/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201005.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 199

                            Headlines

4E BRANDS: Callantine Suit Transferred to Indiana Dist. Ct.
5TH & TAYLOR: Walder Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
ABSOLUTE REMODELING: Avedyan Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Gonzalez Files Civil Rights Suit in Mississippi
AGILITY BED: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Germano Suit Over Sale to Nestle
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Sale to Nestle Lacks Info, Rosenblatt Says
AIR BANDIT LLC: Olsen Files Suit under American w/ Disabilities Act
AIRBUS SE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Sabatini Challenges Proposed Sale to Ionis

ALABAMA: Faces Hampton Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
ALL PAWS: Ovando Suit Seek Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
ALLISON MEDICAL: Sued by Moreno for Marketing Defective Syringes
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Goldsmith Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado
ALTERYX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline

ALTERYX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
ALTERYX INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
ALTERYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
ALTEX ELECTRONICS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN CONSULTING: Venable Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Prelim Injunction in Jimenez Suit Partly Okayed
ANACACHO INC: Paguada Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline

ANAPLAN INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
ANGLICARE: Family Members of Residents Mull COVID-19 Class Action
ARAMARK SPORTS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Varela Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
ATLANTIC CASUALTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dickinson Claims

BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro et al. Refile Class Certification Bid
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metals Futures, Braun Alleges
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Precious Metal Futures, RCA Says
BARCLAY OPERATING: Unlawfully Retains Gratuities, Luchko Claims

BECC HOLDINGS: Hamberg Files Suit in S.D. California
BIG FISH: Settles Class Action Over Casino App
BIOLIFE ENERGY: Faces Owens Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Tsantes Sues Over Decline in Share Price
BLUESTONE LANE: Boyd Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California

BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
CABOT OIL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
CANADA: Court Has Yet to Decide on Sham Charity Donation Tax Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: 1199 SEIU Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit

CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Lugo Files Class Suit in S.D. New York
CHAD T. WOLF: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Roman Suit
CHAN LOM THAI: Tanjapatkul Files FLSA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CHARLIE'S SOAP: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CHARLOTTE, NC: Breaches Privacy of Drivers, Hensley Suit Alleges

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL: Fox Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
CIEE INC: Zhao Appeals Order & Judgment in CAFA Suit to 1st Cir.
CITIZENS BANK: Palmer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
CLIENT SERVICES: Final Approval of $120,000 Settlement Sought
COATZINGO ENTERPRISES: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York

COLONY CREDIT: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Taps Mediator to Resolve Class Action
CORT BUSINESS: Doerner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
COTY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 3 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
CREDIT COLLECTION: Martinez Alleges Violation under FDCPA

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Henderson FLSA Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Lee Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. California
DALLAS COWBOYS PRO: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
DELAWARE: Gibbs Files Suit Asserting Civil Rights for Prisoners
DEON REALTY: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses

DIAMOND RESORTS: Foulk Alleges Violation under FDCPA
DISH NETWORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Goings Suit Alleges
DOONEY & BOURKE: Jariwala Asserts Breach of ADA in California
DOUYU INT'L: Liang Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to C.D. California
E&R SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Santos Claims

EASTMAN KODAK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
EF INSTITUTE: Grabovsky Suit Moved From S.D. Calif. to D. Mass.
ENCLARITY INC: Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Fulton TCPA Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: May 31 Opinion & Order in Dougherty Amended

EVOLUTION WELL: Copley Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
FAIRLIFE LLC: Figueroa Claims Milk Shake Vanilla Label Deceptive
FAMOUS DAVE'S: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part
FAREPORTAL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Alcala Says
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline

FASTLY INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
FASTLY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 26 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
FLATIRON SCHOOL: Dau Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to S.D. New York
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Bryant Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas

FRANCO FOOD: Faces Aponte Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
G. WILLI-FOOD: Subsidiary Faces NIS57-Mil. Class Action
GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Langston Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
GENENTECH INC: Williamson Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Winegard Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York

GENIUS BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
GENIUS BRANDS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
GF INC: Class Certification of Tipped Il Canale Employees Sought
GOHEALTH INC: Piumetti Suit Balks at 40% Drop in IPO Share Price
GOL LINHAS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 10 Motion Deadline

GOLAR LNG LTD: Faces Zarabi Suit in N.Y. Over Drop in Share Price
GOOGLE INC: Attorney General to File Antitrust Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Actions in Canada
GRANDE GAMES: Heathcote Suit Seeks Money Lost at Online Gambling
GRIFFIN ALEXANDER: Certification of Settlement Class Sought

GROUPE SEB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Suit Says
GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory 14-Day Quarantine
HARRIS ORIGINALS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
HDFC BANK: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
HIRERIGHT LLC: Smith Sues in N.D. Georgia Over Violation of FCRA

HOME DEPOT: Schilling Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved to C.D. California
HUDSPETH & ASSOCIATES: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
I.C. SYSTEM: Guzman Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
ICELINK WATCH: Jariwala Alleges Violation of ADA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Regala Alleges

JUST ANOTHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Aniseto Says
JUUL LABS: Conditional Certification of Campaign Workers Sought
K.J.C. INC: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KENOSHA, WI: Faces Discrimination Class Suit Over Curfew Arrests
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Ibarra Suit Seeks $500MM in Damages for Injury

KOWALSKI HEAT: Sued by Davis Under FLSA for Underpaying Employees
KPMG LLP: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Kassman Discrimination Suit
KTM HOLDINGS: Nisbett Alleges Violation under ADA
LEE MICHAELS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
LEWIS UNIVERSITY: Miller Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure

LG ELECTRONICS: Park Suit Removed to Southern Dist. of California
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: My Dream Boutique Files Civil Rights Suit
LOVELY TWINS: Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Deductions
LUMINA SOLAR: $249,000 Deal in Rogers Suit Gets Final Approval
LYFT INC: 9th Cir. to Hear Drivers' Appeal in Sick Leave Suit

MAMA'S PIZZA: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MENASHA PACKAGING: Landa BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Petition for Habeas Corpus in Resch Suit
MICHIGAN: MDOC Faces Lee Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
MILLER PIPELINE: Class Status Sought for Non-Exempt Field Employees

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Jaquez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
MOORE INGRAM: Faces Russo FLSA Suit in Tenn. Over Unpaid OT Wages
MUSICIANS PENSION FUND: Stoner Appeals Order in Snitzer ERISA Suit
NAN MCKAY: Faces Johnson Labor Suit Over Unlawful Wage Payment
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Seeks Class Status

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Anderson Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bloom Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Byrd Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Freeman Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gallardo Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gill Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Glover Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Harris Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hatch Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hawkins Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: James Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Keys Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: MacAulay Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McCurdy Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McKnight Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Miller-Hobbs Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Miroth Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ori Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Reaves Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Lawsuit

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sterling Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thomas Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Watson Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wiljanen Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois

NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in Hyland Class Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
NCAA: Holmes Class Suit Moved From S.D. Indiana to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Mayer Class Suit Moved From S.D. Indiana to N.D. Illinois
NEVADA: Workers Seek Mediation in Unemployment System Suit
NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action

NILKANTH PIZZA: Burton Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Circuit
NORTH COAST: Gunther Remanded to Humboldt County Superior Court
OCALA, FL: Final Judgment in Discount Sleep Suit Reversed
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
OMNI HOTELS: Martinez Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California

ONESPAN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
PARK PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
PIONEER CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
POOL CORP: Hickerson Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 10th Circuit
PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline

PORTLAND GENERAL: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
PORTLAND GENERAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Bid Deadline
PRIVATE LABEL: Class Cert. Denied w/ Leave to Renew in Schourup
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Grunfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 27 Motion Deadline

PROGENITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 27 Motion Deadline
RENT RECOVERY: Faces Vanderwoude Suit Over Collection Letter
RICCA GROUP: Progressive Health Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ROCKET BALL: Faces Paguada Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
S&P DATA: Fails to Properly Pay CS Agents' Wages, Sanchez Alleges

S.F. EXPRESS: Drape Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fingerprints
SENEX LAW: Tenants File for Class Action
SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Snider Files ERISA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
SIS KISS: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SN SERVICING: Thomas Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation

SOMA INTIMATES: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA
ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baqer, et al. Seek to Certify Detainees Class
STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Appeal in Civil Rights Suit

SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Phelps Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET: Agrees to Review Screening Practices After Settlement
TECOVAS INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Writers' OT Wages, Dailey Alleges
TESLA INC: Class Certification in Securities Litigation Sought

TORRO LLC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
TOWN SPORTS: Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Amid Class Action
TRULUCK'S RESTAURANT: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
TULANE UNIVERSITY: Ellis Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Scooters Lack Safety Device, Norman Suit Says

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Warehousemen, Rivera FLSA Suit Claims
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Condry Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE: Stewart Sues Over Failure to Refund Students

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Grad Student Files Class Action
VANLAW FOOD: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Torre Suit Upheld
VAXART INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
VAXART INC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
VESTAR INC: United Poly Sues in New York Over Breach of Contract

WARREN DISTRIBUTING: Faces Juarez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
WELCH FOODS: Clevenger Injury Suit Removed to C.D. California
WHOLE FOODS: Fahey Sues Over Vanilla Almondmilk's Deceptive Label
WINCO HOLDINGS: Garza Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
WINCO HOLDINGS: Garza Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved to E.D. California

XEROX BUSINESS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Hill Suit
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
YOU GARDEN: Wang Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
YOUTUBE: Faces Class Action in U.K. Over Unlawful Use of Kids' Data
[*] 1st Cir. Holds FAA Doesn't Drive Independent Contractors Claims

[*] Captive Insurance Arbitration Clause Foils Class Action Attempt
[*] Class Action Against Auto Insurers Headed to Court of Appeal
[*] New Bill to Allow Private Antitrust Class Actions

                            *********

4E BRANDS: Callantine Suit Transferred to Indiana Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Melody Callantine, on behalf of herself her
minor children KC and LC and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 4E Brands North America LLC, Defendant, was
transferred from the St. Joseph Superior Court with the assigned
Case No. 71D05-2008-CT-000283 to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana on September 22, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-00801.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed for Diversity-Personal Injury.

4e Brands Northamerica LLC is located in San Antonio, TX, United
States and is part of the Soap & Other Detergent Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Scott B Cockrum, Esq.
   Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP - Hi/IN
   2211 Main St Ste 3-2A
   Highland, IN 46322
   Tel: (219) 440-0600 x0602
   Fax: (219) 440-0601
   Email: Scott.Cockrum@lewisbrisbois.com



5TH & TAYLOR: Walder Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEIGH WALDER, ANDREA LARSON, KAITLIN WRIGHT, and EMILY OWENS, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. 5th &
TAYLOR, L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-00828 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 25,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that 5th & Taylor has employed hundreds of
servers who were paid a tipped hourly rate -- i.e., lower than the
minimum wage of $7.25 per hour -- relying on the "tip credit"
provision of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs further assert that 5th &
Taylor improperly paid this lower tipped hourly rate to servers
because it did not satisfy the requirements to utilize the "tip
credit" provisions of the FLSA.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant and bar in Nashville,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

ABSOLUTE REMODELING: Avedyan Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
AROUSIAK AVEDYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ABSOLUTE REMODELING CONCEPTS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Case No. CACE-20-015526 (Fla. Cir.,
Sept. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to solicit new paying
clients, the Defendant transmitted text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 4069 by using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) without obtaining the Plaintiff's
prior express consent. The Defendant allegedly engages in
unsolicited marketing by using ATDS causing the recipients of those
messages injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled
statutory damages, and an injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant from transmitting text messages using ATDS without
obtaining prior express consent.

Absolute Remodeling Concepts, LLC is a general contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Gonzalez Files Civil Rights Suit in Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gillis, et al. The
case is styled as Louis Gonzalez also known as: Carlos Ramos
Sanchez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Warden Shawn R. Gillis; John Doe, Assistant Warden;
John Doe, Prison Official; John Does 1-7, ICE Deportation Officers,
Defendants; Pro Se Department, Interested Party, Case No.
5:20-cv-00186-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Sept. 25, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions for Prisoner
Civil Rights.

Shawn R. Gillis is the warden of the Adams County Correctional
Center in Natchez, Mississippi.[BN]


AGILITY BED: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agility Bed, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Agility Bed, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08011
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2020).

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

Agility Bed is an online mattress retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Germano Suit Over Sale to Nestle
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN GERMANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC., JAYSON D.A. DALLAS, MARK T.
IWICKI, GREG BEHAR, BRETT K. HAUMANN, MARK D. MCDADE, STACEY D.
SELTZER, PATRICK G. ENRIGHT, and KATHRYN E. FALBERG, Case No.
3:20-cv-06727 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and breach of fiduciary duties relating to the 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 Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement 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 acquisition of Aimmune by Societes des
Produits Nestle S.A. and SPN MergerSub, Inc. 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; (c) the compensation to be received by the financial
advisors; and (d) the existence of Don't Ask, Don't Waive
Standstill (DADW) provisions and confidentiality agreements.

As a direct result of the Defendants' negligent preparation,
review, and dissemination of the false and/or misleading
Recommendation Statement, the Plaintiff says he and other Aimmune
shareholders are impeded from making a decision on a fully informed
basis and are induced to tender their shares and accept the
inadequate Merger Consideration in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

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 located in Brisbane, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
         
         David E. Bower, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
         Culver City, CA 90230
         Telephone: (213) 446-6652
         Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
         E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

               - and –

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 971-1341
         Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and –

         Michael Palestina, Esq.
         KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
         1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: (504) 455-1400
                    (504) 648-1843
         Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
         E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Sale to Nestle Lacks Info, Rosenblatt Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC., GREG BEHAR,
JAYSON DALLAS, PATRICK ENRIGHT, KATE FALBERG, BRETT HAUMANN, MARK
IWICKI, MARK MCDADE, STACEY D. SELTZER, SOCIETES DES PRODUITS
NESTLE S.A., and SPN MERGERSUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01289-UNA
(D. Del., Sept. 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Aimmune Therapeutics by Societes des
Produits Nestle.

On August 31, 2020, Aimmune's board of directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Nestle, pursuant
to which Merger Sub, SPN MergerSub Inc., commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of Aimmune's outstanding common stock for $34.50 in
cash per share. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire on October
9, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
materially misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2020, wherein the
statement omits material information concerning the proposed
transaction. The Recommendation Statement fails to disclose the
timing and nature of the investment banking services financial
advisor Lazard Freres & Co. LLC provided to L'Oreal S.A. or its
subsidiaries, fails to disclose whether Lazard has provided past
services to the Company or Parent, fails to disclose whether J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC has provided past services to the Company,
and fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications
regarding future employment and directorship of the Company's
officers and directors.

Additionally, with respect to the Company's financial projections,
the Solicitation Statement allegedly fails to disclose: (i) all
line items used to calculate EBIT; (ii) all line items used to
calculate unlevered free cash flow; (iii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics; (iv) management's "various assumptions"
underlying the financial projections and the effect such
assumptions had on the projections; and (v) the unadjusted
financial projections.

The Plaintiff contends that the omissions in the Solicitation
Statement are material to the Plaintiff and other public
stockholders, and they will be deprived of their entitlement to
make a fully informed decision with respect to the Proposed
Transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are not
corrected prior to the expiration of the tender offer.

