21st Century Auto Group Inc. is a Springfield, New Jersey-based
company which engages in the business of selling used motor
vehicles across the State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net


AARP INC: Nichols Seeks Charges for Illegal Insurance Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY NICHOLS and LEON WILDE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES INC., AARP
INSURANCE PLAN, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-06616 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 21,
2020), is a consumer class action seeking to recoup millions of
dollars on behalf of a class consisting of senior citizens and
disabled individuals residing in the State of California whom the
Defendants charged for illegal insurance commissions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have orchestrated an
elaborate scheme where AARP, as the de facto agent of UnitedHealth,
helps market, solicit and sell or renew coverage for UnitedHealth
Medicare Supplement insurance and generally administers the program
for UnitedHealth, in exchange for a 4.95% commission on Member
Contributions. The Defendants characterize the payments as a
"royalty" that UnitedHealth pays AARP in exchange for its use of
AARP's intellectual property to allow AARP to avoid oversight by
insurance regulators, and to allow AARP to avoid paying taxes on
the income it generates through insurance sales.

The Defendants' acts are unlawful because they violate California's
insurance law, and concomitantly violate the California Unfair
Competition Law, according to the complaint. Because AARP is not
licensed as an insurance agent, broker or consultant, it may not
collect a commission for its marketing, soliciting or
selling/renewing of UnitedHealth Medicare Supplement product on
behalf of UnitedHealth.

The Plaintiffs contend that the end result of the Defendants'
violations of California insurance law is that consumers are
charged an artificially inflated amount for insurance coverage that
is prohibited by law.

AARP, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, AARP Services Inc., AARP
Insurance Plan, formerly known as the American Association of
Retired Persons, is a tax-exempt, "non-profit" membership
organization for seniors aged 50 years and older based in
Washington, D.C.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is an insurance corporation headquartered
in Minnetonka, Minnesota. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company is an
operating division and wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group and maintains its corporate headquarters in Hartford,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com


ABBVIE INC: CoolSculpting Causes Lasting Deformities, Elkins Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER ELKINS; LORI-ANN RIDLEY; SHERYL DOBBINS; JAVIER VALENCIA;
PAULA BROOKS; PHORNPHAN CHUBCHAI; and EMILY MICHELLE MCGOLDRICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons
v. ABBVIE, INC. f/k/a ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a ALLERGAN PLC and f/k/a
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., Case 6:20-cv-01562-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's non-invasive fat
reducing medical device called the CoolSculpting System has the
ability to cause permanent deformities to a person's body.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew
since at least 2011 that the CoolSculpting device can cause users
to develop a condition called Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia
(PAH), which results in the opposite effect of the medical device's
advertised purpose.

According to the complaint, the CoolSculpting device can
permanently damage the tissue in the area it targets to reduce,
creating a deformity on the patient's body much larger in size than
the original "stubborn fat bulge." The condition does not resolve
on its own, and unlike regular fat tissue, tissue affected by PAH
does not respond to weight loss. Thus, the only method of removing
PAH is through invasive surgery. The condition is solely attributed
to the CoolSculpting device.

Despite knowing about the severity, permanency, and frequency of
the condition, the Defendant manipulated, in its favor, important
information regarding PAH to induce prospective patients to undergo
the CoolSculpting procedure, according to the complaint. It did so
by making misrepresentations about PAH to CoolSculpting providers
and concealing the number of patients that have developed PAH,
causing CoolSculpting providers to believe that the condition is
not as serious, permanent, and frequent as Defendant knew it to
be.

AbbVie Inc. researches and develops pharmaceutical products. The
Company produces pharmaceutical drugs for specialty therapeutic
areas such as immunology, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis C,
women's health, oncology, and neuroscience. AbbVie also offers
treatments for diseases including multiple sclerosis, parkinson's,
and alzheimer's disease.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louiza Tarassova, Esq.
          LOU LAW
          2180 N. Park Avenue., Suite 208
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 622-1885
          Facsimile: (407) 536-5041
          E-mail: louiza@mylawadvocate.com


AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Faces 3 Class Lawsuits over Investment Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that three separate putative class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company, each alleging that
the Company's disclosures regarding the transactions contemplated
by an Investment Agreement contained in its proxy statement for the
2020 annual meeting of the Company's stockholders were inadequate.
The lawsuits were filed in July 2020.

On June 13, 2020, the Company entered into an Investment Agreement
with an affiliate of Paine Schwartz Partners, LLC, pursuant to
which, subject to certain closing conditions, the Investor agreed
to purchase in a private placement an aggregate of $150,000,000 of
convertible preferred equity of the Company. The transaction closed
on July 27, 2020 and a total of 150,000 shares of the Company's
newly-designated Series B-1 Convertible Preferred Stock, par value
$0.0001 per share were purchased in the transaction.  Following the
approval of the transactions contemplated by the Investment
Agreement by the necessary regulatory body, the Company will be
required to issue to the Investor, for no additional consideration,
a total of 150,000 shares of the Company's newly-designated Series
B-2 Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share.
Shortly thereafter, all of the outstanding shares of Series B-1
Preferred Stock and Series B-2 Preferred Stock would be exchanged
for a total of 150,000 shares of the Company's newly-designated
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share.

Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-headquartered global
innovator and provider of science-based solutions, data-driven
technologies and experience-backed services to enhance the quality
and extend the shelf life of fresh produce.


AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Shah Challenges Proposed Sale to Nestle
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANISHA SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC., JAYSON DALLAS, GREG BEHAR,
PATRICK ENRIGHT, KATE FALBERG, BRETT HAUMANN, MARK IWICKI, MARK
MCDADE, and STACEY D. SELTZER, Case No. 5:20-cv-06609 (N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 relating to a proposed acquisition of Aimmune by Societes des
Produits Nestle S.A. and SPN MergerSub, Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants filed a materially
deficient Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2020,
in an effort to solicit stockholders to tender their Aimmune shares
in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

The Recommendation Statement allegedly omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process leading to the Proposed Transaction; (b) the financial
projections for Aimmune, provided by Aimmune to the Independent
Board Members' financial advisors J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and
Lazard Freres & Co. LLC; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses, if any, that purport to support the
fairness opinions from J.P. Morgan and Lazard to the Independent
Board Members.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members will not receive adequate, fair or maximum value for their
Aimmune common stock in the Proposed Transaction, according to the
complaint.

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that develops and commercializes product candidates for the
treatment of peanut and other food allergies, with its principal
place of business at 8000 Marina Blvd., in Brisbane,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
         
         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
         BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
         9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (877) 534-2590
         Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
         E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


AIRBUS SE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Airbus SE ("Airbus" or the "Company")(OTC
PINK:EADSY)(OTC PINK:EADSF) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-10084, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise, acquired Airbus securities in the U.S.
between February 24, 2016, and July 30, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Airbus securities during the
class period, you have until October 5, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Airbus was founded in 2000 and is based in Leiden, the Netherlands.
The Company is a multinational aerospace corporation, operating
through its Commercial Aircraft, Defense and Space, and Helicopters
divisions. The Company's American Depository Receipts ("ADRs")
trade in the U.S. on the over-the-counter market (the "OTC") under
the ticker symbol "EADSY," and the Company's foreign ordinary
shares ("foreign ordinaries") trade in the U.S. on the OTC under
the ticker symbol "EADSF."

In August 2012, the United Kingdom ("U.K.") Serious Fraud Office
("SFO") announced that it had opened a formal criminal
investigation into one of Airbus's subsidiaries, GPT Special
Project Management Ltd. ("GPT"), which Airbus acquired in 2007. The
allegations called into question a service contract entered into by
GPT prior to its acquisition by Airbus, relating to activities
conducted by GPT in Saudi Arabia.

Unbeknownst to investors and the public, however, Airbus was at an
increased and foreseeable risk of facing significant potential
liabilities for other alleged illegal activities that would later
be investigated by governmental authorities around the world. These
activities, combined with the investigation into GPT, implicated
all three of Airbus's divisions, calling into question the
sustainability of the Company's reported earnings during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (i) that Airbus's policies and protocols
were insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (ii) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (iii) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (iv) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (v) that resolution of government investigations of
Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in
settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant
continuing government investigation and oversight; and (vi) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [GN]


AJT DIABETIC: Moore Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AJT DIABETIC INC. d/b/a COUNTRYWIDE MEDICAL, Case No.
1:20-cv-05038 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Ajt Diabetic Inc. was founded in 2010. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of surgical and other
medical instruments, apparatus, and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALEXIS DINER: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mejias Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAYNA MEJIAS; and DANIELA VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALEXIS DINER, INC.; and YIANNAKIS
ZACHARIA, Case No. 7:20-cv-06929 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waitresses.

Alexis Diner, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
          BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
          23 Green Street, Suite 105
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458-1010
          E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


ALTRU HEALTH: Faces Class-Action Over Retirement Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
GrandForksHerald.com reports that Altru Health System is facing a
class-action lawsuit alleging that its leaders mismanaged the
company's retirement investments--failing to choose the most
cost-efficient, profitable ways to invest funds.

The suit, filed on Sept. 9, in North Dakota District Court, is led
by three plaintiffs--two in Fargo and one living in central
Georgia, all apparently former Altru employees. A nearly 50-page
complaint claims financial mismanagement in a range of subtly
different ways. Many of them come down to small efficiencies that
investment leaders apparently didn't choose or investigate,
plaintiffs say, like lower costs for investment management.

And those small inefficiencies, attorneys argue, have compounded,
costing participants millions. They're seeking a range of changes
at the company and financial damages for clients, including a court
order to make Altru reimburse its retirement plan for any losses
associated with its alleged mismanagement.

"Defendants failed in their fiduciary duties either because they
did not negotiate aggressively enough with their service providers
to obtain better pricing or they were asleep at the wheel and were
not paying attention," the complaint against Altru reads. "Either
reason is inexcusable."

The case comes as Altu staggers out of one of its worst financial
years in memory, with layoffs and a pause in hospital construction
just months ago amid the coronavirus pandemic. COVID-19 wreaked
havoc on health care industry finances this summer, a pain felt
particularly acutely at Altru because of the structural failure of
its main clinic in 2016.

Donald Reavey, a Pennsylvania attorney representing the plaintiffs,
declined to comment on the case in an email to the Herald.

The suit lists a broad range of defendants, including a swath of
Altru leadership, investment managers and prior executives. Annie
Bonzer, a spokeswoman for Altru, did not comment on the substance
of the case.

"We are aware of the situation and look forward to the opportunity
to respond to the complaint," Bonzer wrote in an email. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: Teens Bring Climate Change Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
desmogblog.com reports that a group of eight Australian teens has
brought a groundbreaking new climate change lawsuit against
Australia's Federal Minister for the Environment in an effort to
stop a proposed coal mine expansion in the state of New South
Wales, roughly 267 miles north of Sydney.

Filing a class action lawsuit in federal court, these students are
representing not just themselves but young people under age 18
across Australia and around the world, as the generation that is
particularly imperiled from the climate crisis and the continued
fossil fuel expansion driving climate breakdown.

"The climate crisis will disproportionately impact young people as
many of us will live into the second half of this century, far
beyond many projections of climate catastrophe," said Laura Kirwan,
a 16-year-old plaintiff from Sydney who is active in Australia's
School Strike 4 Climate.

The lawsuit is the latest in several climate cases brought by young
Australians in recent months.

In July a 23-year-old Melbourne law student named Katta O'Donnell
filed a class action lawsuit against the Australian government for
allegedly failing to disclose to government bondholders the
climate-related risks of their investments.

In May, a group of young Queenslanders under the name Youth Verdict
filed a lawsuit against the developer Waratah Coal, challenging the
Galilee Coal Project. That project in central Queensland, with its
multiple underground and open-pit mines, is expected to produce 40
million tons of coal per year and would generate nearly 3 billion
tons of greenhouse gas emissions over three decades. Youth Verdict
is suing on the grounds that the Galilee Coal Project will
exacerbate climate change and violate these young people's human
rights under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Passed in 2019, this
new law recognizes fundamental rights such as rights to life,
security of the person, equality before the law, and the protection
of families and children.  

This latest youth-led lawsuit, Sharma et al. v. Minister for the
Environment, is challenging a coal mine expansion in New South
Wales known as the Vickery Extension. Last month, state authorities
approved the project, which was proposed by Whitehaven Coal. The
mine expansion would allow Whitehaven to extract another 10 million
tons of coal annually, an increase of 250 percent over its original
mine. Furthermore, the expansion is expected to release an extra
100 million tons of climate pollution, bringing the mine's total to
roughly 370 million tons or the equivalent of about 70 percent of
Australia's total carbon emissions from 2019.

Australia's Environment Minister Sussan Ley is the federal official
currently weighing whether to approve the Vickery Extension
project, which is broadly opposed by local communities. The youth
lawsuit, brought by students between age 13 and 17, seeks a court
order directing Ley to squash the project. The lawsuit argues that
climate change is causing grave harm and that new coal projects
exacerbate that harm, particularly for young people as climate
impacts worsen over time.

"Burning coal is the single largest contributor to this crisis and
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter," Equity Generation
Lawyers explains on the case's website. "To make it worse, we know
that young people and children are particularly vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change." Equity Generation Lawyers is an
Australian law firm specializing in climate change law and is
representing the youth in this class action suit. It is the same
firm representing Katta O'Donnell in her case against the federal
government.

Equity Generation Lawyers argues in the Sharma case that the
environment minister has an obligation, or "duty of care" under
Australian common law, to prevent foreseeable harm to vulnerable
people. If successful, the case could have a real impact in terms
of "preventing all new coal mines from being approved in this
country," according to the law firm.

"Such an approach to a climate change case has not been tested
before in Australia, and would chart new territory if successful,"
Laura Schuijers, a research fellow in environmental law at the
University of Melbourne, wrote in The Conversation. "Although a
legal victory would appear difficult on these grounds, the
implications of this case are already significant. They show young
people, determined to fight for action on climate, will continue to
find new ways to hold powerful people to account."

Australia has already seen a court decision striking down a coal
project largely due to environmental and climate concerns. In
February 2019 the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales
rejected a mining company's appeal of a government decision not to
permit a new open-pit coal mine. Chief Judge Brian Preston wrote
that the coal project "would be in the wrong place at the wrong
time." He explained that this is not the time to be building new
coal mines because coal "will increase global total concentrations
of [greenhouse gases] at a time when what is now urgently needed,
in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and
deep decrease in [greenhouse gas] emissions."

On September 9, just one day after the Australian teens filed their
class action against the Vickery coal project, United Nations
Secretary General António Guterres said in a press conference on
the release of a new international climate science report: "The
coal business is going up in smoke."

"Climate action is the only way to ensure a livable planet for this
and future generations," he added.

But according to young climate activists like the Australian teens
suing the federal environment minister, governments are not taking
climate action seriously, which they say forces them to turn to the
courts.

"I have grown up listening to conversations about the climate
crisis but I've not seen governments do anything significant in the
form of climate action. As a young person, I cannot vote to have my
voice heard by politicians," said Laura Kirwan, the 16-year-old
plaintiff from Sydney. "I believe that the government has a duty to
young people to protect our futures from the impacts of climate
change, including stopping the impact of the Vickery Extension
Project." [GN]

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Contracts, Port 22 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Port 22, LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Scotiabanc
Inc., Scotia Holdings (US) Inc., The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust
Company of New York, Corey Flaum, and JANE/JOHN DOES 1- 50, Case
No. 3:20-cv-12999 (D.N.J., Sept. 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' manipulation of U.S. exchange-traded futures and
options contracts involving metals, including contracts that trade
primarily on exchanges owned by the CME Group, Inc., in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act and the common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' manipulation occurred
primarily or exclusively through the CME's electronic trading
platform, called "Globex." The Defendants manipulated Metal
Contracts through "spoofing," a term generally defined as the
placement of orders with the intent (at the time of placement) to
cancel the orders before they are executed. These Metal Contracts
include precious metals, such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium
and base metals such as aluminum, copper and zinc.

The Plaintiff contends that the unlawful conduct and manipulation
described in the case is the subject of numerous disclosed criminal
and regulatory investigations. On August 19, 2020, the Department
of Justice announced a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Scotia
Bank and fined it $60.4 million for manipulating precious metal
contracts. One of the traders, Defendant Corey Flaum of Delray
Beach, Florida, pled guilty on July 25, 2019, to one count of
attempted price manipulation in connection with his Metals
Contracts trading at Scotiabank and another financial services
firm. Also on August 19, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission fined Bank of Nova Scotia $127.4 million for spoofing
precious metal contracts, as well as for making false statements to
the Commission and for compliance violations.

Plaintiff Port 22, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company,
which transacted in Metals Contracts during the Class Period.

Bank of Nova Scotia, commonly known as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
bank with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario.
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. is a New York corporation and registered
broker dealer in securities with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority and New York Stock Exchange.

Scotia Holdings (US) Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BNS
Investments Inc. with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia. Scotiabanc Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Scotia
Holdings (US) Inc. with its principal place of business in Houston,
Texas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: klerner@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
          Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
                  jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  boconnell@caffertyclobes.com
                  knaughton@caffertyclobes.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Serri Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SERRI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS
(US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY
FLAUM; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-12927 (D.N.J., Sept.
21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Commodity Exchange Act and for unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were engaged in
fraudulent and manipulative trading practices in connection with
the purchase and sale of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
(NYMEX) and Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) from January 1, 2008,
through July 31, 2016. During the Class Period, the Defendants
manipulated the prices of NYMEX platinum and palladium and COMEX
silver and gold futures and options contracts using a technique
called spoofing. They routinely placed electronic orders to buy and
sell such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders
before execution in order to induce other market participants to
trade at futures prices. The Defendants' spoof orders deceived
other market participants, including the Plaintiff, through false
and fraudulent pretenses and representations concerning the
existence of genuine supply and demand for precious metals futures
contracts.