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. is a Brisbane, California-based
biopharmaceutical company developing and bringing new treatments to
people with potentially life-threatening food allergies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


AIR BANDIT LLC: Olsen Files Suit under American w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Bandit, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Air Bandit, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04460 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020).

Air Bandit, LLC sells face masks and filtered bandanas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AIRBUS SE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Airbus SE
("Airbus" or the "Company") (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) in the United
States between February 24, 2016 and July 30, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

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

France and the U.S. later opened their own investigations into the
subject of the SFO's allegations in 2017 and 2018, respectively. On
January 31, 2020, media outlets reported that Airbus had agreed to
a deal with U.S., U.K., and French prosecutors to settle bribery
and export-control violations against the Company for €3.6
billion ($4 billion). Pursuant to the settlement, Airbus also
agreed to appoint an external compliance officer for at least two
years to monitor the Company's handling of its defense-related
sales and disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 5, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Airbus securities in the United States, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/airbusse-eadsy-eadsf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-289/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Sabatini Challenges Proposed Sale to Ionis
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AKCEA THERAPEUTICS, INC., B. LYNNE PARSHALL, ELAINE
HOCHBERG, JOSEPH KLEIN, III, DAMIEN MCDEVITT, AMBER SALZMAN,
SANDFORD D. SMITH, MICHAEL J. YANG, BARBARA YANNI, IONIS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and AVALANCHE MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01281-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 23, 2020), alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Akcea by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants filed a false and
misleading Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2020, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Akcea Therapeutics,
Inc. by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Avalanche Merger Sub, Inc.
The Solicitation Statement allegedly omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, including: (1) the Board
of Directors' basis for deciding to explore alternative business
strategies for the Akcea and engaging Cowen and Company, LLC as its
exclusive financial advisor in April 2019; (2) whether the
confidential disclosure agreements executed by Akcea in April and
May 2019 contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive"
provisions; (3) the reasons the Affiliate Transactions Committee
did not retain an alternative, independent financial advisor, in
light of the fact that Cowen was previously engaged by the
Individual Defendants in April 2019; (4) the terms of ClearView
Healthcare Partners' engagement; and (5) who determined the amount
of compensation that the members of the Affiliate Transactions
Committee would receive, and how such determination was made.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions, the Plaintiff asserts
that he and Class members are threatened with irreparable harm
because the omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material
for them to make reasonable decision whether to tender their shares
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, with its
principal executive offices located at 22 Boston Wharf Road, in
Boston, Massachusetts.

Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Carlsbad, California. Avalanche Merger Sub, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Carlsbad, California-based biotechnology company
Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 295-5310
         Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
         E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and –

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (484) 324-6800
         Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


ALABAMA: Faces Hampton Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulysses Oliver, Jr.,
et al. The case is styled as Christopher Hampton and Cortney
Rolley, on behalf of themselves individually, and all others
similarly-situated v. Ulysses Oliver, Jr., sued both in his
official & individual capacities; Bryanna Nicole Mosley, sued both
in her official & individual capacities; Leon Troy Williams, sued
both in his official & individual capacities; Willie M. Burks, sued
both in his official & individual capacities; Joseph H. Headley,
sued in his official capacity; and Alabama Department of
Corrections, Case No. 2:20-cv-00742-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala., Sept. 15,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Myron H. Thompson.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights-related laws.

Ulysses Oliver is a former Alabama Department of Corrections
guard.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric James Artrip, Esq.
          Teresa Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington Street NW; Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                  teri@mastandoartrip.com


ALL PAWS: Ovando Suit Seek Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE OVANDO, v. ALL PAWS HEADED HOME, INC., TERRI TODD and
CHRISTOPHER TODD, Case No. 3:20-cv-00829 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 28,
2020), is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
overtime compensation, non-overtime compensation, minimum wage,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff contends she was not paid for all of the time she
worked or for the time she worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. She worked
for the Defendants from May 5, 2018 until August 9, 2020 as a
transporter/driver and drove a passenger van owned and operated by
the Defendants across the United States.

All Paws is a pet transporting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
          117 South Academy Street
          Murfreesboro, TN 37130
          Telephone: (615) 896-1000

               - and -

          Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
          1019 16 TH Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615)255-5225

ALLISON MEDICAL: Sued by Moreno for Marketing Defective Syringes
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME MORENO, Individually and On Behalf of Those Similarly
Situated, AND OLGA MORENO v. ALLISON MEDICAL, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00300 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought under the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from the Defendant's
manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of certain defective
medical syringes intended for consumer use and specifically
identified as 31-gauge "Sure Comfort Insulin Syringes."

According to the complaint, on August 29, 2019, together with
various prescriptions for injectable medications for the treatment
of his erectile dysfunction, Plaintiff Jaime Moreno's physician
wrote him a prescription for the Syringes, thereby, directing him
to use the Syringes to administer said injectable medications.
During Mr. Moreno's routine intracavernous injection using the
Syringes on September 24, 2019, suddenly and without warning, the
needle within the Syringe broke off inside the shaft of his penis.

Mr. Moreno asserts that it had never happened to him in his
numerous prior injections and was not the result of misuse, as he
did not exert any unwarranted or unexpected vertical or lateral
pressure on the Syringe or needle at the injection site, it being a
particularly sensitive area of the male anatomy.

As a result of the defective Syringe allegedly manufactured and
sold by the Defendant, Mr. Moreno required medical treatment that
included referral to a urology specialist and, ultimately, a
painful surgical procedure followed by a difficult recovery process
that, in some respects, is still ongoing. To this date, Mr. Moreno
and his wife, Plaintiff Olga Moreno, contend that they continue to
experience harm and damage to their daily life as a result of the
injuries to Mr. Moreno caused by the defective Syringes.

Allison Medical, Inc. is a Littleton, Colorado-based company that
manufactures and distributes a variety of medical products,
including syringes & needles for the medical and veterinary
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          Ghazzaleh Rezazadeh, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 322-6387
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335


ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Goldsmith Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erin Goldsmith, Isabel C. Ossa, and individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Alterra Mountain Company, Ikon Pass, Inc., Arch Insurance Company
and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-05722-JAK, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on Sept. 25, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02907-RM to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Alterra Mountain Company is an American hospitality company
established in 2018 with headquarters in Denver, Colorado.[BN]


ALTERYX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Alteryx Inc. You can review a
copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020

Deadline: October 19, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/ayx

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters
or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on
adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due
to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (4) consequently, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Contact:

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


ALTERYX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 19, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Alteryx, Inc. ("Alteryx" or "the Company") (NYSE: AYX) securities
between May 6, 2020 and
August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Alteryx investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/alteryx-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its
second quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth
projections for the third quarter and full year 2020. Therein,
Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to
be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of
7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for fiscal year 2020, the
Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to
$465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62, or over 28%,
to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring
investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on
August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or
35%.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters
or downsized; (2) that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on
adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) that, as a result
and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue
was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alteryx securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 19,
2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


ALTERYX INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Sept. 13 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Alteryx
Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods listed.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT AYX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9227&from=1

Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter, and
deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a
result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract
new customers; (3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption
licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline;
and (4) 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.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


ALTERYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 1 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Alteryx Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

AYX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 6, 2020 -
August 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-information-request-form?prid=9311&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alteryx,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large
deals within the quarter, and deals were pushed out to subsequent
quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied
on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and
due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (4) 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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


ALTEX ELECTRONICS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altex Electronics,
LTD. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Altex Electronics, LTD., Case
No. 1:20-cv-07951 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Altex Electronics Ltd. trades in computers and electronics
products. The Company provides closeouts, audio and video
electronics, cables, connectors, adapters, networking hardware,
peripherals, components, power and batteries, technical supplies,
and tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN CONSULTING: Venable Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE VENABLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN CONSULTING AND TESTING, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-01232 (W.D. La., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had a policy of not
paying overtime premiums for any hours worked over 40 hours but,
under 50 hours. Although the Plaintiff worked for 47 hours, he was
not compensated for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours.
Instead, he was only paid the same hourly rate for all hours he
worked under 50 even those in excess of 40 in a workweek. As a
result, the Defendant violated the FLSA for denying the Plaintiff
of overtime premium at one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours under 50
hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from
January 2019 until August 2020.

American Consulting and Testing, Inc., provides support services
for energy operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
          KENNETH D. ST. PE, APLC
          311 West University Ave., Ste. A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Tel: (337) 534-4043
          Fax: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com

                - and –

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: 713-999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company,
Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by
the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AEP investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the AEP class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the "the largest
public corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly
funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and
politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which
benefitted the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3)
the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising
campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative
to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark
money entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a
citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding the
Company's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false
and misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed
risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery
scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9)
as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding a
move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as
opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding
protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra
and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Prelim Injunction in Jimenez Suit Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. d/b/a Au
Pair in America and William L. Gertz, Plaintiffs, v. Laura
Fernandez-Jimenez, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-10920-NMG (D.
Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts allowed in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

The case is an action for declaratory judgment in which Plaintiffs
American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc., doing business as Au
Pair in America ("APIA"), and Gertz seek injunctive relief to
compel Fernandez-Jimenez to arbitrate her claims against the
Plaintiffs on an individual basis rather than on behalf of herself
and a putative class or collective action.

APIA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Stamford, Connecticut.  It is a sponsor organization authorized
by the United States Department of State to facilitate a cultural
exchange program with foreign nationals pursuant to the DOS J-1
Visa Au Pair Program.  Gertz is APIA's Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer.  He resides in Connecticut.
Fernandez-Jimenez is a Spanish national residing temporarily in the
United States on a J-1 non-immigrant Visa.  She has participated as
an au pair in the Au Pair Program since August 2018.

The Au Pair Program provides an opportunity for young foreign
nationals to reside temporarily with a host family in the United
States while providing childcare and attending college classes.  As
part of the application process to become an au pair,
Fernandez-Jimenez was required to review and execute an agreement
titled "Au Pair in America Terms and Conditions."  Relevant to the
instant dispute, the Terms & Conditions Agreement contains an
arbitration provision.

Fernandez-Jimenez signed the Terms & Conditions Agreement on May
18, 2018.  APIA is a party to that agreement but Gertz,
individually, is not.  Fernandez-Jimenez matched with a host family
in Massachusetts and resided with that family from August 2018,
through April 2019.  Thereafter, she applied for a secondary
placement with a new host family and remains a participant
elsewhere in the Au Pair Program.

In January 2020, Fernandez-Jimenez filed a complaint in the
Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County on behalf of
herself and a class of similarly situated individuals for alleged
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act.  She voluntarily
dismissed her complaint in February 2020, and, on that same day,
filed a class arbitration demand with the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA").

Fernandez-Jimenez responded that the Terms & Conditions Agreement
does not preclude class actions but rather states that the AAA is
the exclusive forum for all claims, including individual and class
claims.  APIA responded with a letter of its own endorsing the
AAA's position but AAA ultimately referred the question of
arbitrability on a class basis to the chosen arbitrator.

Both parties continued to participate in the arbitration.  On Feb.
21, 2020, an administrative conference was convened by the AAA at
which the parties discussed arbitration locale and the selection of
an arbitrator.  The Plaintiffs filed their answer to
Fernandez-Jimenez's class arbitration demand and preserved their
right to argue that the matter is not arbitrable on a class or
collective basis.

In April 2020, Fernandez-Jimenez filed an amended demand for class
and collective action arbitration, asserting additional claims for
common law negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of duty and
federal claims for minimum wage and overtime payments pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  On May 13, 2020, the AAA
advised the parties that an arbitrator had been appointed.

The following day, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the
Court seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
2201 and 2202 that (1) the Court is exclusively authorized to
decide the class arbitrability issue (Count I), (2) the Defendant's
claims cannot proceed on a class or collective basis (Count II) and
(3) the Court should enter an order compelling the Defendant to
submit all claims against the Plaintiffs to binding arbitration on
an individualized basis pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") (Count III).  That same day, the Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court convened a hearing by videoconference regarding that
motion on June 15, 2020, at which the Defendant conceded that the
Court should decide the issue of class arbitrability.  Shortly
before the June 15 hearing, Fernandez-Jimenez filed a separate
action in the Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County on
behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals
against Gertz but not the APIA, Fernandez-Jimenez v. Gertz, No.
20-cv-10920-NMG.  In that action, Fernandez-Jimenez alleges
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act (Count I) and breach of
duty (Count II).  Gertz removed that case to the federal court on
diversity grounds and it was assigned to the Session as a related
case.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on the grounds that (1) the
Court must decide the availability of class or collective
arbitration pursuant to the Terms & Conditions Agreement; (2) the
Defendant may not arbitrate her claims against the Plaintiffs on a
class or collective basis; and (3) the Defendant may not pursue any
claims against the Plaintiffs on a class or collective basis.

It is undisputed that Gertz is not a party to the Terms &
Conditions Agreement.  Nevertheless, the parties draw no analytical
distinction between APIA and Gertz for purposes of the Plaintiffs'
preliminary injunction motion.  

The parties agree that there is no such delegation in the Terms &
Conditions Agreement.  Accordingly, APIA has demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its contention
that the availability of class arbitration is a question for the
Court rather than an arbitrator to decide.  Judge Gorton will,
therefore, proceed to that question.

APIA and Fernandez-Jimenez disagree as to whether two clauses in
the Arbitration Provision demonstrate sufficient express or implied
consent to compel class or collective arbitration.  The Judge finds
that the Terms & Conditions Agreement in the case appears to
require the application of Connecticut law even though the parties
presume that Massachusetts law applies.  Given the choice of law
provision in the Terms & Conditions Agreement, he finds that
Connecticut law applies but it would reach the same result under
Massachusetts law.

The Judge holds that the Arbitration Provision fails to convey the
intent of the parties, is subject to conflicting interpretations
and is, therefore, ambiguous.  Accordingly, the Arbitration
Provision fails to provide the requisite consent to the Defendant
to proceed with class or collective arbitration against APIA.  APIA
has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits
of that claim.

APIA seeks to enjoin Fernandez-Jimenez from pursuing class or
collective action claims against it.  The parties have apparently
agreed that the Terms & Conditions Agreement bars the Defendant
from bringing any kind of suit against APIA on an individual, class
or collective basis.  APIA has, therefore, demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of that claim.

Having determined that APIA has satisfied all of the prerequisites
for injunctive relief, the Judge will enter the requested
injunction in APIA's favor and against Fernandez-Jimenez.  The
Defendant's opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction
focuses on the merits of APIA's claims.  She proffers no opposition
with respect to the remaining preliminary injunction factors and,
at oral argument, conceded that she has none.

Finally, Gertz is not a party to the Terms & Conditions Agreement.
The Judge will not presume that Gertz is entitled to injunctive
relief merely because it has concluded that APIA is.  Gertz has
proffered no independent reason as to why he is entitled to such
relief.  For that reason, the Judge will deny the motion for
preliminary injunction with respect to Gertz.