The Plaintiff contends that he and Class members suffered economic
injury, including monetary losses, as a direct result of the
Defendants' manipulation of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures
and options contracts during the Class Period.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a multinational banking and financial
services company with its headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. is an investment banking services
company, with its principal place of business located in New York
City. Scotia Holdings (US) Inc. is a financial services company
with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York is a trust
company regulated by the New York State Department of Financial
Services and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York whose ultimate
parent company is the Bank of Nova Scotia, with its principal place
of business in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
         
         Hollis Salzman, Esq.
         Kellie Lerner, Esq.
         David B. Rochelson, Esq.
         ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
         399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
         New York, NY 10022-4690
         Telephone: (212) 980-7400
         Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
         E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                 klerner@robinskaplan.com
                 drochelson@robinskaplan.com

               - and –

         Steven R. Goldberg, Esq.
         STEVEN R. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
         225 Liberty Street, Suite 1020A
         New York, NY 10281
         Telephone: (212) 845-5100
         Facsimile: (212) 845-4197
         E-mail: sgoldberglaw@verizon.net


BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Thomas Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Case No. 3:20-cv-05937 (W.D.
Wash., Sept. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
defamation, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and breach
of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had erroneously reported
to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) that the Plaintiff was 30
days late on his July 2020 payment to the Defendant, even though
his enrollment in the Defendant's COVID-19 emergency-related
payment deferral program was still active and no payment was
currently due. The Defendant also failed to properly notify the
Plaintiff about the mistake. The Plaintiff attempted to have the
negative marks removed by disputing the delinquent designation with
the CRAs and with the Defendant, but the erroneous negative marks
have not been removed.

As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff says his
credit score dropped several points.

Barclays Bank Delaware is a banking institution that offers credit
cards for travel, entertainment, retail, and business purposes,
with principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    

         Chris Rosfjord, Esq.
         ROSFJORD LAW, PLLC
         6725 22nd Ave. NW
         Seattle, WA 98107
         Telephone: (206) 321-4849
         E-mail: rosfjordlaw@gmail.com


BARRETT BUSINESS: Walker Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TASHAVEA WALKER, individually and on behalf
of other individuals similarly situated v. BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC.; PERFORMANCE TEAM HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21241, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on September
18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08566 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all
wages, short meal breaks and rest breaks, inaccurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, failure to adopt standards that
minimize excessive indoor heat, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and violations of California Business and Professions
Code and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies, with its
principal place of business located in Vancouver, Washington.
Performance Team Holdings, Inc. is a logistics and distribution
company in California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                       

         Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
         Michael A. Wertheim, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
         Telephone: (310) 586-7700
         Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
         E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com
                 wertheimm@gtlaw.com


BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal on 2 Classes in Moser Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benefytt Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that it is still waiting for the
Court's ruling on its appeal from the District Court's August 7,
2019 order certifying two classes in the Moser Telephone Consumer
Protection Act lawsuit.

Benefytt Technologies said, "The Company has received a number of
private-party claims relating to telephonic-sales calls allegedly
conducted by independent third-party distributors.  Generally,
these claims assert that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), although the Company does not
engage in the alleged activities.  In fact, the Company maintains
internal and external compliance staff and processes to monitor
independent third-party distributor compliance.  Historically, the
Company has been successful at obtaining dismissals or settling the
claims for immaterial amounts.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend itself in pending cases, some styled as purported
class-actions, filed by what has been determined to be
serial-professional plaintiffs or serial TCPA attorneys such as
those cases filed by Kenneth Moser, Robert Hossfeld, Mary Bilek,
Barbara Mohon, Hanna Thuo (filed June 4, 2020), Anthony Reo (filed
April 3, 2020), and Bryan Reo (filed April 3, 2020).  On August 7,
2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (Case No. 17-CV-1127) certified two classes in the Moser
case, and the Company timely appealed the Court's Order on the
Motion for Class Certification.  The parties are awaiting a ruling
on such."

Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company,
primarily engages in the development and operation of private
e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement
platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy
administration platforms.  It offers a range of Medicare-related
insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and
supplemental products.  The company was formerly known as Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt
Technologies, Inc. in March 2020.  Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is
based in Tampa, Florida.


BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 2 Securities Suits on MDP Merger Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefytt Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that two putative securities class
actions have been filed against the Company and certain of its
current executive officers related to its merger plan with Madison
Dearborn Partners, LLC.

The cases are styled Patrick Plumley v. Benefytt Technologies,
Inc., Paul E. Avery, Robert Murley, Anthon J. Barkett, John
Fichthorn, Peggy B. Scott, Gavin Southwell, Paul Gabos, Daylight
Beta Parent Corp, and Daylight Beta Corp., Case No. 20-cv-01017,
filed on July 28, 2020, in the United States District Court
District of Delaware; and Shine v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc.,
Paul E. Avery, Robert Murley, Anthony J. Barkett, John Fichthorn,
Peggy B. Scott, Gavin Southwell and Paul Gabos, Case No.
20-cv-05976, filed on July 31, 2020, in United States District
Court Southern District of New York.

Both of the foregoing actions (the "July Securities Actions") were
filed after the July 13, 2020 announcement that the Company had
entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Daylight Beta
Parent Corp. and Daylight Beta Corp., affiliates of Madison
Dearborn Partners, LLC (collectively, "MDP"), pursuant to which,
among other things, MDP has commenced a tender offer to purchase
all of the Company's outstanding Class A common stock at a price of
US$31.00 per share in cash, which is scheduled to expire on August
20, 2020 (the "Proposed Transaction").  Both complaints allege,
among other things, violation of the Exchange Act and that the
Schedule 14D-9 recommendation statement filed by the Company with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
July 24, 2020 (the "Recommendation Statement") contains material
misstatements and omissions concerning the Proposed Transaction in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company,
primarily engages in the development and operation of private
e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement
platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy
administration platforms.  It offers a range of Medicare-related
insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and
supplemental products.  The company was formerly known as Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt
Technologies, Inc. in March 2020.  Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is
based in Tampa, Florida.


BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Belin et al. Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Benefytt Technologies, Inc. continues to face a proposed class
action styled, Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company said, "Separate from the FTC case against Simple
Health, a proposed class action, but not yet certified, styled as
Belin et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et al., Case
No. 19-cv-61430, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on June 7, 2019.  The case alleges
that the Company conspired with Simple Health using a theory of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act along with other
claims and seeks unspecified damages.  The Company's Motion to
Dismiss was partially denied and the Company intends to vigorously
defend against the claims.  The Company filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses on June 22, 2020, and mediation is scheduled
for August 18, 2020.  The Company continues to vigorously defend
against the Claims.  While it is reasonably possible that a loss
may arise from this matter, the amount of such loss is not known or
estimable at this time."

Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company,
primarily engages in the development and operation of private
e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement
platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy
administration platforms.  It offers a range of Medicare-related
insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and
supplemental products.  The company was formerly known as Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt
Technologies, Inc. in March 2020.  Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is
based in Tampa, Florida.


BURGERIM GROUP: Faces ADXX Suit Over Deceptive Franchise System
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADXX, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of itself
other Florida Burgerim franchisees similarly situated v. OREN LONI,
BURGERIM GROUP USA, INC., BURGERIM GROUP, INC., BURGERIM FLORIDA,
LLC, and MARK BASTOROUS, Case No. 0:20-cv-61827-AHS (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 9, 2020), arises from the Defendants' deceptive, unfair,
unconscionable and unlawful marketing and operation of the Burgerim
franchise system, in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and the Florida Franchise Act.

Defendant Loni, the owner of Burgerim at all material times and a
serial franchisor, purchased the Burgerim brand and commenced a
fraudulent investment scheme that has generated at least $50
million but more likely upward of $100 million, from investor
"franchisees" many of whom are Florida residents, the suit says. To
solicit and retain these investors, Loni allegedly used the same
aggressive sales tactics, which resulted in the Bandora lawsuit in
Israel in the United States with Burgerim franchisees.

According to the complaint, Loni's scheme was for area
representatives like Burgerim Florida and Bastorous to sell more
and more franchise licenses with aggressive and fraudulent sales
tactics, collect initial fees, and either stall franchisees from
opening or watch the franchisees, who open fail without any support
from Burgerim, default on loans and eventually go bankrupt.
Burgerim Florida and Bastorous provided no support to assist
franchisees in Florida with securing their spaces and, in certain
cases, such as the Plaintiff, breached their financial
responsibilities in commercial leases that had been transferred to
franchisees.

The Plaintiff invested $478,873.64 toward its Burgerim franchise
location in Hallandale, Florida. The Plaintiff lost all of its
investment when Burgerim Florida and/or Burgerim failed to pay a
substantial amount of past due rent that accrued before the
assignment of the lease to it that they promised to pay, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Burgerim Group USA, Inc. is a California-based burger
franchise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam G. Wasch, Esq.
          Natalie M. Restivo, Esq.
          WASCH RAINES LLP
          2500 N. Military Trail, Suite 303
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 693-3221
          Facsimile: (561) 404-1104
          E-mail: awasch@waschraines.com
                  nrestivo@waschraines.com


CAMILLA CARE: Faces CAD25MM Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Toronto Sun reports that injury law firm Thomson Rogers has filed a
$25 million class-action lawsuit for the families of residents at
Camilla Care community long-term care home where at least 68
patients died from COVID-19.

Mehran Divanbeigi is a plaintiff in the case and her mother, Mehri,
a resident at Camilla Care, died at the facility on May 28 leaving
behind four children and 11 grandchildren.

The class-action alleges Mehri lived in a shared bedroom with three
other residents at the care facility in Mississauga, which is owned
by Sienna Senuor Living Inc.

The suit claims Camilla Care failed to implement screening measures
or social distancing practices, or separate infected and
non-infected residents, following Ontario's declaration of a State
of Emergency on March 17.

The class action also alleges the home was understaffed and there
was a lack of PPE.

On May 27, the province appointed Trillium Health Partners as the
interim manager of Camilla Care.

Between April 22 to June 11, Trillium reported that at Camilla
there were infractions such as a lack of signage indicating which
patients were positive, staff were using garbage bags as PPE and
not properly using the protections.

There were also reports of cockroaches in the building as well as
staff hitting and force-feeding patients.

"This is the fifth action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of
residents of a long-term care home in Ontario and the fourth action
against a Sienna Senior Living home," said Stephen Birman, a
partner involved in the class actions.

"The observations of complete neglect and abuse documented by
Trillium Health Partners and the anonymous employee at Camilla Care
are appalling and unacceptable. Our vulnerable seniors

The action claims a majority of deadly COVID-19 outbreaks occurred
in older long-term care homes with four-bed wards.

The class action alleges that Camilla Care failed to upgrade its
buildings, which contributed to the spread of the pandemic.

"Mehran Divanbeigi and her family, as well as other families of the
victims and survivors of Camilla Care, seek compensation for their
tragic losses," a release from Thompson Rogers said.

"Mehran Divanbeigi hopes that the independent commission into
Ontario's long-term care system and the proposed class action will
result in meaningful change to ensure that a tragedy like this is
never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable long-term care population."

Sienna has not filed a statement of defence yet, said spokesman
Swaraj Mann

"At all times, our highest priority is the health and safety of our
residents and team members. We continue to work closely with public
health authorities and our health care partners to implement all
necessary precautions, protocols, and directives to protect our
residents and team members throughout the pandemic," Mann said.

"We are also making every effort to prepare for a potential second
wave with the focus of keeping residents and team members at
Camilla safe. We are aware of the proposed class action. We are
reviewing the claim and intend to respond in due course through the
appropriate court processes."  [GN]

CIGNA CORP: Amara Appeals Denial Orders in ERISA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Janice C. Amara, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Ruling Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Accounting
dated August 6, 2020, and Order Denying Motion for Clarification
dated September 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Amara v.
CIGNA Corporation, Case No. 01-cv-2361, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit is brought for alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The appellate case is captioned as Amara v. CIGNA Corporation, Case
No. 20-3219, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Janice C. Amara, individually, and on behalf
of other similarly situated, Gisela R. Broderick, and Annette S.
Glanz, are represented by:

          Stephen Robert Bruce, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE, ESQ.
          1667 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 289-1117

Defendants-Appellees CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Pension Plan are
represented by:

          Bradford Sargent Babbitt, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE LLP
          280 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-8200
          E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com

               - and -

          Alice Klair Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-4935
          E-mail: klair.fitzpatrick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Stephanie R. Reiss, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          301 Grant Street, 1 Oxford Centre
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 560-3378
          E-mail: stephanie.reiss@morganlewis.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Cohen Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Cohen filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Robert Cohen v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Case
No. 8:20-cv-00637-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 29,
2020, the lawsuit is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violations of California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code Sections 1750-1785,
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200, and California's False Advertising
Law (FAL).

The Plaintiff is a senior citizen, who purchased the Defendant's
products in several grocery stores in California.

The Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's Chicken Products
advertisement sold under its Banquet trademark as "100% natural"
and/or made with "no preservatives", "no artificial colors", and
"no artificial flavors." However, the advertisement is false and
misleading because its products actually contain synthetic
products, thereby deceiving its customers.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that Defendant's advertising
constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices under
California's CLRA, UCL, and FAL; and injunctive relief ordering
Defendant to stop its unlawful practices, engage in a corrective
ads, refund Plaintiff for each and every one of the Chicken
Products he purchased, and pay restitution to the proposed class.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Cohen v. Conagra Brands,
Inc., Case No. 20-55969, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Robert Cohen's opening brief is due on
      November 17, 2020;

   -- Appellee Conagra Brands, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      December 17, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT COHEN, a consumer, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gretchen Elsner, Esq.
          ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC
          314 S. Guadalupe Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 303-0980
          E-mail: Gretchen@elsnerlaw.org

               - and -

          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          E-mail: Kathleenh@haelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com

               - and -

          Angela M. Spivey, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: angela.spivey@alston.com


CREDIT CORP: Gabrielsen Files FDCPA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Dustin Gabrielsen, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Corp Solutions
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00726-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2020).

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

Credit Corp Solutions is a receivables management company that
purchases and collects consumer debt, including unpaid retail
finance and sales finance credit cards and personal loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


DAIMLER AG: Reaches Agreement in Principle in Emissions Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greencar Congress reports that Daimler AG and its subsidiary
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (MBUSA) have reached an agreement in
principle with US authorities to settle civil and environmental
claims regarding emission control systems of approximately 250,000
diesel passenger cars and vans in the United States.

The involved US authorities are the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Environment
and Natural Resources Division of the US Department of Justice
(DOJ), the California Attorney General's Office, and the US Customs
and Border Protection.

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

Daimler AG and MBUSA have also reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs' counsel to settle the consumer class action "In re
Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation," which is pending before the US
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The company has made sufficient provisions for the expected total
costs of the settlements.

For the settlements with the US authorities, Daimler expects costs
of approx. US$1.5 billion. The estimated cost of the class action
settlement is approximately US$700 million including the court's
anticipated award of attorneys' fees and costs. In addition,
Daimler estimates further expenses of a mid three-digit-million
euro amount to fulfill requirements of the settlements.

Daimler expects a corresponding impact on the Free Cash Flow of the
industrial business over the next 3 years with the main impact
within the next 12 months.

The Board of Management as well as the Supervisory Board of Daimler
AG and Mercedes-Benz AG have approved the proposed settlements
after weighing all aspects in the best interest of the company.
With the proposed settlements, the company takes an important step
towards legal certainty with respect to various diesel proceedings
in the United States.

The settlements are subject to the final approval of the relevant
authorities and courts. The agreement in principle with the US
government authorities will be memorialized in binding consent
decrees. In the coming weeks, the authorities will then lodge the
consent decrees with a US District Court for ultimate approval. The
US consumer class action settlement will be submitted to the US
District Court for the District of New Jersey for approval.

Daimler informed capital markets about the agreements in principle
to comply with disclosure requirements of the European Market Abuse
Regulation (MAR). [GN]

EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Russo Sues Over Defective Roofing Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY RUSSO; BRIANNA BENDIK; JULIANN CALLERY; and JANELLE WRIGHT,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC f/k/a EASTWOOD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC f/k/a EASTWOOD HOMES, INC.; EASTWOOD HOMES, INC.;
EXTERIOR CONTRACT SERVICES, LLC; SOUTHCOAST EXTERIORS, INC.; and
ALPHA OMEGA CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Case No. 2020CP1003794 (S.C.
Com. Pleas, Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
properly perform the roofing work at the Plaintiffs' properties.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants owed
duties to the Plaintiffs to complete the work free from defects, in
a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with all
applicable laws, building codes, industry standards, manufacturer's
installation instructions, and standard of care.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC f/k/a Eastwood Construction,
LLC f/k/a Eastwood Homes, Inc. provides construction services. The
Company offers design-build, construction management, general
contracting, and residential construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          F. Elliotte Quinn IV, Esq.
          THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 2670
          Summerville, SC 29485
          Telephone: (843) 871-6522
          Facsimile: (843) 871-8565


ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Asks 3rd Cir. to Vacate Retransfer of Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midea Microwave and Electrical Appliances Manufacturing
Co., Ltd., filed a petition for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus in the lawsuit
entitled ELAINE RICE, ALEX KUKICH, ERIKA MENDOZA, JAMES HUNT, and
DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., SHARP MANUFACTURING
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a division of SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION;
SHARP APPLIANCES THAILAND LIMITED; MIDEA AMERICA CORP.; MIDEA
MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD; LOWE'S
HOME CENTERS, LLC; MODESTO DIRECT APPLIANCE, INC.; and ABC CORP.
1-10, Case No. 4:15-CV-00371, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The writ of mandamus seeks to direct the Honorable Matthew W.
Brann, United States District Judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania: (1) to vacate the order granting a request to
retransfer to the Eastern District of California; (2) to deny the
request for retransfer; and (3) to reinstate the Order dismissing
Midea China.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 13,
2020, Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (i) granted Sharp America's Motion
to Dismiss; (ii) granted Sharp Thailand's Motion to Dismiss; (iii)
granted Midea China's Motion to Dismiss; (iv) granted Midea
America's Motion to Dismiss; and (v) granted in part and denied in
part Electrolux, Lowe's, and Modesto's Partial Motion to Dismiss.