For the foregoing reasons, Jude Gorton denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the claims of
Gertz, but otherwise allowed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/2Srs15i from Leagle.com.


ANACACHO INC: Paguada Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anacacho,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Anacacho,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-07953-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25,
2020).

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

Anacacho, Incorporated, was founded in 1970. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of apparel
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Anaplan
Inc. ("Anaplan" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLAN) between November 21,
2019 and February 26, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and
execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were
causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals;
and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated
billings growth" was baseless and unattainable

On February 27, 2020, the Company announced that, its calculated
billings for the fourth quarter fell far short of expectations.
Specifically billings were only $126 million, representing a growth
rate of 25%, which was well below consensus estimates of $138
million, and roughly half of the Company's historical growth rates
of 46% to 59%, and far less than the Company's rate of revenue
growth of over 40%.

On this news Anaplan's stock price dropped 25% in one day, falling
from $58.09 to $44.03 wiping out almost $2 billion in market cap.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 Anaplan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/anaplaninc-plan-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-301/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]


ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 16 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Anaplan Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)

PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21,
2019 - February 26, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9311&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales
organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational
challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very
important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial
guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and
unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material
non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30
million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


ANAPLAN INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 13 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Anaplan, Inc. ("Anaplan" or "the Company") (NYSE:PLAN) for
violations of Sec. 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 November
21, 2019 and February 26, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''),
are encouraged to contact the firm before October 23, 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. Anaplan suffered from challenges in both
its sales organization and strategic execution. The Company failed
to close major deals due to these challenges. These failures made
the Company's claim of "calculated billings growth" baseless. 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 Anaplan, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


ANGLICARE: Family Members of Residents Mull COVID-19 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Cooper, writing for 9News, reports that confusion over the
coronavirus test of a resident at the aged care facility at the
centre of one of Australia's deadliest outbreaks has been
clarified.

It was reported a resident at Newmarch House had tested positive to
the virus, and NSW Health said the test was a false-positive.
However Anglicare Sydney, who operate the facility in Kingswood, in
Sydney's west, said the test picked up traces of the virus still in
the person's system.

"Further clarification from NSW Health indicates that rather than a
false-positive, pathological evidence has confirmed the swabs taken
from the resident shows signs of the old infection," an Anglicare
Sydney spokesperson said.

The person is no longer infectious, the spokesperson confirmed.
Epidemiologist Professor Mary-Louise McLaws said a false positive
result is not uncommon, and facilities should be prepared for these
outcomes.

"This patient shouldn't pose any risk to any other resident there,"
Professor McLaws told Today.

"It's not uncommon that people have a very weak result for many
weeks, sometimes some patients have a weak positive result months
afterwards and it often depends on how sick they were the first
time round."

Professor McLaws said the tests look for remnants of the virus. "So
this virus may not be alive when it's found."

She said the test can't identify if the virus is a current or past
infection, or if it was just "a remnant" of having had the virus.

Residents of aged care facilities remained "very vulnerable", she
said.

Over a two month period this year, coronavirus turmoil was seen at
Newmarch House, with 19 people killed, and 37 residents and 34
staff infected.

The outbreak was one of the deadliest periods of the COVID-19
pandemic seen in Australia.

On June 15, NSW Health declared that outbreak  -- believed to have
been sparked by an infected staff member who worked multiple times
with extremely mild symptoms -- over.

The response from Anglicare and government bodies has since been
harshly criticised after new infections continued to appear more
than two weeks into a full lockdown of the home.

Family members of some of the elderly residents who died during the
outbreak are now preparing to launch a class action against
operators, Anglicare. [GN]


ARAMARK SPORTS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aramark Sports and
Entertainment Group, LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aramark
Sports and Entertainment Group, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07945-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Aramark Sports & Entertainment Services LLC provides consumer goods
and services. The Company offers a wide range of food and beverage
services such as coffee, water filtration systems, and vending
machines; and produces live theatrical presentations. The Company
also promotes magic shows, circuses, bands, orchestras, and
entertainers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Varela Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARIA VARELA, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ATKORE INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2017021, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Bernardino to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
September 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01973 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Government Code, Public Policy, and California Labor Code,
including discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent
discrimination, and wrongful termination.

Atkore International, Inc., manufactures and supplies metal
products and electrical raceway solutions, with its principal place
of business in Harvey, Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                       

         John L. Viola, Esq.
         Lauren Chee, Esq.
         THOMPSON COBURN LLP
         2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 282-2500
         Facsimile: (310) 282-2501
         E-mail: jviola@thompsoncoburn.com
                 lchee@thompsoncoburn.com


ATLANTIC CASUALTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dickinson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERYL P. DICKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
STRICKLAND INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and STRICKLAND INSURANCE BROKERS,
INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00491-FL (E.D.N.C., Sept. 21, 2020),
challenges the Defendants' alleged illegal pay practice in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that although she and other similarly
situated Claims Examiners were required by the Defendants to
regularly work over 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay
them any overtime premiums or any other compensation at a rate of
not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
hours worked over 40 per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Claims Examiner
from July 20, 2018, through June 7, 2019, at the Defendants' Glen
Allen, VA location.

The Defendants provide insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Rd.
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Tel: (866) 691-0607
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and –

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) JTB-LAWS
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 13 announced that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Baidu Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIDU)

BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 8, 2016 -
August 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9224&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and
business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro et al. Refile Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' refiled Motion for Class Certification is underway in
the lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ALFARO; and HENRIETTA I. EGBUNIKE,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-22762-MGC (S.D. Fla.).

The Hon. Judge Marcia G. Cooke entered an order on Aug. 18, 2020:

   1. directing the parties to refile class certification papers;
      and

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and
      the Defendants' motion for leave to supplement their
      opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "In the interest of judicial economy and
efficiency, the Parties are directed to refile class certification
papers and exhibits so that only the relevant arguments and
exhibits are submitted before the Court at once and in a tidy
manner. Papers previously submitted in support or opposition of
class certification will not be considered, unless they are
resubmitted with the refiled class certification papers. The
Parties are permitted to file under seal any documents that require
such filing.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to refile their Motion for Class
Certification by September 1, 2020.

As directed by the Court, the Defendants filed their Opposition on
September 15 and the Plaintiffs filed their Reply to the Opposition
on September 22.[CC]


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metals Futures, Braun Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF BRAUN OF ML OPTIONS TRADING, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; COREY
FLAUM; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-12217-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Sept.
1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for unlawful and
intentional manipulation of precious metals futures contracts.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that between January 2008
and until at least July 2016 (the "Class Period"), the Defendants
engaged in fraudulent and manipulative trading practices in
connection with the purchase and sale of gold, silver, platinum,
and palladium futures contracts ("precious metals futures
contracts") traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX")
and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX").

The Defendants engaged in a long running illicit scheme to "spoof"
the market for futures contracts--contracts to enter into a future
transaction at a predetermined price, according to the complaint.
The Defendants placed legitimate buy and sell orders, and would
then place manipulative orders to artificially drive the price in a
favorable direction for defendants. After the legitimate order was
executed, defendants would cancel the manipulative orders before
the manipulative orders could be executed.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, operating as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
multinational banking and financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Precious Metal Futures, RCA Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., on behalf of itself 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-13116 (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and for
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manipulated the prices
of precious metals futures contracts traded on the New York
Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (NYMEX) and Commodity Exchange, Inc.
(COMEX) from January 1, 2008, through July 31, 2016, using a
manipulative technique called spoofing. The Defendants routinely
placed electronic orders for precious metals 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 it 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:    
         
         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700
         Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
         E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and –

         Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
         Thomas K. Boardman, 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: cburke@scott-scott.com
                 tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and –

         Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
         Michael P. Srodoski, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         156 South Main Street
         P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Telephone: (860) 537-5537
         Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
         E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
                 msrodoski@scott-scott.com

               - and –

         Louis F. Burke, Esq.
         LOUIS F. BURKE PC
         460 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 682-1700
         E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com


BARCLAY OPERATING: Unlawfully Retains Gratuities, Luchko Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA LUCHKO, individually and on behalf of others similarly v.
BARCLAY OPERATING CORP. d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL NEW YORK BARCLAY,
Defendant, Case No. 157657/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 21, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the New
York Labor Law by unlawfully withholding of gratuities and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as one of its
service workers, alleges that she was only paid an hourly wage
without receiving her rightful portion of mandatory charges while
employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff also alleges that the
Defendant has been unjustly enriched because it unlawfully withheld
and retained portions of gratuities intended for the Plaintiff and
other service workers. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly failed to
maintain proper and complete records of mandatory charges in the
nature of gratuities.