On Oct. 3, 2018, the named Plaintiffs, as well as other consumers
similarly situated, filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against seven Defendants. The Instant Complaint springs
from alleged defects in the stainless-steel handles of certain
microwaves that consumers install above their stove burner.
According to the Plaintiffs, these offending microwave handles
conduct too much heat from the stoves.

Plaintiffs Rice and Kukich bring the following claims against
Defendant Electrolux: (i) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2201; (ii) strict liability under theories of a design
defect and failure to warn; (iii) negligent failure to warn; (iv)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act;
(v) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (vi) breach
of an express warranty; and (vii) negligence.

Plaintiffs Mendoza and Hunt bring the following claims against
Defendants Electrolux, Midea America, Midea Microwave and
Electrical Appliances Manufactured Co., Ltd. ("Midea China"), Sharp
America, Sharp Thailand, Lowe's, and Modesto: (i) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (ii) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; and (iii) violation of
California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiff Mauro brings the following claims: (i) Against Defendants
Electrolux, Midea America, Midea China, and Lowe's - violation of
New York's General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; (ii) against
Defendant Lowe's--violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act; (iii) against
Defendant Lowe's--breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; and (iv) against Defendants Electrolux, Lowe's,
and Midea China--unjust enrichment.

On Sept. 9, 2019, all Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Instant Complaint.

Judge Brann granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).  Among other things, he (i)
agrees with Defendants Sharp Thailand and Midea China that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them; (ii) finds that
Mauro's claims against Midea America for violation of New York's
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 are dismissed because
they are time-barred; (iii) finds that because Kukich lacks privity
with Electrolux, and no exceptions apply, Kukich's breach of
express warranty claim against Electrolux is dismissed; (iv) finds
that Kukich's claims against Electrolux for breach of express
warranty and breach of implied warranty both fail; (v) that the
Plaintiffs have presented no authority suggesting that Consumer
Legal Remedies Act liability should extend to an entity that only
tested an offending product; and (vi)  Mauro's has sufficiently
alleged that the Handle Defect manifested itself in Mauro's
Microwave.

The Judge denied leave to amend.  Among the grounds that could
justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.  "Futility" means that
the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  Although there is a "liberal pleading
philosophy of the federal rules" a court will dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice because another
opportunity for amendment would be futile.  Accordingly, if a claim
is vulnerable to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), but the plaintiff
moves to amend, leave to amend generally must be granted unless the
amendment would not cure the deficiency.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE MIDEA MICROWAVE AND
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., Case No. 20-2914, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner MIDEA MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. is represented by:

          Gerhard P. Dietrich, Esq.
          WARD GREENBERG HELLER & REIDY LLP
          1835 Market St., Suite 650
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 836-1100
          Facsimile: (215) 836-2845
          E-mail: gdietrich@wardgreenberg.com


ENVIRONMENTAL OIL: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL OIL RECOVERY, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly classified by the
Defendant as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
Consequently, the Defendant paid him the same rate regardless of
how many hours he worked in a day, thereby, failing to pay him
overtime premium at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a driver from
November 2017 to May 2020.

Environmental Oil Recovery, Inc. is a company offering oil
recycling services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Customers File $1.5 Billion Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Singer at Hartford Courant reports that three customers of
Eversource Energy have filed a $1.5 billion class-action lawsuit
over the utility's response to Tropical Storm Isaias, demanding an
admission of culpability in widespread outages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney Edward Jazlowiecki of Bristol said he has been approached
by many angry Eversource customers. He said he's certain the
lawsuit will be certified as a class, potentially expanding the
number of plaintiffs suing Eversource into the thousands.

He said he's not waiting for PURA to complete an investigation into
the response by Eversource and United Illuminating.

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

Stephen Singer can be reached at ssinger@courant.com. [GN]

FAIRLIFE LLC: Ynfante Sues Over Deceptive Core Power Milk Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
YAHAYRA YNFANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAIRLIFE LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-07776 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violation of New
York General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and false advertising, labeling and marketing of its milk drink
under Core Power brand. The product's front label representations
include "Vanilla," "Natural Flavors," cured vanilla beans, and
vanilla flowers. However, these representations are misleading
because the product contains artificial, non-vanilla flavors not
disclosed to consumers and less vanilla than consumers expect.

Consumers, including Plaintiff, expect the product's vanilla taste
to only come from vanilla because they are accustomed to labels
which prominently disclose the source of a food's flavor, according
to the complaint. The Defendant's branding and packaging of the
product is designed to, and does, deceive, mislead, and defraud the
Plaintiff and consumers.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is
sold at a premium price compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of
the product if it were represented in a non-misleading way.

Fairlife LLC is a dairy company that produces milk products with
its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 303-0552
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


FANATICS INC: Hit With Lawsuit Over Employee Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------
Foot Wear News reports that Fanatics Inc. has been hit with a
proposed class action lawsuit over its alleged failure to provide
adequate notice to several hundred employees it terminated last
month.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in the Middle
District of Florida, Fanatics worker Olga Calero--on behalf of
similarly situated individuals--said that the retailer provided her
and other workers written notice just four days before they were
terminated from the company on Aug. 28. She claimed that the move
was in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, which requires that most employers with 100 or
more workers to provide a 60-day advance notice of plant closings
and mass layoffs of employees.

"The crucial date under the WARN Act is not the date when the
company knows that a mass layoff is imminent, nor is it the date
when the company finally gets around to identifying the exact
employees affected by the mass layoff. Rather, the WARN Act states
plainly that the trigger date is the date when a mass layoff is
'reasonably foreseeable,'" the suit read. "As soon as it is
probable that a mass layoff will occur, the employer must provide
notice as soon as is practicable."

According to the lawsuit, Calero suggested that Fanatics "likely
knew" near the end of March or in early April that a "mass layoff
was 'reasonably foreseeable.'" When the coronavirus health crisis
took hold in the United States, the chain was forced to shutter its
locations and resorted to furloughs starting on March 20. Calero
shared that she and other furloughed employees received phone calls
and emails that indicated they would be brought back to work but
learned on Aug. 24 that they would be let go from the company.

"This, in turn, caused the named plaintiff not to seek other
employment as she erroneously assumed she would be brought back to
work," the suit read. "The same is true for other putative class
members."

It added, "While [the plaintiff] understood that the ongoing
pandemic was causing problems for the company, she both expected
and was entitled to sufficient advance written notice as to her
termination . . .  [Fanatics'] failure to provide its employees
with sufficient advance written notice had a devastating economic
impact on the named plaintiff and the putative class members."

Calero said that between 100 and 200 people were laid off at the
facility in Riverview, Fla., where she served as a shipping clerk.
She shared that she had worked at Fanatics for nearly 16 years.

As part of the complaint, Calero has asked for 60 days' worth of
wages, bonuses and benefits, plus damages for medical expenses that
may have been incurred by the proposed class action members.

In a statement to FN, a Fanatics spokesperson wrote, "The complaint
is without merit, and we strongly believe our actions are fully
consistent with all applicable laws." [GN]

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion for leave by class plaintiff and the
motion to adjourn class certification by the defendant in the
"Turner Suit" remain pending.  Discovery is still stayed pending
decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Kachmar Action"), was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers by a
purported Company stockholder.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's disclosure related to the FPI Loan
Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Mariconda Action") was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar
Action.  Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the
Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.  

On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action
voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action.  

On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders
of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia
Turner (the "Turners"), as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda
Action.

On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and
additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended
complaint in the Turner Action.  

On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Turner Action.

On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action.  The defendants
answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019.

On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk
Capital Management from the case.  In connection with Obelisk
Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which
automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's
determination of the motion.

On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint.  Defendants filed a response opposing the
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17,
2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification
briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29,
2020.  These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed
pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

Farmland Partners said, "At this time, no class has been certified
in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or
other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs.  The Company can
provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or
provide an estimate of related expenses at this time."

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


FASKEN OIL: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Crabtree Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENT CRABTREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASKEN OIL AND RANCH, LTD., Case No. 7:20-cv-00227
(W.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged unlawful practice of misclassifying oilfield workers in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff and other oilfield workers as independent contractors,
thereby, failing to pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation for all the hours that they worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid them a flat amount
only for each day worked, regardless of the numbers of hours that
they worked that day.

The Plaintiff worked exclusively for the Defendant as a Completions
Consultant from 2018 through 2019.

Fasken oil and Ranch, Ltd. engages in oil and gas exploration and
production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


FASTLY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FSLY) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Fastly between May 6, 2020 and August 5,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Fastly investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fastly's largest
customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have
serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S.
officials; (2) there was a material risk that Fastly's business
would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken
against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Fastly
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via
e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


FIVE POINT: Still Faces Bayview Hunters Point Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC remains a defendant in a putative class
action suit initiated by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point
neighborhood, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar and the Company as defendants.  The
plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently
misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts.  The
plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have
requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.

Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San
Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and
the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants.  The plaintiffs
allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco
Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased
their homes.  They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants
(not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San
Francisco Shipyard under California law.  They seek damages as well
as certain declaratory relief.

All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Five Point said, "The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations in all of these cases and may have
insurance and indemnification rights against third parties,
including related parties, with respect to these claims.  Given the
preliminary nature of these claims, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of these matters."

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


FLUIDIGM CORP: Saintjermain Sues Over 51% Decline in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
REENA SAINTJERMAIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FLUIDIGM CORPORATION, STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER
LINTHWAITE, and VIKRAM JOG, Case No. 3:20-cv-06617 (N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 21, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements
resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.

The lawsuit is a class action brought on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Fluidigm securities
between February 7, 2019, and November 5, 2019, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other class members
have suffered significant losses and damages following the
revelation of certain alleged disclosures. On August 1, 2019,
Fluidigm reported second quarter 2019 revenue of $28.2 million,
well below analysts' expectations of $32 million, citing weakness
in its microfluidics segment. On this news, the Company's share
price fell $4.10, or 34%, to close at $8.05 per share on August 2,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Also on November 5, 2019,
after the market closed, Fluidigm reported that third quarter 2019
revenue declined 8.5% year-over-year primarily due to mass
cytometry instrument sales. On this news, the Company's share price
fell $2.60, or 51%, to close at $2.51 per share on November 6,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff asserts that the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
(2) that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (3) 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.

Fluidigm Corporation is a public, American company engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of biological research equipment based
on integrated fluidic circuit technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


GEO GROUP: New Lawsuit Asserts Poor Handling of COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------
Fox 24 News reports that another Class Action Lawsuit has been
filed against the GEO Group. Investors filed the lawsuit against
the for-profit prison operator due to their poor handling of
COVID-19 in their facilities and misleading investors on their
handling of outbreaks.

"Something needs to be done soon because COVID-19 is spreading
really quickly and it is only a matter of time," said Denisse Mata,
an inmates wife at one of the Reeves County Detention Center that
is owned by the GEO Group.

The 25-page class action complaint states that the GEO Group made
"false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies."

The claim also states that they "specifically made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose that the geo group
maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures."

"They run other private prisons and in all of them they have the
same exact problem," said Mata.

This particular lawsuit highlighting the GEO Group's "inadequate
procedures subjected residents of the company's halfway houses at a
significant health risk" in a Kansas based facility.

These complaints sounding eerily similar to those being made right
here in West Texas, Dennise Mata said this is not an isolated
case.

"The inmates that are showing the symptoms they are not being
quarantined or they are not being placed into other units. They are
all mixed up together," she said.

The lawsuit stating that the GEO Group was vulnerable to
significant financial and reputable harm and as a result lied in
public statements when they said they were handling the COVID-19
outbreak and provided accurate care.

Mata said, "It just makes you feel frustrated and scared that every
day you go to sleep and you wake up even scared to answer that
phone call that probably your husband is going to be next or if he
is feeling sick and it's just hard."

The GEO Grouptells us they filled to dismiss the lawsuit.This is
just one lawsuit, however, there are 42 records of the geo group
settling for employee-related offenses. They have had to pay $10M
in penalties for 15 instances of misconduct and have 8 additional
cases pending in litigation. [GN]

GMRI INC: Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as IGNACIO FLORES, as an individual and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. GMRI, INC. dba Yardhouse;
SOUTH COUNTY CONCEPTS, INC. dba Taps Fish House and Brewery; DARDEN
RESTAURANTS, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01153719-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on September
18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01779 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Act,
including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to
provide required meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages
upon termination, failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized
wage statements and maintain records, failure to pay for necessary
expenses, and unlawful business practices.

GMRI, Inc., d/b/a Yardhouse, is a company that operates a chain of
restaurants based in Orlando, Florida. South County Concepts, Inc.,
d/b/a Taps Fish House and Brewery, is a restaurant operator with
principal place of business in Brea, California. Darden
Restaurants, Inc. is an American multi-brand restaurant operator
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

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


GREAT SOUTHERN: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, DeAngelis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER DeANGELIS, invidually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD-GLENWOOD, INC., and GREAT
SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING, INCORPORATED, Case No. 6:20-cv-06103-SOH
(W.D. Ark., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Shipping and Receiving Supervisor from May 2016 to August 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that although he and other similarly situated
employees were paid by the Defendant their overtime pay at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Defendant failed to include the
non-discretionary bonuses that were paid to him and other similarly
situated employees when calculating their overtime pay.

Great Southern Wood-Glenwood, Inc. and Great Southern Wood
Preserving, Incorporated were merged and managed in a unified
manner and operated as a single enterprise that manufactures and
sells lumber and lumber products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRUBHUB INC: Still Defends Stockholder Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grubhub Inc. remains a defendant in a class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

On November 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, Chief
Executive Officer Matthew Maloney, and President and Chief
Financial Officer Adam DeWitt in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665.

The complaint, which was amended on July 24, 2020, asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on its
allegation that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about the Company's growth, competitive landscape, and strategy.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees, among other relief.  Pursuant to a court scheduling order,
the matter is expected to be fully briefed by March 2021.

The Company said, "The defendants believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and that a material loss is not probable.  However,
given the early stage of the proceedings, a reasonable estimate of
the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time."

Grubhub Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a leading online
and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders,
which the Company refers to as takeout. The Company connects more
than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities
across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout
experience. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.



HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Mendez TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE MENDEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-61892-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began sending numerous
prerecorded voice messages and placing calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number (978) XXX-4772 beginning in 2019 and
continued into 2020 in an attempt to contact a third party unknown
to the Plaintiff for the purpose of attempting to collect a debt in
default. The Defendant failed to obtain prior express consent from
the Plaintiff when delivering prerecorded voice messages and
placing calls to his cellular telephone number, the Plaintiff
contends.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls and prerecorded
voice messages, the Plaintiff has suffered actual harm that
includes invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a
private nuisance.

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC is a debt collection
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Tel: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


HERNAN AND BROTHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morocho Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILMER MOROCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HERNAN AND BROTHER CORP.; and HERNAN CHICHILIMA
ESPINOZA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03999 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Morocho was employed by the Defendants as ceramic
installer.

Hernan And Brother Corp. is engaged in the construction
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


HSBC BANK: Vasquez Appeals Rulings in RICO Suit to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia filed an appeal from
the District Court's Opinion and Order dated September 10, 2020,
and Judgment dated August 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., Case No.
18-cv-1876, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 1,
2020, HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has granted HSBC Bank
USA's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Rigoberto
Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.

This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in March 2018 against HSBC Bank
USA and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation. The Plaintiffs
purport to represent those that invested in a Ponzi scheme
allegedly orchestrated by Phil Ming Xu and certain companies he
allegedly controlled, such as WCM777.

Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is alleged to have
accepted wire transfers from the Plaintiffs to WCM777 from
investors in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. HSBC Bank USA is
alleged to have acted as Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation's correspondent bank for certain wire transfers to
WCM777.

The purported class period is from June 2013 to May 2014. The
Plaintiffs allege claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
conversion. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount
of $37 million plus punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In August 2018, the HSBC defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
response, plaintiffs requested and received leave from the court to
file an amended complaint, which was filed in October 2018. The
HSBC defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in December
2018.

In May 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted HSBC Bank USA's motion and dismissed it from the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Vasquez v. Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking, Case No. 20-3081, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Rigoberto Vasquez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and Eva Garcia, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steven Nunez, Esq.
          SMN LAW GROUP APC
          c/o 401 West A Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 296-8400
          E-mail: steve@smnlaw.com

               - and -

          Julio Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015

Defendant-Appellee Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation,
Ltd., a foreign company, is represented by:

          Craig Convissar, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 940-6369
          E-mail: craig.convissar@katten.com


HSN INC: Smith Product Liability Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as NINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HSN, INC.; INGENIOUS DESIGNS, LLC; JOY
MANGANO; KILMA MCKENNISS; DOES (1-5), FICTIOUSLY NAMED INDIVIDUAL;
and ABC COMPANIES (1-5), FICTIOUSLY NAMED BUSINESSES, Case No.
MID-L-005866-20, was removed from the Superior Court of the New
Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on September 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-12869 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Products Liability Act, breach of warranty, consumer fraud,
and unjust enrichment due to the injuries purportedly caused by a
portable clothing steamer known as My Little Steamer Deluxe.