Barclay Operating Corp., d/b/a Intercontinental New York Barclay,
operates a restaurant and catering business.[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
          Tel: (516) 873-9550


BECC HOLDINGS: Hamberg Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Becc Holdings. The
case is styled as Cynthia Hamberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Becc Holdings, doing
business as: Nugg Club, a California Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01872-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales.

Nugg Club is California's first true weed subscription box.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
   Edelsberg Law
   20900 Northeast 30th Avenue, Suite 417
   Aventura, FL 33180
   Tel: (305) 975-3320
   Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


BIG FISH: Settles Class Action Over Casino App
----------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for NBC News, reports that Shellz, 37, a
nurse from Houston, spends at least two hours a day with her
husband playing a casino-style smartphone game called Jackpot
Magic.

The app offers a variety of typical casino games to play, including
their favorite, called Reel Rivals, a game in which players accrue
points by playing a virtual slot machine. As in a real casino,
players exchange money for coins to bet.

Unlike in a real casino, there is no way to win money back or earn
a payout on coins.

But that has not stopped Shellz and her husband from spending about
$150,000 in the game in just two years. She asked to use her
in-game username so her family does not find out how much money
they have spent on the game.

"We lie in bed next to each other, we have two tablets, two phones
and a computer and all these apps spinning Reel Rivals at the same
time," she said. "We normalize it with each other."

Jackpot Magic is an app made by Big Fish Games of Seattle, one of
the leaders in an industry of "free-to-play" social games into
which some people have plowed thousands of dollars. Big Fish Games
also operates a similar app, Big Fish Casino. Both are labeled as
video games, which allows the company and others like it to skirt
the tightly regulated U.S. gambling market.

But unlike the gambling market, apps like Jackpot Magic and Big
Fish Casino are under little oversight to determine whether they
are fair or whether their business practices are predatory.

NBC News spoke to 21 people, including Shellz and her husband, who
said they were hooked on the casino-style games and had spent
significant sums of money. They described feelings of helplessness
and wanting to quit but found themselves addicted to the games and
tempted by the company's aggressive marketing tactics.

Most of the 21 players wished to remain anonymous, as they were
ashamed of their addictions and did not want their loved ones to
find out about their behavior.

A 42-year-old Pennsylvania woman said she felt saddened that she
spent $40,000 on Big Fish Casino while working as an addiction
counselor.

"The whole time I was working as an addiction counselor, I was
addicted to gambling and with no hope of winning any money back,"
she said.

Big Fish Games did not make anyone available for an interview, nor
did the company respond to detailed questions. The company has said
in previous court filings that only a fraction of the game's
players actually spend money.

In a response to NBC News' inquiries, the company issued a
statement saying its games are not gambling and should not be
regulated as such.

"These games are not gambling because, among other reasons, they
offer no opportunity for players to win money or anything of
value," the statement said in part.

"Our games are offered for free purely for entertainment, with an
opportunity for customers to spend money within the game to enhance
their gameplay experience," it said. "The vast majority of Big Fish
Casino and Jackpot Magic Slots customers play without ever paying
any money. No court has yet considered all of the facts relating to
how these games operate."

Players have had some recourse in recent months thanks to
successful lawsuits.

After a long legal battle, 2 million players, including Shellz and
her husband, will be eligible to get a small part of their losses
back — about 20 percent for those who lost $10,000 to $100,000.

The money will come in a $155 million class-action settlement,
announced at the end of July, that will cover two major lawsuits
filed against Big Fish Games; its former owner, Churchill Downs;
and its current Australian parent company, Aristocrat Leisure,
alleging that they were operating "unlawful gambling devices."

The preliminary agreement was recently approved by a federal judge
in Tacoma, Washington. Churchill Downs and Aristocrat Leisure both
declined to comment on the settlement. Aristocrat Leisure released
a public statement in May outlining the general contours of the
settlement, but it has not said anything further.

While Big Fish Games admits no wrongdoing, it has agreed to
implement "addiction-related resources" and a "self-exclusion
policy" that would allow players who feel out of control to opt in
to be blacklisted from playing the game.

Big Fish Games also declined to comment on the settlement.

While some players are happy to recoup some of their losses,
gambling addiction experts and some lawmakers say it does not go
far enough to help those whose lives have spiraled out of control
after they got hooked on social casino games. They call for further
regulation of the industry.

"What we would have welcomed as part of this settlement as a
wake-up call for the industry is a change in practices," said Keith
Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem
Gambling.

"I think their model is so lucrative and in some ways so aggressive
that they're doubling down, and it's going to do a lot more harm. I
think it's going to eventually be reined in, but it appears they
are prioritizing short-term profit over long-term sustainability
and responsibility," Whyte said.

The game

Joann, 46, who lives in southwest Florida, said she began playing
Big Fish Casino about eight years ago.

She estimates that she has spent $100,000 on the game.

"You know what I tell people? It's a cult, and they suck you in,
and once you're in you can't get out," said Joann, who asked to use
only her middle name. "You want to play, and you want to spin."

One of the named plaintiffs in the settlement is Crystal Fair of
Texas, who said in a sworn declaration that she has spent $500,000
and described herself as being "addicted" to Big Fish Casino,
playing it sometimes "nearly 24 hours a day."

"I have considered walking away for good but then I think of all my
time and more importantly all my money and it's hard to walk away,"
she wrote. "That's how I know I'm addicted."

She concluded: "But if I could go back to the point in time when I
installed Big Fish Casino, I'd never ever have done it."

Several people said they felt the apps were engineered to keep them
spending money in a variety of ways, including tiered clubs for
players who spend significant amounts of money and free chips for
people who try to quit.

Suzie Kelly of Dallas previously told Reveal News how she spent
about $400,000 on the game. She took out a home equity loan and
used the money she inherited when her mother died to fund her
habit.

When she tried to cancel her account on several occasions, Kelly
said, a "VIP representative" would call her and offer her free
chips so she would continue playing.

The Big Fish apps in some ways are similar to many other apps that
offer casino games that can be played on smartphones.

The home screen of Big Fish Casino, known as the "lobby," offers
players a chance to try various types of casino-style games,
including roulette, blackjack, Texas Hold 'em, Video Poker and the
most prominently featured game: slots.

Shortly after they install the app, players are encouraged to join
clubs - Big Fish Casino even offers a "one time join bonus" of
50,000 chips for joining a club. Once they are in a club, players
can use a chat feature to strike up conversations with their
counterparts and develop friendships. While anyone can create a
club, the real action is in the invitation-only ranked clubs that
compete against one another.

Winning more chips and playing at higher stakes unlock new
features, like high-roller rooms. There is also a system of
"levels" and "tiers" to unlock as players spend and win more.
Higher tiers come with larger potential winnings and bigger bets,
which makes it easier to lose chips faster.

Players who lose but want to continue playing in high-roller rooms
can do so by either rebuilding their digital fortunes through hours
of gameplay or taking a shorter route: buying more chips.

Most people who play the Big Fish games do not end up spending real
money. Less than 10 percent of users have ever bought virtual items
while playing the games, according to an October court filing.

But that 10 percent has translated into a lucrative business.
According to data provided by Apptopia, an app analytics company,
Big Fish Games took in an estimated $139.3 million from Big Fish
Casino and Jackpot Magic players from February 2019 through July
2020.

The app's tier system, along with its social functions, can be a
powerful trap for some players. Joann said she continues to play,
as Big Fish Casino grants her a set of free chips (known as a
"boost") every day. Even so, she said, she spends at least $600 a
month, largely to maintain her status within her club.

"I want to quit the club, and I want to stop, but I have friends,"
she said.

No recourse

Big Fish Games is one of the clearest examples of the convergence
of the small-time harmless fun of video games and the rapidly
expanding world of real-money gambling.

While many video games have added premium features in recent years,
including loot boxes -- a mechanism to pay small, fixed fees for
chances to win in-game prizes that has attracted the ire of some
lawmakers -- no other type of game appears to allow players to lose
so much credit so quickly and be constantly encouraged to spend
more.

But for the time being, there does not seem to be anything stopping
these gambling-style smartphone games from continuing. No federal
legislation would halt this model, nor would any state-level
legislation mitigate losses created by this type of game.
Washington state legislators considered a bill that would have
formally defined games like Big Fish Casino to not be considered
gambling, but the bill did not pass.

Some players of Big Fish games have filed class-action lawsuits
against the company, arguing that its games should be regulated
just like traditional gambling, which is unlikely to happen any
time soon.

Conventional slot machines, for example, are subject to rigorous
outside testing to ensure that the odds are consistent for all
players. In Nevada, there are rules about how many slot machines
can be placed in liquor stores, among hundreds of pages of
regulations.

In Washington state -- where Big Fish Games is located -- slot
machines are banned outright. But Washingtonians can download a
smartphone game that offers would-be gamblers the chance to spend
money on an experience nearly identical to that of an in-person
slot machine, only without any chance of actually winning money.

Still, the recent legal victories are a welcome bit of help for
some players, particularly because many have lost their jobs
because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Neva Barker, 58, a retiree in Portland, Oregon, estimated that she
had spent $80,000 on Big Fish Casino and said she was thrilled to
hear that she likely would get some of her money back.

It is particularly needed now, because, Barker says, she lost some
of her income to coronavirus-related cutbacks.

"This has been going through so many ups and downs," she said. "I
thought it was a myth that it was ever going to happen. That would
be life-changing for me at this point." [GN]


BIOLIFE ENERGY: Faces Owens Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN OWENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BIOLIFE ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-07908 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's practice of placing calls using an artificial or
pre-recorded voice to the telephones of consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has called the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an artificial and/or
pre-recorded voice multiple times to advertise the limited-time
discounts on the Defendant's products, without his prior express
written consent. By making these calls, the Defendant knowingly
caused the Plaintiff and the members of the Class actual harm and
cognizable legal injury, including aggravation and nuisance that
result from the receipt of such calls.

Biolife Energy Systems Solutions Inc. is a New York City-based
company that provides organic nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com


BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Tsantes Sues Over Decline in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL TSANTES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC., JEAN-JACQUES BIENAIME,
BRIAN R. MUELLER, and HENRY J. FUCHS, Case No. 3:20-cv-06719 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin securities
between February 28, 2020, and August 18, 2020, both dates
inclusive.

The Plaintiff contends that the investing and medical community
viewed BioMarin's valoctocogene roxaparvovec as a likely candidate
for becoming the first gene therapy approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for hemophilia in the U.S. based on the
Company's Phase 1/2 study results.

In May 2019, BioMarin announced the interim results from its Phase
3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults suffering from
severe hemophilia A. The results, although showing the treatment's
effectiveness, disappointed the market because they indicated a
reduction in durability of effectiveness from the results shown in
the Phase 1/2 results. In December 2019, BioMarin submitted a
Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec for adults with hemophilia A based on the interim
analysis of the ongoing Phase 3 study of valoctocogene
roxaparvovec, as well as three-year data from the Company's Phase
1/2 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin also announced
that the European Medicines Agency validated the Company's
Marketing Authorization Application for valoctocogene roxaparvovec
for adults with severe hemophilia A, with the MAA review to
commence in January 2020 under accelerated assessment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of
valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2
study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect;
(ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
the BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter from the FDA to the Company's BLA for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec. In explaining the new recommendation, the "FDA
concluded that the differences between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2)
and the Phase 3 study limited its ability to rely on the Phase 1/2
study to support durability of effect."

On this news, BioMarin's stock price allegedly fell $41.82 per
share, or 35.28%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020,
inflicting significant losses and damages to the Plaintiff and
other Class members.

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in San Rafael, California. BioMarin is a
biotechnology company that develops and commercializes therapies
for people with serious and life-threatening rare diseases and
medical conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


BLUESTONE LANE: Boyd Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as GABRIELLE BOYD, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
BLUESTONE LANE HOLDINGS, LLC; BLUESTONE LANE NY LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585787, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on September
25, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06732 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code,
including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay wages due, failure to
provide gratuities, and unfair competition.

Bluestone Lane Holdings LLC is a limited liability company that
owns and operates a coffee shop in New York. Bluestone Lane NY LLC
is a company that operates a coffee shop in New York.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

         David L. Cheng, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com

               - and –

         Noah M. Woo, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1650
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: 415-852-6910
         Facsimile: 415-852-6925
         E-mail: nwoo@fordharrison.com


BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)

Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that
the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a
geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas,
Brazil.  Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that
the Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit
filed against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public
Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas."  The Company also
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to
guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected
by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the
rock salt extraction area in Maceió."

On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at
$25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern
Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its
salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates.
Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be
evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem's
mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents
would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible
payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million
in expenses to "definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining
operations.

On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant
danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand
properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that
Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but
not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight
or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage,
and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining
operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed
the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect
to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

For more information on the Braskem securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/BAK

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK) between
May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Braskem investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Braskem class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe
and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including
nearly two thousand properties; (2) the foregoing foreseeably
increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial
liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental
and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary
and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or
more of its salt mining operations; (3) accordingly, earnings
generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable;
(4) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's
liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (5) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
26, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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


CABOT OIL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
(NYSE: COG). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)

Class Period: October 23, 2015 to June 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

Cabot was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas. Cabot is an independent oil and gas company that explores
for, exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas
properties in the U.S.

Cabot primarily focuses its oil and gas efforts on the Marcellus
Shale located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Cabot's gas
procuring activities in Pennsylvania have been the subject of
controversy for over a decade, with the Company repeatedly denying
any responsibility for environmental damage observed in the state.

On July 26, 2019, Cabot filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the "2Q19 10-Q"). The 2Q19
10-Q disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent
Order and Agreements ("CO&As") related to two Notices of Violation
("NOVs") it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PaDEP") back in June and November, 2017,
respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas into
fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania.

Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q, Cabot's stock price fell
$2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at $19.16 per share on
July 26, 2019.

Then, on June 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, following a grand
jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office
charged Cabot with fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration.

On this news, Cabot's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%,
to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 13, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had
inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to
properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and
procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to
fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was
foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental
scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and
financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential
civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such
environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the Cabot Oil & Gas class action go to:
https://bespc.com/COG

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:

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


CANADA: Court Has Yet to Decide on Sham Charity Donation Tax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Munson, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
Saskatchewan court is set to decide whether charity donors caught
in one of the largest tax avoidance strategies in the country can
sue the organizers and Canada's tax authority for damages.