HSN, Inc., is an online shopping company with its principal place
of business located in St. Petersburg, Florida. Ingenious Designs,
LLC is a manufacturer of textile products based in Ronkonkoma, New
York. Ingenious is wholly-owned subsidiary of the Home Shopping
Network (HSNi).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                  

         Kerry C. Donovan, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 294-6700
         E-mail: kcdonovan@winston.com

                - and –

         Daniel M. Blouin, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 558-5600
         Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
         E-mail: DBlouin@winston.com

                - and –

         Johanna Rae Hudgens, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 294-6700
         Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
         E-mail: JHudgens@winston.com


ICONIC BARBERSHOP: Cole Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages to Barbers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES COLE v. ICONIC BARBERSHOP, LLC ANGELA M. CRUZ, and EDGAR
MARTINEZ, Case No. 20SMCV01256 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 9, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated licensed barbers, stylists, and cosmetologists
due to the Defendants' unlawful labor practices, including failure
to pay wages, in violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to pay minimum wage
and overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees, fail to provide meal and rest periods, and fail to
provide an itemized statement in writing accurately showing gross
wages earned, total hours worked, and the number of piece-rate
units earned. The Defendants also allegedly engage in breach of an
oral agreement and fraud by false promise when Defendant Cruz
orally promised that if the Plaintiff came to work for the Company
as a licensed barber, Ms. Cruz would allow him to take walk-in
customers, who came into the barbershop in the City of West
Hollywood based on seniority of other licensed barbers.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants his prevailing
waged for 30 additional dates after the date of his termination
from employment with the Defendants and seeks to recover damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for claims under the unfair
competition law and the California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.

Iconic Barbershop, LLC is a barber shop located in West Hollywood,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilya Alekseyeff, Esq.
          LOIA, INC. (APLC)
          8721 Santa Monica Blvd., #119
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 537-4592
          E-mail: ilya@loia.legal


INDEMNITY INSURANCE: Schatzi Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCHATZI CORPORATION, YKG CORPORATION, KG715 INCORPORATED and S&D
DINING GROUP LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04613-GAM (E.D. Pa., Sept. 21, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant arbitrarily denied coverage and payments to insureds
that suffered business losses as the result of various shutdown
orders due to COVID-19 pandemic.

On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiffs purchased a commercial policy of
insurance issued by the Defendant with bilateral contracts that the
Plaintiffs agreed to pay monthly premiums to the Defendant in
exchange for the Defendant's promises of coverage for all risks of
loss except those specifically and unambiguously excluded.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs reported notice of their
losses to the Defendant on March 17, 2020, resulting from the
suspension of the Plaintiffs' respective operations due to COVID-19
pandemic. In response, on May 12, 2020, the Defendant reneged on
its promises and wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual
obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiffs'
business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the
suspension of their operations. The Defendant's actions in
improperly denying the Plaintiffs' claims were a blatant disregard
for their contractual rights and resulted in a material breach of
the Defendant's duties and obligation owed under the policy, thus,
depriving the Plaintiffs of the benefit of their bargain and
causing serious financial damages to them, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs own and operate separate restaurants in New York
City.

Indemnity Insurance Company of North America operates as an
insurance company. The Company provides commercial and personal
property and casualty, personal accident, health, reinsurance, and
life insurance services. Indemnity Insurance serves clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action Brought by a Group of Homeowners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scoop Media reports that a class action brought by a group of over
140 homeowners against cladding manufacturer James Hardie began a
16-week hearing on August 17 in the High Court in Wellington before
Justice Simon France.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Dan Parker of Parker & Associates said the
claim was filed in 2015 and the owner group is looking forward to
the hearing getting underway.

Mr. Parker said the claim alleges that James Hardie was negligent
and made misleading statements in relation to the manufacture and
sale of its wall cladding system, Harditex. He noted that James
Hardie denies the allegations, which will be the subject of
contested fact and expert evidence before the Court over the next
four months.

It is not known exactly how many properties were built using
Harditex from 1987 until the cladding system was withdrawn in
2005.

Lead plaintiff Katrina Fowler bought her Harditex-clad Wellington
home in 2000. She has been told that it will cost more than
$420,000 to fix. Ms Fowler is the chair of the committee that
manages the claim for the group.

"Many in our group have suffered stress and anxiety and struggle
with the financial hardships associated with this situation," Ms
Fowler said.

"We are pleased that our 'day in Court' has now arrived."

The lead representative plaintiffs represent a group of just over
140 owners. The plaintiffs seek damages for the cost of repairs
plus special damages, general damages, post remediation stigma
damages and expert costs. At this first stage the Court will
determine common issues of whether a legal duty was owed, and if so
whether that duty was breached and whether misleading statements
were made in the technical literature. [GN]

JBLK ENTERPRISES: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JBLF Enterprises. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. JBLF Enterprises doing
business as: Beat Kicks, Case No. 1:20-cv-04429 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
21, 2020).

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

Beat Kicks are washable protective headphone covers that keep sweat
and unwanted moisture, makeup or anything else from damaging
headphones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


JERNBERG INDUSTRIES: Ervin BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as WAHEED ERVIN, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JERNBERG INDUSTRIES, LLC and AMERICAN
AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 2020CH05318, was removed from
the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05541 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, capturing,
receiving, obtaining, maintaining, storing or disclosing the
handprints of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
individuals during their employment.

Jernberg Industries, LLC, produces and supplies heavy forged
materials, with its principal place of business located in Chicago,
Illinois.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. is an American manufacturer of
automobile driveline and drivetrain components and systems,
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           
      
         Anne E. Larson, Esq.
         Jennifer L. Colvin, Esq.
         Cyle R. Catlett, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 558-1220
         E-mail: anne.larson@ogletree.com
                 jennifer.colvin@ogletree.com
                 cyle.catlett@ogletree.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gill Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as NANCY ACORD GILL, an individual, and NED
GILL, an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV27570, 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 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08561 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, negligent failure to warn, strict liability--design defect,
strict liability--failure to warn, breach of warranty,
fraud--intentional misrepresentation, fraud--concealment, negligent
representation, and loss of consortium.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation that
develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged
goods, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., is a company that provides consumer products based
in New Jersey.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           

         Michael F. Healy, Esq.
         Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         One Montgomery, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 544-1900
         Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
         E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                 eweissenberger@shb.com

               - and –

         Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
         Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
         TUCKER ELLIS LLP
         515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
         Telephone: (213) 430-3400
         Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
         E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                 amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Thomas Sues Over Breach of Contract and Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05902-BHS (W.D. Wash., Sept. 9, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's breach of contract and illegal robocalls, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff enrolled in the Defendant's "COVID-19 Payment
Assistance" payment deferral program in May 2020 and his monthly
credit card payments to the Defendant, including past due amounts,
were deferred for three months. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant unlawfully started telephone calls to the Plaintiff using
autodialers and prerecorded messages, also known as "robocalls" on
August 11, 2020.

According to the complaint, the "robocalls" from the Defendant were
unsolicited, unwanted, and harassing and unwarranted, since the
Plaintiff's minimum payment to the Defendant was not due until
September 1, 2020, which the Defendant stated in an email to the
Plaintiff. The "robocalls" from the Defendant continued even though
the Plaintiff's payment had been deferred until October 1, 2020.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services holding company headquartered in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Rosfjord, Esq.
          ROSFJORD LAW, PLLC
          6725 22nd Ave. NW
          Seattle, WA 98107
          Telephone: (206) 321-4849
          E-mail: rosfjordlaw@gmail.com


KIM CHEE PRIDE: Ramiro Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO RAMIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KIM CHEE PRIDE, INCORPORATED, and SUNG KIM and JAMES
KIM, as individuals, Case No. 2:20-cv-12780-CCC-ESK (D.N.J., Sept.
17, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law,
including failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2005 until
August 2020 as a warehouse worker, kimchi bottler, and performing
other miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 48
hours per week for the Defendants from August 2017 until April
2020. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime pay
at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the hours
worked over 40. Allegedly, the Defendant had common practice of
willfully failing and refusing to pay required minimum and overtime
wage compensation.

Kim Chee Pride, Incorporated, sells kimchi, a Korean traditional
vegetable dish, which has been a very important part of Korean diet
for many centuries. The Individual Defendants own and operate the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


L.A. COUNTY, CA: Pandemic-Driven Mall Closings Bring Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes at Bloomberglaw.com, reports that Los Angeles County
was hit with a proposed class action in federal court challenging
its Covid-19-related closure of non-essential businesses in indoor
malls and shopping centers.

Del Amo Fashion Center Operating Co. LLC and retailer Rivas Sports
Inc. filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, seeking to end the closings in the county,
which includes the city of Los Angeles and suburbs.

Indoor malls are open and operating safely elsewhere in California
and other parts of the country, and stores not located in indoor
shopping centers or malls are open and operating safely in L.A.,
the complaint says.

However, indoor shopping centers and their interior retailers in
the county "uniquely remain closed, and many of their employees,
like Ms. Rivas, remain out of work-without any explanation or any
scientific support," the complaint alleges.

No evidence shows that indoor malls pose a greater risk of
spreading Covid-19 than the large and small retailers, including
hair salons and barbershops, that the county has permitted to
remain open, the plaintiffs allege.

The retailers say their due process rights are being violated
because they have been given no way to challenge what they say is
the "lack of any rational basis for the county order."

Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983, violation of due process
under U.S. and California constitution.

Relief: Damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Potential Class Size: The complaint doesn't specify the number of
class members but estimates more than 150 interior retailers aren't
essential businesses in the Del Amo mall alone.

Response: The board didn't immediately respond to request for
comment.

Attorneys: Latham and Watkins LLP represents the plaintiffs.

The case is Rivas Sports Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, C.D. Cal.,
No. 20-cv-08312, 9/10/20.[GN]

LAST RESORT: Ex-Workers File Suit Under FLSA Over Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Ford at Online Athens reports that three former employees of
the Last Resort Grill, a popular restaurant in downtown Athens,
have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking back wages on a
complaint that management violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The former employees, Rachel Mills, Keela Singleton and Madison
McDearis, allege in the suit that they were required to work "off
the clock" without pay and that the tip arrangement at the
restaurant was not fair.

The suit was filed Aug. 24 in the U.S. Middle District Court.

Lawyers for the Last Resort and its co-owners, Melissa Clegg and
Jamshad Zarnegar, did not respond to e-mails and calls for comment.
However, the defendants typically have 21 days to file an answer to
a lawsuit.

Watkinsville attorney Peter Steckel, who represents the plaintiffs,
said such lawsuits against restaurants are not rare.

"It's a very common issue in the restaurant industry and is known
now collectively as wage theft," he said. "It probably occurs in
about 70 percent of restaurants out there to some degree. It's a
pretty big issue."

One issue involves tips. The suit alleges that servers were
pressured and harassed to share tips, with some tip money going
managers. The restaurant never provided the employees with a
written description of how the tip pool would be distributed,
according to the suit.

A 2015 story in the Washington Post about tips noted that the
government created labor rules "which stipulates, among other
things, that if tips are pooled, they can only be distributed among
workers who 'customarily and regularly receive tips.' Cooks do not
qualify. Neither do dishwashers or janitors."

But Steckel said the more serious issue was requiring employees to
work off the clock without pay.

"That's always a no-no," he said.

The suit alleges the practices date to at least 2012.

The lawsuit is described as a collective action, somewhat similar
to a class action suit in that other individuals with claims that
fit the parameters of the complaints can join in with the three
original plaintiffs, according to Steckel.

"We will ask the court for a collective action," he said, adding
that there are at least seven or eight other former employees who
may join the suit.

While the defendant's lawyers could not be reached, Steckel said
they work with a large law firm that handles these type cases
throughout the United States. [GN]

LOREX CORP: Mapstead Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Richard Mapstead, Sevim Badak, David Chromy,
Ronald Pottinger, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Lorex Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00936, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Sept. 21, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-06606-JSC to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Lorex Technology Inc. a is a Canadian-operated video surveillance
company that distributes video security systems through retail and
online channels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 509-6056
          Fax: (858) 509-6040
          Email: chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          G. Mark Edgarton, Esq.
          Samuel N. Rudman, Esq.
          CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
          Two International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 248-5101
          Fax: (617) 502-5101
          Email: medgarton@choate.com
                 srudman@choate.com

               - and -

          Jenna Uyen Nguyen, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 622-2700
          Fax: (949) 622-2739
          Email: jenna.nguyen@troutman.com


LUIS FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Robles Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR DUNCAN ROBLES; and JAIME GENAO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LUIS FURNITURE STYLE CORP.; LUIS
FURNITURE #1 INC.; LUIS FURNITURE #2 INC. d/b/a AMSTERDAM
FURNITURE; LUIS TORRES; and NELLY LANTIGUA, Case No. 1:20-cv-06951
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as driver's
assistants.

Luis Furniture Style Corp. manufactures office furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


MAGNITE INC: Suits v Telaria over Merger Deal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Magnite, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that as of June 30, 2020, all of the complaints
related to Telaria, Inc.'s merger with the Company have been
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.

Between February 5 and March 16, 2020, nine lawsuits were filed by
purported stockholders of Telaria in connection with the merger
with Magnite, Inc. Two lawsuits were brought as putative class
actions (captioned Sabatini v. Telaria, Inc., et al. and Carter v.
Telaria, Inc., et al).  Seven lawsuits were brought by the
plaintiffs individually (captioned Stein v. Telaria, Inc., et al;
Lin v. Telaria, Inc. et al; Melool v. Telaria, Inc., et al;
Robinson v. Telaria, Inc., et al; Wu v. Telaria, Inc., et al; Yang
v. Telaria, Inc., et al; and Corthell v Telaria, Inc. et al
(collectively, the "Complaints")).  The Complaints name as
defendants Telaria and each member of its Board of Directors.  The
Sabatini complaint additionally names Magnite and Madison Merger
Corp. ("Merger Sub") as defendants.

On March 23, 2020, Telaria and Magnite filed supplemental
disclosures to its Definitive Proxy Statement, mooting the
Complaints and on April 1, 2020 the Merger was approved by
stockholders of Telaria and Magnite.


MCESSY INVESTMENT: American Family Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McEssy Investment
Company, et al. The case is styled as American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, S.I. v. McEssy Investment Company; Joanna
Currie, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Case No. 1:20-cv-05591 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 21, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated Insurance Contract.

McEssy Investment Company was founded in 1981. The Company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
          PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
          One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606-4673
          Phone: (312) 346-1973
          Email: rchemers@pretzel-stouffer.com


MDL 2036: Avery Appeals Ruling in Overdraft Suit to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephanie Avery filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: CHECKING ACCOUNT
OVERDRAFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 21,
2019, the Court entered an order on Nov. 13, 2019:

   1. provisionally certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all holders of an RBC Account who, from October 10, 2007
       through March 1, 2012, incurred one or more Overdraft Fees
       as a result of RBC's High-to-Low Posting. Excluded from
       the Class are all former RBC and current PNC officers and
       directors, and the judge presiding over the Action;"

   2. appointing Michael Dasher as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing persons and entities as Class Counsel

   4. appointing the following Attorneys Aaron Podhurst, Bruce S.
      Rogov, and Robert C. Gilbert as Settlement Class Counsel;

   5. preliminarily approving Settlement; and

   6. directing Epiq Class Action & Claim Solutions to act as
      Settlement Administrator, Notice Administrator, Escrow
      Agent, and Tax Administrator.

In 2010, the Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, who incurred Overdraft Fees as a result of
RBC's practice of posting Debit Card Transactions to an Account in
order from highest to lowest dollar amount ("High-to-Low Posting").
The Plaintiffs alleged that RBC systemically engaged in High-to-Low
Posting of Debit Card Transactions to maximize the Bank's Overdraft
Fee revenues. According to the Plaintiffs, RBC's practices violated
the Bank's contractual and good faith duties and the North Carolina
consumer protection statute, were substantively and procedurally
unconscionable, and resulted in conversion and unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Avery v. Wells Fargo
Bank N.A., et al., Case No. 20-13367, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before October 19, 2020;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
      September 23, 2020 as to Appellant Stephanie Avery; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before October 7, 2020 as to Appellee Capital One, NA.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHANIE AVERY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard Croutharmel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD CROUTHARMEL
          303-200 Blake St., Ste. 211
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-1113

               - and -

          Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, PA
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666

               - and -

          Bruce Stephen Rogow, Esq.
          BRUCE S. ROGOW, PA
          100 Ne 3rd Ave., Ste. 1000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 767-8909

               - and -

          Inez de Ondarza Simmons, Esq.
          5 W Hargett St., Ste. 808
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 256-3736

Defendants-Appellees WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., KEYBANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, COMERICA BANK, CAPITAL ONE, NA, and WACHOVIA BANK,
N.A. are represented by:

          Tracy L. Ashmore, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1700 Lincoln, Ste. 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-7000

               - and -

          Ronald E. Beard, Esq.
          Rudy Albert Englund, Esq.
          Tara N. Gillespie, Esq.
          Brian J. Meenaghan, Esq.
          Mary Schug Young, Esq.
          LANE POWELL, PC
          1420 5th Ave., Ste. 4200
          PO Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000
          E-mail: englundr@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Eric C. Bosset, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          850 10th St. NW, Rm. 3135
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5606
          E-mail: ebosset@cov.com

               - and -

          Barry R. Davidson, Esq.
          Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          1111 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810-2539
          E-mail: bdavidson@HuntonAK.com
                  jisani@HuntonAK.com

               - and -

          Barbara J. Dawson, Esq.
          Robert Matthew Kort, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER, LLP
          400 E Van Buren St., Ste. 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6000
          E-mail: bdawson@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Pehrson, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Sq.
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4715
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Laurence J. Hutt, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
          777 S Figueroa St., Fl. 44
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000

               - and -

           Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
           Ashley Simonsen, Esq.
           Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
           David M. Jolly, Esq.
           COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
           415 Mission St., Ste. 5400
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Telephone: (415) 591-6000
           E-mail: clannin@cov.com
                   asimonsen@cov.com
                   swinner@cov.com
                
                - and -

           John M. Cooney, Esq.
           SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP
           200 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1000
           Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
           Telephone: (954) 713-7615

                - and -

           Alan Gary Kipnis, Esq.
           Susan E. Trench, Esq.
           SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP
           701 Brickell Ave., Fl. 17
           Miami, FL 33131
           Telephone: (305) 428-4500
           E-mail: alan.kipnis@saul.com
                   setrench@gmail.com
     
                - and -

           Julie K. Biermacher, Esq.
           Kenneth Craig Johnston, Esq.
           Eliot Walker, Esq.
           KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN, PC
           1601 Elm St., Ste. 3700
           Dallas, TX 75201
           Telephone: (214) 777-4200

                - and -

           Thomas A. Casey, Esq.
           Pauline F. Hardin, Esq.
           David G. Radlauer, Esq.
           JONES WALKER, LLP
           201 St Charles Ave., Ste. 5100
           New Orleans, LA 70170
           Telephone: (504) 582-8252
           E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com
                   phardin@joneswalker.com
                   dradlauer@joneswalker.com

                - and -

           Rita F. Lin, Esq.
           James F. McCabe, Esq.
           MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
           425 Market St., Fl. 32
           San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
           Telephone: (415) 268-7339

                - and -

           James R. McGuire, Esq.
           BUCKLEY, LLP
           201 Mission St., Fl. 12
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Telephone: (415) 619-3500
           E-mail: jmcguire@buckleyfirm.com

                - and -

           Tracy Thomas Cottingham, III, Esq.
           WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
           100 N Tryon St., Ste. 2900
           Charlotte, NC 28202-1078
           Telephone: (704) 350-7700


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Harmet Files Personal Injury Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medline Industries,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Thomas Harmet, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; VANTAGE SPECIALTIES,
INC. f/k/a PETROFERM INC v. Medline Industries, Inc., Steris
Corporation, Steris Isomedix Services, Inc., ISOMEDIX OPERATIONS
INC., COSMED GROUP INC., COSMED STERILIZATION OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc., LAMBENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP, BASF
Corp, PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05605 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 21, 2020).

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

Medline Industries, Inc. is a private American healthcare company
based in Northfield, Illinois. It is the largest privately held
manufacturer and distributor of medical supplies providing
products, education, clinical programs and services across the
continuum of care with offices in 20 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 610-5350
          Email: lweinstein@gelaw.com


MID CITY CANNABIS: Faces Matthews Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MID CITY CANNABIS CLUB, INC. d/b/a LA BREA COLLECTIVE,
Case No. 2:20-cv-07841 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Mid City Cannabis Club, Inc., d/b/a La Brea Collective, operates as
cannabis production company. The Company engages in growing,
extraction, and genetics labs that helps in producing
cannabis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
           EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
           20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
           Aventura, FL 33180
           E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Miller Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Deondra Miller filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Deondra Miller v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 9:19-cv-81660-DMM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Deondra Miller v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 20-13390, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
October 7, 2020, as to Appellee Midland Credit Management,
Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DEONDRA MILLER, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated consumers, is represented by:

          Brian T. Giles, Esq.
          STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC
          441 Vine St., Ste. 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-2666
          Facsimile: (312) 263-1201
          E-mail: bgiles@statmanharris.com
          
               - and -

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (973) 525-2552
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. is represented
by:

          Cory William Eichhorn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          701 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 789-7709
          E-mail: Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Philip E. Rothschild, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-1000
          E-mail: Phil.Rothschild@hklaw.com


MONTGOMERY LYNCH: Faces Henry Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONTGOMERY LYNCH & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-02253-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Montgomery Lynch & Associates, Inc., is a full-service collection
firm specializing in the design and implementation of Account
receivable collection and Early-out programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angie@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


MOUNTAIN RUN: Reynolds Files FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain Run
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christina Reynolds,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mountain Run Solutions LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
4:20-cv-01118-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 21, 2020).

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

Mountain Run Solutions LLC specializes in purchasing non-performing
receivables in all industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Adjourned to Oct. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the next case management conference in the
case, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc.,
BC 662330, has been adjourned from July 31, 2020 to October 30,
2020.  

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.

The parties have agreed to stay the case and have stipulated to
adjourn the next case management conference from July 31, 2020 to
October 30, 2020.

The Company said it believes that the claims lack merit and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NANTHEALTH INC: Court Wants Report on Costs in Deora Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a hearing for final approval of the settlement
of the case, Atul Singh Deora v. NantHealth, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal.), was scheduled for June 15, 2020, but on
June 5, 2020, the Court decided to take the final approval motion
on submission, and on July 17, the Court directed Plaintiff's
counsel to submit evidence substantiating all costs incurred.

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of the Company's current or former executive officers and
directors.  These complaints have been consolidated with the lead
case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825 ("Deora").

In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's IPO registration statement and in subsequent public
statements.  In particular, the complaint refers to various
third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented
NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the
university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's
founder Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer.  The
lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth
securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016
through May 1, 2017.

In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action.

On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had
reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a
classwide basis in the amount of US$16,500,000, which was included
in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet at December 31, 2019.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January
31, 2020.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement was scheduled for
June 15, 2020, but on June 5, 2020, the Court decided to take the
final approval motion on submission, and on July 17, 2020, the
Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to submit evidence
substantiating all costs incurred.

The US$16,500,000 settlement was paid into a settlement fund prior
to the payment deadline of March 2, 2020.  The majority of the
settlement amount was funded by the Company's insurance carriers,
and a portion was funded by the Company.  

The Company said, "The settlement is contingent upon certain
matters, including final approval by the court.  Also, the parties
have the right to terminate the settlement in certain
circumstances."

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.



NATIONAL TIRE: Settlement in Exum Class Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bruce Exum, Jr., and Emilie Palmer, KJZ individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sep 1, 2020
Plaintiffs, v. National Tire and Battery, and TBC Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80121-Matthewman (S.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge William Matthewman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Class Settlement and for Class Certification
of Settlement Class, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses to Settlement Class
Counsel and Payment of Service Award to Representative Plaintiffs.

Defendant NTB is an independent tire dealer incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Florida.  It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant TBC, an independent tire
dealer incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business in Florida.  NTB allegedly maintains and operates more
than 1200 locations in 41 states, the District of Columbia, and
Canada.

Plaintiffs Exum and Palmer, both of Virginia, allegedly purchased
tires from NTB in January 2019.  But, according to the Complaint,
NTB failed to provide either of them with a tire registration form
or transmit their registration forms to the tire manufacturers, as
required under 49 C.F.R. Section 574.8. Id.

On Jan. 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against the
Defendants, asserting seven causes of action, all related to the
Defendants' alleged failure to comply with 49 C.F.R. Section
574.8's tire registration requirement.  They also sought
certification of a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs who all
purchased allegedly unregistered tires from the Defendants.  The
Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.  By
Order dated Jan. 28, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Motion to Dismiss, finding that (1) tjhe Plaintiffs had
standing under Article III to bring the suit; (2) the lack of a
private right of action in the Safety Act and the Regulation does
not necessarily preclude the Plaintiffs' claims; (3) the Plaintiffs
had alleged sufficient facts to support their claims; and (4) the
Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI.
Counts III and VII, however, were dismissed without prejudice.

The parties proceeded to discovery and engaged in substantial
motion practice.  The parties participated in a mediation before
Mediator Rodney Max.  The mediation took place on Nov. 8, 2019, but
was ultimately unsuccessful.  Litigation continued.  Then, on Feb.
7, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement, notifying
the Court that the matter has been fully compromised and settled
that day.  he Court entered an order staying the case and denying
all pending motions as moot.

In the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class
Settlement and for Class Certification of Settlement Class, they
moved for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2),
to be defined as: All persons in the United States and its
territories who purchased a tire from the Defendants or their
company-owned subsidiaries during the Class Period for their
personal use, rather than for resale or distribution, where
Defendants did not provide them with a registration card, send in a
card to the manufacturer for them, or electronically transmit their
information to the tire manufacturer within 30 days of purchased.

The Plaintiffs also submitted to the Court the proposed Settlement
Agreement, where, generally, the Defendants have agreed to (1)
change their tire-registration practices; (2) pay an incentive
award of $7,500 to each of the two named class representatives; and
(3) pay $645,000 in attorneys' fees and costs plus additional costs
related to a second Feb. 7, 2020 mediation between the parties.

The Court preliminarily approved the Class Settlement and Certified
the Settlement Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(2).  It preliminarily found that (a) the Class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there
are questions of law or fact common to the Class; (c) the
Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the Class; and (d) the
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Class.

Additionally, after balancing the benefits of formal notice to the
Settlement Class with the risks and costs associated therewith, the
Court declined to require formal notice.  It ensured that Notice of
the Settlement Agreement fully complied with the Class Action
Fairness Act, and the parties provided notice to the U.S. Attorney
General, the Florida Attorney General's Office, and any other
necessary parties as required by law.

Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval,
and the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award.  However, one objection
was filed by a purported class member.  The Court ordered expedited
briefing on the Objection.  It held a Final Approval Hearing, at
which it also heard arguments related to the Objection, via Zoom
video teleconference on July 17, 2020.

Having considered the briefing, the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Objection and response thereto, the arguments of
counsel and the Objector, the relevant caselaw, statutory and
regulatory framework, and the other matters on file in the action,
Magistrate Judge Matthewman granted the motion for final approval.

As the Court found in its Order dated April 6, 2020, Approving the
Class Settlement and Granting Certification of the Settlement
Class, the Plaintiffs were, and remain, in full compliance with
Rule 23, federal statutory law, and all applicable case law.   

The parties are ordered to comply with and abide by the terms of
the Settlement.  They will file a Joint Notice within seven days of
the entry of the Order indicating whether they desire the Court to
retain jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of the Class
Settlement.

The Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards
remains granted.  The Magistrate ordered that the Defendants will
pay $645,000 in attorneys' fees and litigation costs to the Class
Counsel, and a $7,500 incentive award to each of the named class
representative Plaintiffs.  All other payments and costs will be
borne as set forth in the Settlement Agreement or as agreed to by
the parties.

The Magistrate overruled and denied the Objection of Melissa
Holyoak to Proposed Settlement.  Melissa Holyoak, Esq., will Show
Cause, on Sept. 16, 2020, why the Court should not impose sanctions
against her for her false, material representations and statements
made to the parties and the Court.  Sanctions against Ms. Holyoak
may include, but will not be limited to, the Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred while responding to
Ms. Holyoak's false statements and assertions.  The parties will
respond to Ms. Holyoak's response on Sept. 30, 2020, and Ms.
Holyoak may reply on Oct. 7, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6kfmjtp from Leagle.com.


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Hogan Balks at Sale of Personal Viewing Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL E. HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00376-WES-LDA (D.R.I., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks to redress and
put a stop to the Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing
its customers' Personal Viewing Information in knowing violation of
the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complain that after the Defendant
discloses its customers' Personal Viewing Information, the various
third-party recipients of this data then append to it a myriad of
other categories of personal and demographic data pertaining to
those customers, only to then re-sell that Personal Viewing
Information (enhanced with the appended demographic information) to
other third parties on the open market.

NBCUniversal Media, LLC operates as a media and entertainment
company. The Company develops, produces, and markets entertainment,
news, and media information. NBCUniversal Media serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          McINTYRE TATE LLP
          50 Park Row West, Suite 109
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
          E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

                - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, 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: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


NEUMAN'S KITCHEN: Sanchez Seeks Service Staff's Withheld Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
YOLY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NEUMAN'S KITCHEN, INC.; PAUL NEUMAN; and any other
related entities, Case No. 157677/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 21, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the New York Labor Law and New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations by withholding and retaining
portions of their service employees' gratuities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants withheld and retained
portions of gratuities intended for the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated service employees, including those collected by
their assessment of mandatory charge. The Defendants also failed to
maintain proper and complete records of service charges in the
nature of gratuities and to provide a notice of pay rate and pay
day upon hiring.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a food service
worker at catered events held in New York since July 2012.

Neuman's Kitchen, Inc., is a catering company with its principal
place of business located at 35-02 48th Avenue, in Long Island
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 25 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 25 appeals from the District Court's rulings
in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-969;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-970;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-971;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-973;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-974;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-976;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-978;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-979;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-980;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
       Case No. 20-983;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-985;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-986;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-987;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-988;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-989;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-990;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-992;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-994;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-995;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-996;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-997;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-998;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-999;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1000; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-1002.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Albilda Ramos, Joan Sawyer, Daisy Barrios,
Ronald Peters, Hugo Andre, Francisca Valverde, Aida American,
Aracelis Sanquintin, Drema Robinson, Yris Valdez, Noemi Torres,
Cara Justin, Miguel Ramirez, Marlene Brooks, Luisa Molina, Lucy
Crespo, Monique Matthew, Caroline Johnson, Jackeline Regalado,
Carmen Gomez, Daisy Melendez, Patricia Taylor, Juana Elsevyf, Debra
Washington and Denise Tracey are represented by:

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

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

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


NEWTEK BUSINESS: Dismissed from American Video Suit Over PPP Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newtek Business Services Corp. was dismissed from the putative
class action styled American Video Duplicating, Inc. et al v.
Citigroup Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal. 20-cv-03815) on June 15, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020.

In May 2020, the Company became aware of the putative class action,
which asserted claims under the California Unfair Business
Practices Law in connection with the alleged failure of lenders to
pay agent fees under the PPP.

While the Action failed to assert any specific allegations of
wrongdoing by the Company or NSBF, the Action named "Newtek
Business Services, Inc." [sic] as one of the 4,990 PPP lender
defendants in the Action.

Newtek Business Services Corp. (NASDAQ: NEWT) and its portfolio
companies provide business solutions that are designed to help
organizations grow sales, reduce costs, and minimize risk.




NEXTCURE INC: Zhou Sues Over Misleading and Incomplete SPO Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
YE ZHOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEXTCURE, INC., MICHAEL RICHMAN, STEVEN P. COBOURN,
KEVIN N. HELLER, M.D., DAVID KABAKOFF, PH.D., ELAINE V. JONES,
PH.D., CHAU Q. KHUONG, JUDITH J. LI, BRIGGS MORRISON, M.D., TIM
SHANNON, M.D., STEPHEN WEBSTER, STELLA XU, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., NEEDHAM & COMPANY,
LLC, and BTIG, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 21,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by filing materially inaccurate, misleading, and
incomplete statements in their secondary public offering
documents.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants filed incomplete
statements in their SPO Documents with the Securities and Exchange
Commission with respect to the efficacy of and objective responses
observed in patients treated with NC318, a first-in-class
immunomedicine targeting a novel immunomodulatory receptor, called
Siglec-15, or S15, from NextCure's Phase 1 Clinical Trial. Through
the SPO, NextCure raised $172.2 million in gross proceeds during
the Class Period, between November 5, 2019, and July 14, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misled investors because
in reality, the NC318 data showed a lack of efficacy and objective
responses. Had the truth been revealed, the market would have seen
that NC318 was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor
types, that the NC318 application was proving to be limited, and,
as a result, there was a significant realizable risk that NC318
would not be nearly as popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs,
such as Keytruda. When the truth finally emerged, NextCure's shares
dropped up to $8.15 per share on July 13, 2020. The Plaintiff and
Class members suffered damages in connection with their respective
purchases and sales of NextCure's securities.

NextCure, Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with
its headquarters located at 9000 Virginia Manor Road, in
Beltsville, Maryland.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York City. BofA Securities, Inc. is an American
multinational investment banking firm based in New York. Piper
Jaffray & Co. is an American multinational independent investment
bank and financial services company based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

Needham & Company, LLC is an independent investment bank and asset
management firm based in New York. BTIG, LLC is a financial
services company that specializes in brokerage, institutional
sales, and investment banking services based in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com


NOVA TRANSPORTATION: Calderon Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ADELA CALDERON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NOVA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; BARONHR WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV35664 (Cal. Super., Sept.
17, 2020), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 alleging that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other no-exempt aggrieved employees of their lawfully earned
minimum and overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff provided written notice
on or about July 14, 2020 to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) concerning the Defendants' alleged violations.
However, the LWDA failed to respond or provide any notice of its
intention to investigate after 65 days since the notice was sent.

The Plaintiff also asserts these claims: the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees a 30
minutes uninterrupted meal break and rest periods; and the
Defendants failed to pay the employees the full amount of their
wages owed to them upon termination and/or resignation.

Nova Transportation Services, Inc. and BaronHR West, Inc. operate
as a joint enterprise providing freight transportation and carrier
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Tel: (310) 553-3600
          Fax: (310) 553-3603


ORACLE: Face Class Action Lawsuits Over Online Ad Tracking
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Spadafora at Tech Radar reports that class action lawsuits
have been filed against Oracle and Salesforce in Dutch, English and
Welsh courts which claim the tech giants breached  General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) by using third-party cookies to
process and share personal data in order to sell targeted ads
online.

As reported by Computer Weekly, the lawsuits are being brought
against the two companies by a Dutch non-profit foundation called
The Privacy Collective.

According to the collective, Oracle and Salesforce are just two of
many companies which use cookies to track, monitor and collect
users' personal data and share it through a process known as
real-time bidding where this data is auctioned off to advertisers.
Data about users' interests, locations, income, relationship
status, gender, age and education is collected to support this
practice and build profiles of users online without their
knowledge.

The Privacy Collective's lawsuit claims that Oracle and Salesforce
are collecting and sharing this data without first obtaining clear
consent from users which is in direct violation of GDPR. To make
matters worse, the collective claims that both companies have been
in breach of the EU's data privacy regulations since GDPR came into
force.

                           Online Ad Tracking

Class representative and claimant in England and Wales, Rebecca
Rumbul provided further insight on The Privacy Collective's
lawsuits against Oracle and Salesforce, saying:

"Everyone who has ever used the internet is at risk from this
technology. It may be largely hidden, but it is far from harmless.
If data collected from internet use is not adequately controlled,
it can used to facilitate highly targeted marketing that may expose
vulnerable minors to unsuitable content, fuel unhealthy habits such
as online gambling or prey on other addictions. By supporting my
action, internet users in England and Wales can do their bit to
begin to hold these firms to account and make the internet a safer
and more regulated place."

Claims in the lawsuits could end up exceeding $12bn according to
the collective as millions of users who have visited popular sites
including Spotify, Reddit, Dropbox, Ikea, IMDB, Amazon and more
could end up getting involved.

Oracle's executive vice president and general counsel, Dorian Daley
dismissed The Privacy Collective's claims, saying:

"The Privacy Collective knowingly filed a meritless action based on
deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.  As Oracle previously
informed the Privacy Collective, Oracle has no direct role in the
real-time bidding process (RTB), has a minimal data footprint in
the EU, and has a comprehensive GDPR compliance program. Despite
Oracle's fulsome explanation, the Privacy Collective has decided to
pursue its shake-down through litigation filed in bad faith. Oracle
will vigorously defend against these baseless claims." [GN]

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Hodges Sues Over Crew Members' Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESMOND HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-11715
(D. Mass., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including
failure to pay lawfully earned overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid crew
member in and around Cape Cod, Massachusetts, from December 2019 to
February 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated crew members were classified as non-exempt employees by
the Defendant and required them to work over 40 hours in most
weeks. However, the Defendant failed to pay them for all hours they
worked, including loading and cleaning their work vehicles at the
beginning of their workdays, driving and/or riding to their job
site, and other portions of their workday that their foremen failed
to report in the Defendant's timekeeping system. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other crew members were not paid by the Defendant
their lawfully earned overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours.

Osmose Utilities Services, Inc., provides utility and
telecommunications equipment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Fink, Esq.
          SIMS & SIMS LLP
          53 Arlington Street
          Brockton, MA 02301
          Tel: (508) 588-6900
          Fax: (508) 586-3320
          E-mail: JohnFink@simsandsimsllp.com

                - and –

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (201) 630-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


PLAINS GP HOLDINGS: Litigation over Line 901 Incident Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plains GP Holdings, L.P. continues to face class action proceedings
related to a May 2015 crude oil release incident from the Company's
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the Company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the Company to discuss their damage claims.  The
Company has received a number of claims through the claims line and
the Company have been processing those claims and making payments
as appropriate.

In addition, the Company has also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against the Company, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  In general, the
plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants
that have allegedly been damaged by the release.  The court
originally certified three sub-classes of claimants and denied
certification of the other proposed sub-class.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
certification of one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry
sub-class, and the District Court subsequently dismissed the
oil-industry sub-class representatives' claims.

The two remaining sub-classes include (i) commercial fishermen who
landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters off
the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and (ii)
residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential
properties with a private easement to a beach where oil from the
spill washed up.

The Company said, "The court has set a trial date of September 1,
2020 for those two sub-classes, but the trial is unlikely to
proceed on that date due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions.

The Company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line
903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages.

Plains GP Holdings, L.P. owns and operates midstream energy
infrastructure in the United States and Canada.  It was founded in
2013 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


PROGENITY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Progenity, Inc. ("Progenity"
or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PROG) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Progenity common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement, as amended (the "Registration Statement"),
issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/prog.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

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

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/prog 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
Progenity you have until October 27, 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.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


PROGENITY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Progenity, Inc. ("Progenity" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: PROG) investors that acquired securities in
connection with Progenity's June 2020 initial public offering.

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

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

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

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.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


PSRG INC: Faces Hamsayeh Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHID HAMSAYEH, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PSRG, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03243 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid Project
HSE Engineer from December 2019 through March 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff often worked 70 or more
hours per workweek, but he was not paid any overtime by the
Defendant. Instead, the Defendant paid him "straight time for
overtime" despite frequently working more than 40 hours in a
workweek, thereby, failing to pay him his lawfully earned overtime
at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay pursuant to the
FLSA.

PSRG, Inc., is a staffing company that provides Health Safety and
Environmental personnel to the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


QUICKEN LOANS: Voss Suit Over Mortgage Record Moved to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SAMUEL VOSS v. QUICKEN LOANS, LLC and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. A2002899,
was removed from the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
September 21, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-00756-SJD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Ohio
Revised Code Section 5301.36 by failing to file the entry of
mortgage satisfaction for a purchased property with the local
county recorder's office within the 90-day period permitted under
the statute.

Quicken Loans, LLC, is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
is a company that operates national electronic registry systems,
with its principal place of business in Reston, Virginia.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:               

         James C. Frooman, Esq.
         FROST BROWN TODD
         Great American Tower
         301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3300
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 651-6707
         E-mail: jfrooman@fbtlaw.com


R&L CARRIERS: Perez Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SAMUEL PEREZ, an individual, on behalf of the
State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf
of all other similarly aggrieved employees v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED
SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
CV-20-003545, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on September 18,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-NONE-SKO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged retaliation and
wrongful termination of the Plaintiff's employment in violation of
public policy and California Labor Code.

R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC is a freight shipping and
logistics company based in Wilmington, Ohio.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                        
   
         David S. Eisen, Esq.
         Diana M. Estrada, Esq.
         WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
         555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-5100
         Facsimile: (213) 443-5101
         E-mail: david.eisen@wilsonelser.com
                 diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com


REALPAGE INC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in McIntyre FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant RealPage Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a On-Site,
Case No. 2-18-cv-03934, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 9,
2020, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the
case as a class action.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Patricia McIntyre v. RealPage
Inc., Case No. 20-8035, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent PATRICIA MCINTYRE, ONBEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Lauren Brennan, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

Defendant-Petitioner REALPAGE INC, D/B/A ON-SITE, is represented
by:

          David Casazza, Esq.
          Jason H. Hilborn, Esq.
          Michael J. Showalter, Esq.
          Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-3724
          E-mail: dcasazza@gibsondunn.com
                  jhilborn@gibsondunn.com
                  mshowalter@gibsondunn.com
                  ltownsend@gibsondunn.com                   

               - and -

          Allyson N. Ho, Esq.
          Bradley G. Hubbard, Esq.
          Ashley E. Johnson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3100
          E-mail: aho@gibsondunn.com
                  bhubbard@gibsondunn.com
                  ajohnson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Ronald I. Raether, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 622-2700
          E-mail: ron.raether@troutman.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. St. George, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER
          1001 Haxall Point, 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 1122
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1254
          E-mail: tim.st.george@troutman.com

               - and -

          Misha Tseytlin, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 759-5947
          E-mail: misha.tseytlin@troutman.com


REALREAL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit in Marin County
-----------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. is still defending itself against a consolidated
class action suit pending before the Marin County Superior Court,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its IPO in the Superior Court of the State
of California in the County of San Mateo.

Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.  The San Mateo case was
voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin County Superior Court and
consolidated with the cases there.  

On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs in the San
Francisco Superior Court case have filed a request for dismissal.

Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019.

On February 12, 2020, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the federal
action and an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31,
2020.  Defendants' filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the
state court action on March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in favor of the federal action on May 1, 2020.  

On August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the
state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and motion
to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action.  A
motion to dismiss the federal court action was filed on May 15,
2020 and a hearing was set for August 27, 2020.  The state and
federal complaints each allege claims under the Securities Act of
1933 on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who acquired
the Company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration
statement for the Company's IPO.

The federal complaint also alleges claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of shareholders
who purchased the Company's stock from June 27, 2019 through
November 20, 2019.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements in the registration statement regarding certain of the
Company's key financial and operating metrics, and related to the
Company's authentication processes.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.

RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against this litigation, the cases are at a very early stage and
there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in
its defense.  For this same reason, the Company cannot currently
estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may experience
in connection with this litigation."

The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint in IV Meloxicam Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the previously dismissed securities class action suit
related to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the
NDA for IV meloxicam.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was
completed on the motion to dismiss.  In response to questions from
the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to
the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of
2019.

On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 18, 2020.  The plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition
to the Company's motion to dismiss was August 17, 2020, and the
Company will have 30 days from the filing of the plaintiff's
opposition to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

Recro Pharma said, "In connection with the separation of Baudax
Bio, Baudax Bio accepted assignment by the Company of all of its
obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed
to indemnify it for all liabilities related to the Securities
Litigation.  The Company and Baudax Bio believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it."

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso Appeals E.D. Mo. Order to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Pietoso, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated August 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled PIETOSO, INC. d/b/a CAFE NAPOLI v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
and ALLIED WASTE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF
BRIDGETON, Case No. 4:19-CV-397-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 18,
2020, Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case, PIETOSO,
INC. d/b/a CAFE NAPOLI, Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. and
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF
BRIDGETON, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-CV-397 RLW (E.D. Mo.).

Pietoso brings the action as a putative nationwide class action for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment. On April 26, 2011, the
Defendants entered into a contract ("Service Agreement") with
Pietoso. The service charges were increased by Republic on a
regular basis. The increases in Service Charges were presented on
the invoice as authorized service charge increases. Pietoso argues
that the Defendants improperly increased the service charges
without contractual authorization.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Judge White finds that the case involves two business
entities who had an established business relationship involving
regular billing cycles and payment. Pietoso knew and paid the
Defendants' invoices, which reflected the relevant rate increases,
for eight years. Pietoso has not alleged that these rate increases
were concealed, that it had insufficient time to investigate the
rate increases before paying the invoices, or that they were
prevented by Defendants from investigating these rate increases.
Finally, Pietoso did not withhold payment for the increases, which
indicates its acceptance of those increases. Pietoso, therefore,
cannot state a plausible claim for relief and the Judge granted the
motion to dismiss Pietoso's breach of contract claim.

Pietoso's claim for declaratory judgment is based upon its
allegations that it was charged fees unauthorized under the Service
Agreement. Thus, the Judge holds that Pietoso's claim for
declaratory judgment must be dismissed because it is based upon the
purported breach of the Service Agreement. It is well-settled that
declaratory relief is not proper where the real cause of action is
an action at law for breach of contract. Therefore, the Judge
dismissed Pietoso's declaratory judgment claim.

Accordingly, Judge White granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim. An appropriate Judgment is filed with the
Memorandum.

On August 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and
to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is
denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Pietoso, Inc. v. Republic
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2950, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on October 28, 2020;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Pietoso, Inc. is due on October 28,
      2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Pietoso, Inc., a Missouri corporation,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, doing
business as Cafe Napoli, is represented by:

          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
          440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 361-8834
          E-mail: nathaniel@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 391-4700
          E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
          LASHLY & BAER
          714 Locust Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 621-2939

Defendants-Appellees Republic Services, Inc., A Delaware
corporation, and Allied Services, LLC, A Deleware limited liability
company, doing business as Allied Waste Services of Bridgeton, are
represented by:

          Steven J. Alagna, Esq.
          Jeffrey Scott Russell, Esq.
          BRYAN & CAVE
          3600 One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-2186
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          E-mail: steven.alagna@bclplaw.com
                  jsrussell@bclplaw.com


RLC LABS: Truax Sues Over Distribution of Subpotent Thyroid Pills
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARA TRUAX, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. RLC LABS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00463 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 21,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment,
negligence, gross negligence, and conversion.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in deceptive
advertising and marketing of Nature-Throid and WP Thyroid tablets,
which are used as medications for hypothyroidism. The Defendant
represents that its Nature-Throid tablets contain 38 microgram
(mcg) levothyroxine (T4) and 9 mcg liothyronine (T3) per each
65-milligram tablet, while its WP Thyroid tablets contain 38 mcg T4
and 9 mcg T3 per each 65-milligram tablet. However, testing done by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found the Thyroid
tablets to be subpotent, meaning the tablets contain less of their
active ingredient than as advertised and as stated on the products'
labeling and packaging.

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
says she and Class members were injured by the purchase price of
Thyroid tablets since they are subpotent and are, therefore,
ineffective to treat hypothyroidism.

RLC Labs, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in Cave Creek,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

                - and –

         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ndekant@bursor.com


ROTOLO CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA LINARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROTOLO CONSULTANTS, INC.; and INFINITY BLUE SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00557-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., Aug. 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Linares was employed by the Defendants as landscaper.

Rotolo Consultants, Inc. (RCI) provides landscaping and
construction services. The Company offers outdoor environments for
casinos, resorts, golf courses, apartments, retail sites,
complexes, and town centers. Rotolo Consultants serves customers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
           Randall E. Estes, Esq.
           ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
           4465 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite A
           Baton Rouge, LA 70809
           Telephone: (225) 336-3394
           Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
           E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com
                   randy@estesdavislaw.com


RUBICON OLDFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Knox Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE KNOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUBICON OILFIELD INTERNATIONAL HOLDING, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-00228 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices, including failure to pay
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Field Service
Agent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt
employees. Although they were paid a salary and job bonus, but they
were not compensated for all hours they worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees their lawfully
earned overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 as required by the FLSA and NMMWA.

Rubicon Oilfield International Holding, LLC is an oil and gas
service provider operating throughout the U.S. and internationally,
including in Texas and New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Velasquez-Reyes Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DULCE ALONDRA VELASQUEZ-REYES, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01953, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on September 21, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-12969-WJM-MF to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
advertising and marketing of Samsung Galaxy S7 smartphone.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., markets a broad range of
consumer electronics, information systems, and home appliance
products. Samsung is a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
with a principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
         Benjamin S. Kurtz, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
         Telephone: (310) 586-7700
         Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
         E-mail: HerringtonR@gtlaw.com
                 KurtzB@gtlaw.com


SARA COMPANION: RJI Filed in Jefferson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial intervention was filed in the case captioned
as ALEXIS JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SARA COMPANION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SARA
COMPANION HOMECARE SERVICES and IRWIN J. WHITE, in his professional
and individual capacities, Case No. 600148/2019, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York in Nassau County on September 18,
2020.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of New York
Labor Law, including failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to provide accurate wage notices, failure to pay spread of
hours, unjust enrichment, and retaliation.

Sara Companion Services, Inc., d/b/a Sara Companion Homecare
Services, is a home health care service company based in Valley
Stream, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                           

         Brian A. Bodansky, Esq.
         BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 280-3008
         Facsimile: (516)706-4692
         E-mail: bb@bclllg.com


SCENARIO COCKRAM: Franckowiak Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARCINE FRANCKOWIAK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCENARIO COCKRAM USA,
INC. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV30798, 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 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08569 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime and double time wages; failure to provide meal and rest
periods; failure to provide compliant wage statements and maintain
payroll records; failure to pay all wages upon separation of
employment; failure to provide notice of paid sick days; and
failure to reimburse business expenses.

Scenario Cockram USA, Inc. is a specialist construction company
with its U.S. offices located in Orlando, Florida, and Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         J. Kevin Snyder, Esq.
         Brian H. Newman, Esq.
         Allison M. Scott, Esq.
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 457-1800
         Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
         E-mail: KSnyder@dykema.com
                 BNewman@dykema.com
                 AScott@dykema.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. has received final court approval of
settlement of a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC).

SeaWorld Entertainment disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the settlement required
the Company to pay US$65.0 million for claims alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as the costs of administration and legal fees and expenses.
The settlement does not include or constitute an admission,
concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by
the Company or any defendant.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company recorded
US$32.1 million of legal settlement charges, net of insurance
recoveries, related to this case, which was paid during the six
months ended June 30, 2020.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEIU: Bosses Back Down, Settle Class-Action 1st Amendment Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
nrtw.org reports that with free legal aid from National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, an Illinois home
healthcare provider has just won a settlement against SEIU
Healthcare Illinois and Indiana (SEIU-HCII) union bosses. Her
class-action case challenged SEIU-HCII officials' enforcement of an
arbitrary restriction on providers' First Amendment right not to
subsidize union activities, as recognized by the Supreme Court in
the Foundation-won Harris v. Quinn and Janus v. AFSCME decisions.

In Harris, won by Foundation staff attorneys in 2014, the High
Court recognized that the First Amendment is violated by schemes to
forcibly extract dues from home healthcare providers who assist
individuals whose care is subsidized by the government. In the 2018
Janus decision, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory union fees
for public sector workers as an infringement of their First
Amendment rights, and ruled that the government can only deduct
union dues or fees with an individual's affirmative and knowing
consent.

Plaintiff Hydie Nance provides home-based healthcare under the
auspices of Illinois' Home Services Plan. This program provides
Medicaid funds to people with disabilities so they can hire and pay
"personal assistants" to help them with their day-to-day
activities. In her class-action lawsuit, Nance asserted that the
Illinois Department of Human Services deducted union dues from the
subsidies of home healthcare providers without informing them that
"that they have a First Amendment right not to financially support
SEIU-HCII."

Nance tried to exercise her right to stop these illegal dues
deductions in both November 2019 and later in March 2020. Full dues
continued to be deducted out of her subsidies after both requests,
with SEIU-HCII agents claiming after her second request that they
could not process her request "without [her] valid photo id."
Nance's lawsuit also alleged that union and state officials did not
notify home healthcare providers about the photo ID "requirement"
until after a request to cut off dues had already been submitted.

Nance argued in her suit that the dues scheme imposed by SEIU-HCII
union bosses "impedes and burdens personal assistants' First
Amendment right to stop subsidizing SEIU-HCII and its speech" and
additionally "impinges on personal assistants' right to privacy and
exposes them to the threat of identity theft." She sought a ruling
from the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
declaring illegal the deductions the union made after she exercised
her rights, forbidding further enforcement of the unconstitutional
restriction, and ordering refunds for all home healthcare providers
from whom the union had seized money illegally under the policy.

SEIU-HCII bosses have now backed down from further litigation and
settled the case. The settlement requires that union officials "not
reject or refuse" a request to end dues deductions because an
individual does not provide a photo ID and also orders a refund to
Nance of all dues seized under the scheme in violation of her First
Amendment rights. Under the settlement, union brass must also
"identify from its records [home healthcare] providers whose
requests to resign their union membership" were rebuffed because
they did not provide photo ID and process those requests. The union
also must stop rejecting or ignoring requests by providers to stop
dues deductions made using forms provided by organizations which
inform workers of their rights, something union officials were
regularly doing.

"This scheme imposed by SEIU-HCII union officials forced Illinois
home healthcare providers to produce photo IDs just to stop the
flow of their own money that was going to fill union coffers in
violation of the First Amendment," commented National Right to Work
Foundation President Mark Mix. "Though this settlement puts an end
to this blatantly unconstitutional arrangement, it is outrageous
that over two years after Janus was decided and over eight years
after Harris was decided, union bosses still refuse to respect, and
devise ways to circumvent, the constitutional rights of those they
claim to represent.

"We urge any Illinois home healthcare provider who had a request to
cut off dues rejected by SEIU-HCII to contact the Foundation so
their rights can be vindicated," Mix added. [GN]

SEQUIUM ASSET: Towers Sues in Connecticut Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Matthew Towers,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, Cach, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:20-cv-01413 (D. Conn., Sept. 21, 2020).

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

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, is a debt collection agency located
in Marietta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SONY MUSIC: Reaches $12.7MM Deal in Rick Nelson Contract Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
billboard.com reports that Sony Music has agreed to pay $12.7
million to settle a class action lawsuit brought against it by the
estate of 1950s and '60s pop star Rick Nelson over deductions on
foreign streaming royalties, according to a new settlement
agreement filed on Sept. 4.

The case is notable because it challenges the historically common
practice of "intercompany charges," whereby a global music company
imposes an extra charge on revenue collected by subsidiaries
overseas, in part to justify the extra work (and risk) of releasing
physical products in new territories. However, those charges are
harder to defend in the streaming age, in which case the cost of
distribution is drastically reduced--and decades-old contracts like
Nelson's, of course, don't take that shift to digital into
account.

In the original suit filed in 2018, the Rick Nelson Estate took
issue with Sony adding such a charge to all streaming revenue
collected overseas, through region-specific subsidiaries like Sony
Music UK and Sony Music Australia. Because Sony has total control
over its regional affiliates (rather than collecting those
royalties through a third party), the estate argued, Sony shouldn't
be taking a deduction off the top.

Sony still vehemently denies any wrong-doing, writing in the new
agreement that it "believes that this Action lacks merit." However,
it entered the settlement "for the purpose of avoiding prolonged
and expensive litigation," and the terms of the agreement have the
added effect of helping dozens of artists bring in revenue closer
to what they might earn if their recording contracts accounted for
the digital age. Sony agrees to pay $12.7 million to affected Sony
artists who opt-in to the class action on a pro-rata basis, and
also commits to increase royalties on international streams for
those artists' eligible recordings by 36% from July 1, 2019
onwards.

In a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, also filed
on Sept. 4, the plaintiff writes that the 36% commitment will be
worth "many millions of dollars and in excess of the common fund,
since streaming is now the most dominant form of music distribution
available. Thus, the settlement provides substantial and
significant relief to class members, while eliminating the risk,
expense, and uncertainty associated with protracted, contested
litigation through trial and appeals."

Nelson--a teen idol who charted numerous Hot 100 top 10 hits
including "Poor Little Fool," "Lonesome Town" and "Travelin'
Man"--signed to CBS Records in 1976, four years after his last big
hit, "Garden Party." He died in a plane crash in De Kalb, Texas, in
1985; CBS was acquired by Sony in 1987.

Sony Music declined to comment, and Billboard has reached out to
the attorneys for the Rick Nelson Estate for comment.

In a strikingly similar case in 2018, 1970s funk singer Leonard
Williams attempted to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
thousands of artists against Warner Music Group, arguing that the
label breached its contracts with those artists by diverting
portions of their payments on foreign streams to international
subsidiaries. However, a California federal judge in February 2020
rejected the suit, holding that Williams' claims were not typical
of all proposed class members. [GN]

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

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (i) its
sales and growth in China; (ii) its marketing spend; (iii) its
research and development expenses; and that as a result of the
foregoing; (iv) Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased STAAR securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/staarsurgicalcompany-staa-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-292/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

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


STOCKX: Faces Class Action Over August 2019 Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Complex.com reports that the fallout from the hack that affected
millions of users' data at resale platform StockX last summer isn't
over yet. According to court documents, the company is defending a
class-action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. In
it, a consolidated group of plaintiffs accuse StockX, which is
headquartered in Detroit, of failing to safeguard their personal
information and deceiving them about the distribution of that
info.

Tech Crunch first reported on the data breach in August 2019,
writing that hackers were selling user information from StockX on
the dark web. "The stolen data contained names, email addresses,
scrambled password (believed to be hashed with the MD5 algorithm
and salted), and other profile information," Tech Crunch security
editor Zack Whittaker wrote.

The story broke after StockX sent out an email that month saying
users needed to update their passwords because of "system updates."
In fact, it prompted the change because of the hack, which the
company hadn't yet disclosed. In the weeks and months that
followed, users regularly shared frustrations on social media,
writing about their accounts being compromised.

In an August 2020 episode of the Complex Sneakers Podcast, StockX
co-founder Josh Luber declined to comment on the suit, but spoke on
the company's reaction to the data breach.

"We didn't have enough information to make a full disclosure, to
say everything that was going on," Luber said, "but we knew that we
needed to update everyone's passwords and lock everything down
ASAP."

Luber, who has long been the public face of StockX, left the
company. He said in a Business of Fashion interview that he plans
to launch another startup in the future. His last business with
StockX.

The active complaint against StockX over the data breach was filed
in August 2019 by an unnamed minor. It now lists Adam Foote,
Anthony Giampetro, Kwadwo Kissi, Richard Harrington, Johnny
Sacasas, and Chad Bolling, along with another unnamed minor, as the
plaintiffs.

In court documents, they share stories of stolen identities,
fraudulent sneaker purchases, and their ongoing efforts to
safeguard their information. The plaintiffs say that they didn't
receive notice of the data breach until Aug. 8, 2019, 13 days after
StockX learned of it. This, according to the lawsuit, happened
three months after the hack took place in May 2019.

The plaintiffs are asking for monetary damages in an amount that
would be determined at a potential trial. StockX is trying to avoid
that outcome, though-in a motion filed in July and signed by its VP
of product development, Stephen Winn, the company argued that the
plaintiffs signed away their right to a class-action suit when they
agreed to StockX's terms of service. By agreeing to the terms,
StockX says, users have created a legal contract obligating them to
bring claims through binding and final arbitration.

"Unless you opt out you will only be permitted to bring claims
against us and seek relief on an individual basis," StockX's terms
of service read, "not as a plaintiff or class member in any class
or representative action or proceeding."

In one all-caps section, the terms establish that signees agree to
waive their rights to a trial by jury for any dispute relating to
their use of StockX. Instead, they must resolve issues through
arbitration, a legal process in which a third party (usually a
lawyer or retired judge) makes a decision on a case without a
jury.

StockX's motion says that, despite their proclaimed concerns over
the spread of their personal information, the plaintiffs have not
requested their StockX accounts be deleted. Per the company, one of
the minors in the suit never even conducted any transactions on his
account.

The plaintiffs filed a response on Aug. 26 asking the court to
dismiss StockX's push for arbitration. In their brief, they say
that the minor plaintiffs can't be forced into arbitration against
their will and that the clauses in the company's terms of service
around arbitration are "procedurally and substantively
unconscionable." StockX has until Sept. 30 to reply.

A spokesman for StockX declined to comment for this story, saying
that the company does not comment on ongoing legal matters. [GN]

STRUCTURES DEREK: Reese Employment Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CARON REESE, for himself and for others
similarly situated v. JACQUES BROCHU and STRUCTURES DEREK
INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2084-cv-01838C, was removed from the
Superior Court of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September
18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-11723 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' wage violations in reference
to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Structures Derek International is a structural steel & precast
concrete contractor based in Sainte-Marie, Quebec.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           

         Megan C. Deluhery, Esq.
         TODD & WELD LLP
         One Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 720-2626
         Facsimile: (617) 227-5777
         E-mail: mdeluhery@toddweld.com


T&C ROBINSON: Pettieway Seeks Overtime Wages for Health Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
CALVINETTE PETTIEWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. T&C ROBINSON, INC. d/b/a ANGELS HOME HEALTH
CARE, Case No: 5:20-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C., Sept. 17, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as one of its
health workers, alleges that the Defendant required her to
regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek without paying her
overtime premium for all hours she worked over 40 in a workweek.

T&C Robinson, Inc., operates a home healthcare agency in Warren
County, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Ray, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Tel: 336-333-9899
          Fax: 336-333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
                  earay@crumleyroberts.com


TERRAFORM POWER: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Claims Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power NY Holdings, Inc., a successor by merger to
TerraForm Power, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that in the consolidated case of the City of
Dearborn Police and Retirement System and Martin Rosson, the Court
has recently heard Brookfield's motion to dismiss certain of the
plaintiff's claims and the Company's pro forma joinder to the
motion to dismiss.

On September 19, 2019, lead plaintiff Martin Rosson filed a
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of the Company, himself, and other minority
stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its
affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant).

The complaint alleges that the defendant controlling stockholders
breached their fiduciary duty to minority stockholders because the
Company undertook a private placement of the Company's stock on
terms that the complaint alleges are unfair, instead of pursuing a
public offering.  The proceeds of this private placement were used
to fund the acquisition by the Company of Saeta and had been
approved by the Conflicts Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The complaint seeks the rescission and invalidation of
the private placement and payment to the Company of rescissory
damages, among other relief.  In a related development, on October
15, 2019, the Company received a demand letter for the production
of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 to allow
counsel to the City of Dearborn Policy and Retirement System (a
purported shareholder of the Company) to investigate potential
breaches of fiduciary duty by Brookfield and the Company's Board of
Directors in connection with the funding of the acquisition of
Saeta.

On January 27, 2020, the City of Dearborn Police and Retirement
System filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of the Company, itself, and other
minority stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain
of its affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant)
alleging claims similar to those set forth in the Rosson
complaint.

The City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System and Martin Rosson
agreed, with the consent of the Company and Brookfield, to
consolidate their respective claims and such consolidation was
approved by the Court during the first quarter of 2020.

Brookfield then filed a motion to dismiss certain of the
plaintiff's claims and the Company filed a pro forma joinder to the
motion to dismiss, which was recently heard by the Court.

TerraForm said, "While the Company believes that these claims are
without merit, it cannot predict with certainty the ultimate
resolution of any proceedings brought in connection with these
claims."


TOMS KING: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Thomas Consumer Credit Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Denece Thomas filed an appeal from a court order issued
in her lawsuit entitled Denece Thomas v. Toms King (Ohio), LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01419, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On August 26, 2020, the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) was
granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Denece Thomas v. Toms King
(Ohio), LLC, et al., Case No. 20-3977, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DENECE THOMAS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

Defendants-Appellees TOMS KING (OHIO), LLC, TOMS KING (OHIO II),
LLC, and TOMS KING SERVICES, LLC are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Brauer, Esq.
          2806 S. Birch Run
          Erie, PA 16506
          Telephone: (216) 621-0150

               - and -

          Gregory W. Guevara, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 684-5257
          E-mail: gguevara@boselaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Shoemaker Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LENARD SHOEMAKER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00869, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on September 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-04381-WFK-CLP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' fraudulent concealment, breach
of contract, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law by manufacturing and
marketing Toyota vehicles with defective low-pressure fuel pumps.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., is the sales and marketing
division of automobile manufacturer Toyota Motor Corp.,
headquartered in Plano, Texas. Toyota Motor Corporation is a
Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    

         Noah Axler, Esq.
         AXLER GOLDICH LLC
         1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (267) 534-7400
         Facsimile: (267) 534-7407
         E-mail: naxler@axgolaw.com

                - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
         Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com
                 jerrodp@hbsslaw.com


TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Appeals W.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Adams Pointe I LP, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuits entitled ADAMS POINTE I, L.P, ADAMS
POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL
ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., JBCO; ADAMS POINTE III, L.P. ADAMS POINTE
NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION,
L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, L.P., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, AND
JOHN EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00750-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa.); and TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP.,
TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RIDGE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.; ADAMS
POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; ADAMS POINTE SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS
ASSOC., L.P.; ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; UNIQUE
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT COMPANY; PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS, LLC (OF TEXAS),
Third Party Defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to:

   (a) certify their proposed Classes;

   (b) appoint the individually Named Plaintiffs as Class
       Representatives to the extent requested; and

   (c) appoint as Lead Class Counsel N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.,
       and Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq., of the firm Carpenter &
       Schumacher, P.C.

The proposed Class is defined as:

     All persons who purchased for personal, family or household
     purposes yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow
     Pro-Flex(R) CSST in the United States between 1999 and the
     date of class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class for Counts
I-II under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs propose the certification of a nationwide class in
the absence of substantial differences in the rights and interests
as to the causes of action at issue.

The appellate case is captioned as Adams Pointe I LP, et al. v.
Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp, et al., Case No. 20-8034, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ADAMS POINTE I LP, ADAMS POINTE II LP,
BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES LP, BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LP,
JBCO, ADAMS POINTE III LP, ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION LP, COULTER & GRAHAM
LP, MICHAEL BICHLER, KATHLEEN BICHLER, and JOHN EVANS, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq.
          Nathan S. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER
          2701 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-1133
          E-mail: rstanton@cstriallaw.com
                  scarpenter@cstriallaw.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

Defendants-Respondents TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX LLC, and
PRO-FLEX LLC are represented by:

          Daniel R. Bentz, I, Esq.
          Thomas Pie, Jr., Esq.
          Ashley N. Rodgers, Esq.
          MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY & KELLY
          707 Grant Street, 2600 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 467-2021
          E-mail: DBentz@moodklaw.com
                  tpie@moodklaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela V. Collis, Esq.
          MEYER DARRAGH BUCKLER BEBENEK & ECK
          600 Grant Street
          U.S. Steel Tower, Suite 4850
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-6600
          E-mail: pcollis@mdbbe.com

               - and -

          Adam L. Frankel, Esq.
          Thomas A. Gamache, Esq.
          Daniel J. Offenbach, Esq.
          LEAHY EISENBER FRAENKEL
          33 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 368-4554
          E-mail: tag@lefltd.com
                  djo@lefltd.com

Third Parties-Respondents RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP, RIDGE MANAGEMENT
& DEVELOPMENT CORP, ADAMS POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP, ADAMS POINTE
SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION LP, ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINUM
ASSOCIATION, WARD MANUFACTURING LLC, DBA Wardflex, UNIQUE
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT CO, and PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS LLC OF TEXAS are
represented by:

          Jason A. Medure, Esq.
          MEDURE BONNER BELLISSIMO
          22 North Mill Street
          New Castle, PA 16101
          Telephone: (724) 653-7855

               - and -

          Joseph H. Blum, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON
          2001 Market Street
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-2555
          E-mail: jblum@shb.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline C. Gorbey, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5486

               - and -

          Julie A. Brennan, Esq.
          Timothy R. Smith, Esq.
          PION NERONE GIRMAN WINSLOW & SMITH
          1500 One Gateway Center
          420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 618-3541
          E-mail: jbrennan@pionlaw.com
                  tsmith@pionlaw.com  

               - and -

          Howard M. Cohn, Esq.
          CRAIN CATON & JAMES
          3300 Two Houston Center
          909 Fannin Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-8668
          Facsimile: (713) 658-1921
          E-mail: mcohn@craincaton.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Geduldig, Esq.
          THOMAS THOMAS & HAFER
          P. O. Box 999
          Harrisburg, PA 17108
          Telephone: (717) 237-7119

               - and -

          Ginevra F. Ventre, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3049
          E-mail: gventre@reedsmith.com


TVI INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Melead Employment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TVI, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled RICK MELEAD, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of the general public similarly situated v.
TVI, INC., d.b.a. SAVERS a Washington corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01224-CJC-ADS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 27,
2020, the case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Orange to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 10, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-01224 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the California Labor Code for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, and failure
to provide required meal and rest periods.

The appellate case is captioned as Rick Melead v. TVI, Inc., Case
No. 20-80131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RICK MELEAD, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Shani Or Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner TVI, INC., a Washington Corporation, DBA
Savers, is represented by:

          Dylan Bradley Carp, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          E-mail: carpd@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Adam Yuda Siegel, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ultra Petroleum, Inc. ("Ultra" or "the
Company") (OTCMKTS: UPLCQ) investors that acquired securities
between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019.

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

This lawsuit charges certain current and former officers and/or
directors of Ultra Petroleum with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development
company with its primary assets in the Jonah and Pinedale fields of
southwest Wyoming's Green River Basin. Over 80% of the Company's
revenues have historically been derived from the development and
sale of natural gas. On May 14, 2020, Ultra Petroleum filed for
bankruptcy protection. Ultra Petroleum is not named as a defendant
in the action.

In April 2017, at the beginning of the Class Period, Ultra
Petroleum exited a court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to defendants, Ultra
Petroleum was "in growth mode" at the point it exited the
bankruptcy. Ultra stated that the it was prepared to maximize the
value of its substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at
$4.19 billion, which included $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped
reserves) by way of ramped up production in 2017 and 2018, and that
it was set to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic feet
equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production growth over these
figures in 2018. Ultra represented that they had the financial and
production flexibility to withstand even a low-commodity-price
environment and was in preparation to ramp up well development with
10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an estimated $788 million
capital budget. Accretive to this plan was the launch of a
horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra executives claimed
was set to greatly expand the production capabilities of the
Ultra's existing wells.

The complaint alleges that these and similar statements issued by
Ultra during the Class Period were misleading and materially false.
Throughout the Class Period, Ultra, inter alia: (i) materially
overstated the value of Ultra oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially
misrepresented their ability increase production as well as its
financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose extreme sensitivity
of Ultra to even a modest decline in natural gas prices; and (iv)
concealed significant setbacks in the Ultra's vaunted horizontal
well drilling program.

Then, soon after exiting bankruptcy at the beginning in August
2017, Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations that
demonstrated that it was not capable of increasing production by
any meaningful amount and that its wells were worth a fraction of
the values that had been previously represented. Finally, on August
9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced disappointing results for the
second quarter of 2019, announcing that total revenues had
decreased 18% for the quarter, that Ultra's horizontal well program
had been effectively halted, and that it was lowering its 2019
projected capital investments to a range of $260 million to $290
million and annual production to a range of 238 to 244 Bcfe. The
price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% on this news to just
$0.09 per share, continuing to fall to just $0.01 per share, 99%
below the stock's Class Period high. On August 22, 2019, Ultra
Petroleum stock was delisted. And in May 2020, the Ultra was forced
to enter bankruptcy proceedings once more in order to seek a
court-ordered reorganization.

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.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 1 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Ultra Petroleum Corp. ("Ultra" or "the Company") (OTC: UPLCQ) for
violations of Sections 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 April 13,
2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 2, 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. Ultra overstated its proven reserves by
hundreds of millions of dollars' in value. In fact, the Company's
proven reserves had little value because of their low-quality
deposits. The Company failed to meet its production and development
estimates. The Company's business was much less flexible than it
claimed, which resulted in an inability to withstand even a minor
downturn in the market. 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 Ultra,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Ravi Sues Under Tucker Act in Federal Claims Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Teja Ravi, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. USA, Case No.
1:20-cv-01237-NBF (Fed. Cl., Sept. 21, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract--Other for the Tucker
Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Norris, Esq.
          616 E St. NW, #1156
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (713) 303-5535
          Email: amy@mwlc.org


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Condry Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rachel Condry, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Rachel Condry, et al. v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-VC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7,
2020, the Hon. Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part
the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit.

According to the Order, the Court ruled at summary judgment that
United Healthcare, when it denied five named plaintiffs' claims for
reimbursement of out-of-network lactation services, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act's requirement that the plan
administrator "write a denial in a manner calculated to be
understood by the claimant."

The Plaintiffs now seek certification of a class of ERISA plan
participants, who received the same denial letters as the five
named plaintiffs, with an eye towards a court order requiring
United Healthcare to send class members new letters that explain
the basis for denial in a comprehensible fashion (which would, in
turn, allow participants to meaningfully assess whether to contest
the denial).

Judge Chhabria concludes that in sum, the data and evidence the
Plaintiffs have provided do not come close to proving that United
Healthcare failed to comply with the Affordable Care Act in a
uniform way. "This precludes a finding, on this record, that the
members of the proposed nationwide class had their claims denied
due to a uniform standard or practice. This aspect of the motion
for class certification is therefore denied."

The appellate case is captioned as RACHEL CONDRY, JANCE HOY,
CHRISTINE ENDICOTT, LAURA BISHOP, FELICITY BARBER, and RACHEL
CARROLL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners, TERESA HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Intervenor Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; et al., Defendants-Respondents, Case No.
20-80005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript shall be ordered on October 19, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter on November 17,
      2020;

   -- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed on December 28, 2020;

   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed on January 27, 2021; and

   -- The optional appellants' reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees'
      brief.[BN]


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Court Dismisses Amended Dinerstein Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATT DINERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL
CENTER, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and THE UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 19 C 4311 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, (i) granted the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
The University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Medical
Center, and Google, and (ii) terminated as moot the University's
motion to strike the class allegations.

In 2017, the Defendants began a research partnership in which they
used machine-learning techniques to create predictive health models
aimed at reducing hospital readmissions and anticipating future
medical events.  As part of the research, the University disclosed
to Google the "de-identified" electronic health records of all
adult patients treated at its hospital from Jan. 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2016.  Plaintiff Matt Dinerstein was an inpatient at the
University in June 2015 and, asserting a variety of state-law
claims, commenced the lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act on behalf of all patients whose medical information was
disclosed for the Defendants' research.

The amended class action complaint alleges that Mr. Dinerstein had
two separate hospital stays as a patient at the University's
hospital in June 2015.  Each stay lasted for a few days, and the
Plaintiff paid premiums and other fees to health insurers who
provided coverage for the treatment and services he received.
During his stays at the hospital and throughout 2015, Mr.
Dinerstein maintained an account with Defendant Google and used a
smartphone with Google applications on it, which, he alleges,
collected and transmitted to Google his geolocation information.
Also during these stays, the University generated and maintained
health records for the Plaintiff, which included such sensitive
information as his demographic data, vital signs, diagnoses,
procedures, and prescriptions.  He received two forms relevant to
this sensitive information: the Admission and Outpatient Agreement
and Authorization form, and the Notice of Privacy Practices.

In May 2017, Google announced that it had partnered with the
University to use "machine learning" to identify patients' health
problems and predict future medical events.  To conduct the study,
the University transferred electronic health records ("EHRs") to
Google.  The transfer was made pursuant to a December 2016 Data Use
Agreement ("DUA") under which the University would transfer to
Google the EHRs of every patient, age 18 or older, who used the
University's outpatient, inpatient, or emergency services between
Jan. 1, 2010 and June 30, 2016.  Google has submitted a patent
application for a system that aggregates EHR data and uses machine
learning on those records to predict future medical events.
According to the amended complaint, by submitting the patent
application in 2017, Google demonstrated its clear intent to
commercialize the University's medical records prior to obtaining
them.

The Plaintiff alleges that while Google retains all rights to the
software created using the EHRs, the DUA granted the University a
perpetual license to use that software.  Google disputes this
characterization of the DUA.  In fact, it is not apparent to the
court what exactly has been granted to the University.  The DUA
grants to the University, for internal non-commercial research
purposes, a nonexclusive, perpetual license to use the Trained
Models and Predictions created by Google.  The Trained Model refers
to the model created via machine learning conducted on the EHRs,
and Predictions are the results of the model's computations.

In early 2018, the Defendants published a study discussing the
results of their research and methodology.  The article explains
that the study used EHRs provided by Defendant University and the
University of California, San Francisco ("UCSF") that included the
following "de-identified" information: patient demographics,
provider orders, diagnoses, procedures, medications, laboratory
values, vital signs, and flowsheet data from all inpatient and
outpatient encounters.  The article notes that Defendant University
-- but not UCSF -- included the "dates of service" as well as
"free-text medical notes" in the EHRs provided to Google.

According to the Plaintiff, disclosing such information is a prima
facie violation of the Healthcare Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").  These records were not, the
amended complaint alleges, sufficiently anonymized, and therefore
put patient privacy at risk.  According to the amended complaint,
whatever process was used to redact these notes was not properly
audited or independently verified.  These disclosures, the
Plaintiff alleges, violate HIPAA because the University either did
not make an expert determination that the risk of re-identifying
the data was very small or, if such a determination was made, it
was incorrect.  The amended complaint does not allege, however,
that Google has in fact used its extensive data to re-identify any
EHRs.

Mr. Dinerstein commenced the action on behalf of himself and all
individuals in the United States whose EHRs were transferred by the
University to Google.  According to the amended complaint, the
Court has jurisdiction under CAFA because at least one member of
the proposed class is a citizen of a different state than the
Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

The Plaintiff asserts several causes of action on behalf of himself
and the class: Against the University, he brings claims for
violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFA") (Count I), breach of express contract (Count
II), breach of implied contract (Count III), and unjust enrichment
(Count VII).  Against Google, he asserts claims for tortious
interference with contract (Count IV) and unjust enrichment (Count
VI).  And he asserts a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against
both the Defendants (Count V).

The University and Google have both filed motions to dismiss,
contending that the Plaintiff lacks standing and has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The University has
also filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations on
the grounds that the Plaintiff's counsel has a conflict of interest
that disqualifies him from representing the class.

A motion to dismiss for lack of standing tests the jurisdictional
sufficiency of the complaint.  Both Defendants present facial
challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
Mr. Dinerstein has not adequately alleged a basis for standing in
his amended complaint.  To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff
must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally
protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.  The Plaintiff has
identified three injuries that he claims satisfy this standard,
while the Defendants contend that none is sufficient to confer him
standing.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that the Plaintiff has pleaded two concrete
and particularized injuries in fact to support his contract and
common law claims asserted against the University and Google.  The
other requirements for Article III standing are met for those
claims as well, because the alleged breach of contract and invasion
of privacy are fairly traceable to the University's and Google's
conduct and could be redressed by some of the relief that Mr.
Dinerstein seeks.

The Plaintiff's ICFA claim differs.  A claim under that statute
requires a showing of actual damages, which has been interpreted by
state courts to refer only to economic or pecuniary harm.  Mr.
Dinerstein insists that the actual damages requirement for an ICFA
claim is satisfied wherever a defendant's deception deprives the
plaintiff of the benefit of her bargain.  The Plaintiff contends
that had he known about the University's privacy practices, he may
have gone to a different hospital or paid less for his treatment.
But this merely restates the overpayment theory that was rejected
in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC.  The Plaintiff's ICFA claim
(Count I) is therefore dismissed.

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the case.
To survive such a motion, the complaint must provide a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, sufficient to provide a defendant with "fair notice" of
the claim and the basis for it.  The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law.

Three elements are at issue for Mr. Dinerstein's contract claim:
whether he has pleaded that the University breached the contract,
whether the agreement was supported by valid consideration, and
whether he has alleged damages.  The Judge finds that (i) Mr.
Dinerstein has plausibly alleged that the University breached its
contractual promise to comply with federal law when it exchanged
protected health information for the license to use Trained Models
and Predictions developed by Google; (ii) the Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged that his information was sold without his prior
authorization in violation of the NPP and, therefore, in breach of
the Authorization; and (iii) because at least part of the
University's promises to the Plaintiff went beyond its obligations
under federal law, the Authorization, which incorporated the NPP,
was supported by valid consideration.  

For these reasons, the Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded that
the University's breach of contract caused him economic damages.
His theories in support of his claim for money damages are
inadequate.  Because Mr. Dinerstein has not pleaded that the
University's reach caused him economic damage, his express contract
claim (Count II) is dismissed for failure to state a claim for
relief.

As an alternative to his express breach of contract claim, Mr.
Dinerstein asserts a claim against the University for breaching an
implied contract to keep his medical information private.  An
express contract governing the Plaintiff's medical information
existed between him and the University; indeed, he alleges that the
terms of the implied contract are the promises in the NPP and
Authorization -- which are the terms of the express contract.  And
the damages the Plaintiff alleges he suffered as a result of the
University's breach of the implied contract are the same damages
claimed for breach of the express contract, which the Judge already
found to be inadequate.  The implied contract claim (Count III) is
therefore dismissed.

Regarding tortious interference claim, the Judge finds that because
the Plaintiff has not pleaded that Google acted with such a
purpose, the claim (Count IV) is dismissed.  The Judge finds that
the Plaintiff argues only that his tortious interference claim does
not require pleading wrongful or malicious intent.  That is true,
but it does not obviate the need to plead intent at all.  The
essential thing is the purpose to cause the result.

Next, the Plaintiff asserts a common law claim for intrusion upon
seclusion against both the Defendants because of the University's
disclosure and Google's receipt of his PHI.  Likely recognizing
that the case law forecloses his ability to pursue the claim, Mr.
Dinerstein abandons his intrusion-upon-seclusion theory in his
brief and tries to reframe it as a breach-of-confidentiality tort.

But the Plaintiff has not shown that the tort is the majority rule;
indeed, he refers to it only as a "general consensus."  He cites an
Illinois appellate court opinion from 1986 -- Petrillo v. Syntex
Labs., Inc. -- as evidence that Illinois courts would recognize the
breach of confidentiality claim in question.  Though the opinion
includes some language on the confidential and fiduciary
relationship existing between a patient and his physician, the case
concerned a defense lawyer who had been found in contempt because
of his ex parte communications with the plaintiff's physician.
Petrillo is inapposite.  As such, it is unlikely that Illinois
would recognize the breach of confidentiality tort.  The Plaintiff
has not stated an intrusion-on-seclusion claim, and the Judge
declines to recognize a cause of action for breach of
confidentiality.  Count V is dismissed.

Finally, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims are dismissed as
well.  The Plaintiff acknowledges that his unjust enrichment claims
depend on the other theories he asserted against the University and
Google.  Because the Plaintiff's other claims have been dismissed,
so should his unjust enrichment claims.  Counts VI and VII are
dismissed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Pallmeyer granted Defendant
University's and Defendant Google's motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended class action complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).  The Judge also dismissed as moot the University's motion
to strike class allegations.  The Plaintiff has leave to file an
amended complaint, if any, on Oct. 15, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y32cva68 from
Leagle.com.


VINCE LLC: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vince, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Vince, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-01867-H-AHG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2020).

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

Vince LLC manufactures, retails, and distributes textile products.
The Company designs and markets clothing apparel and accessories
for men, women, and children at retail stores and on an e-commerce
platform. Vince serve customers worldwide.[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


VISALUS: To Pay $925 Million Award for Alleged TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natlaw Review reports that last month, an Oregon federal judge
refused ViSalus' request to decrease the $925 million jury award
against it for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). ViSalus, a health supplement maker,
allegedly made approximately 1.8 million unsolicited robocalls.
This award came after ViSalus decided not to settle the class
action and face statutory damages between $500 and $1,500 per
unwanted text or call. This jury award should be a warning to other
companies whose strategy in these TCPA class action cases is to
bypass settlement negotiations and argue at trial that the
Constitution's due process clause should protect them from exposure
to damage awards that are extensive and far-reaching beyond the
harm actually incurred by the alleged conduct.

This case ended up in the hands of a jury in April, after the court
certified a nationwide class of about 800,000 individuals. The
judge did, however, determine that ViSalus did not need to pay more
than $500 per call for the award to be a sufficient deterrent, but
also did not want to go below the statutory minimum.

However, while the judge did issue a final judgment approving the
$925 million award, ViSalus plans to move forward with post-trial
motions and to appeal this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. While other courts have weighed in on this issue in the
past, the Ninth Circuit has yet to make a determination on TCPA
awards. We will continue to watch this case as it moves through the
appeals process.[GN]

VISIONS FEDERAL: Petrey Commences Class Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visions Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Michelle Petrey, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Visions Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 3:20-cv-01147-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Visions Federal Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
The Union provides financial solutions, such as loans, investment,
deposit accounts, insurance, security, credit and debit cards,
online banking, and other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: (732) 636-8000
          Fax: (732) 726-6686
          Email: kroddy@wilentz.com


WALGREEN CO: Samuel Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEVAUGHN SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-04441 (E.D.N.Y., Sept,
21, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly pay
the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions,
such as cashiers, customer service associates, and greeters in New
York overtime wages and timely wages, and failed to provide proper
time of hire notice, as well as accurate wage statements as
required by the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by Walgreens as an hourly worker from
March 25, 2018, through September 1, 2020.

Walgreen, Co. is an American company that operates as the
second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS
Health. It specializes in filling prescriptions, health and
wellness products, health information, and photo services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


WILLIS TOWERS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Regents Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01338-AJT-JFA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 12,
2020, Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that
the lead plaintiff in the putative consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation, Master
File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA, has filed a motion for class
certification.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
("ValueAct"), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control person"
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements. The complaint further contended that the allegedly
false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy
Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration.

On June 12, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, in connection with which it indicated that it is
seeking class-wide damages of approximately $456 million.

The appellate case is captioned as In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation, Case No. 20-442, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Susan Rebecca Podolsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 366-1702
          Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
          E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Petitioners WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC, TOWERS WATSON &
CO., WILLIS GROUP HOLDING PLC, VALUEACT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, JOHN J.
HALEY, and DOMINIC CASSERLEY are represented by:

          Joshua Sanders Amsel, Esq.
          Matthew S. Connors, Esq.
          John A. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Amanda Kay Pooler, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153-0000
          Telephone: (212) 310-8782
          E-mail: joshua.amsel@weil.com
                  matthew.connors@weil.com
                  john.neuwirth@weil.com
                  amanda.pooler@weil.com

               - and -

          Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq.
          Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq.
          Johnathon Earl Schronce, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Telephone: (804) 788-8200
          E-mail: efeiler@HuntonAK.com
                  efuhr@HuntonAK.com
                  jschronce@HuntonAK.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Horvath, Jr., Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          E-mail: rickhorvath@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Arvind Jairam, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          2050 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 551-1887
          E-mail: arvindjairam@paulhastings.com


YUMA WAY: Wasif Sues in District of Colorado Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuma Way LLC. The
case is styled as Yvonne Wasif, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Yuma Way LLC, doing business as: 1136
Yuma, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Case No.
1:20-cv-02847-RM (D. Colo., Sept. 21, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Yuma Way LLC is a Colorado marijuana business, operating retail and
dedical marijuana dispensary and cultivation locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com



                            *********

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 ***