The class action's application for certification, if successful,
would mark the first time the agency is included as a defendant in
a court-approved class action over such a scheme, the Canada
Revenue Agency said.

Donors claim that the agency systematically delayed telling them
that tax receipts from the Global Learning Group Inc. - a
charitable entity later revealed to be a sham—would be denied.
[GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: 1199 SEIU Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUISIANA SHERIFFS' PENSION & RELIEF FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-3347 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
appointed (i) 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as the
Lead Plaintiff; and (ii) Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP as the
Lead Counsel.

The class action arises from several lawsuits that allege
securities fraud claims against Defendant Cardinal.  The securities
class action in the case was initiated on behalf of individuals and
entities who, between March 2, 2015 and May 2, 2018, purchased
Cardinal common stock.  The Class alleges that Cardinal and five of
its senior executive officers engaged in conduct that violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated
therefrom.

Cardinal is an integrated and global distributor of drugs, medical
devices and health care services based in Dublin, Ohio, and it has
publicly traded common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under
the stock ticker CAH.  The company operates through two segments:
Pharmaceutical and Medical.  Cardinal's Medical segment offers
low-tech and low-margin products which include laboratory
equipment, gloves and surgical apparel, and, historically,
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
other health care providers have formed.  In the last decade,
Cardinal has expanded its Medical segment through numerous
acquisitions.

The Class Period began on March 2, 2015 when Cardinal announced
that it would acquire Cordis Corp.  Cordis is a global manufacturer
and distributor of interventional cardiology devices and
endovascular solutions.  The company is owned by Ethicon, Inc.
which is a wholly-owned Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, and
Cardinal acquired Cordis for approximately $1.944 billion dollars
to broaden its medical products portfolio and facilitate its global
expansion strategy.

Cardinal announced that the acquisition would add brand name stents
and catheters to its proffered medical products and provide an
entry into higher margin cardiovascular markets.  According to the
Complaint, the acquisition was finalized on Oct. 4, 2015.  From the
date of acquisition until the fall of 2017, the Defendants
consistently stated that the integration of the two companies would
result in superior operating efficiencies.  Yet, on August 2, 2017,
Cardinal issued an earnings report for its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2017 that fell short of expectations, and the company
lowered its earnings projections for fiscal year 2018.

The Complaint makes further allegations that Cardinal's stock fell
over 8% following these disclosures.  The Complaint alleges that
these circumstances caused Cardinal's stock to decline
dramatically, resulting in significant losses for several
investors.

On Aug. 1, 2019, Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund filed a
class action complaint against Cardinal pursuant to the Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  That same
day, in compliance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, the counsel for Louisiana Sheriffs published the
required notice to members of the Class.  

Thereafter, the Court issued an Order requiring potential members
of the Class to move for appointment as lead plaintiff by Sept. 30,
2019.  Accordingly, Public Pension Funds and 1199 SEIU filed timely
motions for their appointment as lead plaintiff and for the
appointment of their choice of lead counsel.

Judge Sargus holds that 1199 SEIU's assertions are well taken, and
he is convinced that it has sufficiently demonstrated not only a
common interest with unnamed members of the Class, but also that it
will vigorously prosecute the interests of the Class through
qualified Counsel.  In addition, Public Pension Funds does not
argue that 1199 SEIU will fail to capably or adequately represent
the Class.  As such, the Judge is satisfied that 1199 SEIU meets
the adequacy requirements of Rule 23.

The Judge concludes that 1199 SEIU is entitled to the PSLRA's
presumption of adequacy as lead plaintiff which may only be
rebutted only upon proof by a member of the purported Plaintiff
class that the presumptively most adequate plaintiff -- (i) will
not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; or
(ii) is subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff
incapable of adequately representing the class.  Because Public
Pension Funds does not argue that 1199 SEIU is incapable of fairly
and adequately protecting the interests of the Class or that it is
subject to unique defenses, the Judge will order 1199 SEIU's
appointment as lead plaintiff.

The PSLRA permits the Lead Plaintiff to select the Lead Counsel of
their choice.  The most adequate plaintiff shall, subject to the
approval of the Court, select and retain counsel to represent the
class.  Nothing in the record indicates that 1199 SEIU's selection
for lead counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, is inadequate
or inexperienced and therefore incapable of handling a large
securities class action.  On the contrary, the firm's robust
resources and experience in the arena of securities class actions
demonstrates that its appointment as the lead counsel will benefit
the Class.

For these reasons, SEIU Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Plaintiff is
granted, and Public Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel is denied.
Consequently, Jude Sargus appointed 1199 SEIU as the Lead
Plaintiff, and the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP as the
Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3jqhBPb from Leagle.com.


CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Lugo Files Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Celestial Seasonings,
Inc. The case is styled as Yulia Lugo, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04580 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Celestial Seasonings, Inc., manufactures and markets tea. The
Company offers green, herbal, rooibos, white, holiday, and iced
teas, as well as energy shots and decaffeinated products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


CHAD T. WOLF: Court Grants Class Certification Bid in Roman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, et
al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. CHAD T. WOLF, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants, Case No. CV 20-00768 TJH (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Terry Hatter entered an order:

   1. granting a motion for class certification on behalf of
      all people who:

      (a) are currently detained in civil immigration detention
      at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement
      Processing Center;

      (b) were detained in civil immigration detention at the
      Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing
      Center at any time between March 28 23, 2020, and the
      final disposition of this case but have been transferred
      by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
      another immigration detention facility, regardless of
      whether the other detention facility is within the
      Central District of California; or

      (c) were detained in civil immigration detention at the
      Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing
      Center at any time between March 23, 2020, and the final
      disposition of this case but have been released pursuant
      to a temporary restraining order, a preliminary
      injunction, or 8 other temporary release order issued by
      this Court.

   2. appointing Kelvin Hernandez Roman, Beatriz Andrea Forero
      Chavez, and Miguel Aguilar Estrada as representatives of
      the class;

   3. appointing Ahilan Arulanantham, Jessica Karp Bansal, and
      Michael Kaufmann as lead class counsel; and

   4. appointing Michelle (Minju) Cho, Samir Deger-Sen, Kyle
      Virgien, William Friedman, Charles Berdahl, Amanda
      Barnett, and Jessie Cammack as class co-counsel.

The Court said, "The Petitioners-Plaintiffs argued that the class
should be certified because the standard for class certification is
the same as used by the Court to grant provisional class
certification, and there have been no material changes since the
Court granted provisional certification. The Government argued that
the class should not be certified because the
Petitioners-Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality, typicality,
and adequacy. Notably, the Government did not challenge the
establishment of numerosity, adequacy of lead counsel, or Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2) met. The Court finds that numerosity, adequacy of
lead counsel, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) have, indeed, been
established."

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3n6n2oD at no extra charge.[CC]

CHAN LOM THAI: Tanjapatkul Files FLSA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cha Lom Thai Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Piya Tanjapatkul, Sirinthip Lekhasuwan,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cha Lom
Thai Inc. doing business as: Cha Lom Thai Restaurant, Nan Zhang,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04543 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2020).

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

Cha Lom Thai Inc. operates a Thai restaurant located in Queens, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


CHARLIE'S SOAP: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlie's Soap
Outlet, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Charlie's Soap Outlet,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08014 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2020).

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

Charlie's Soap offers all-natural laundry detergents and household
cleaners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARLOTTE, NC: Breaches Privacy of Drivers, Hensley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN S. HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00482
(W.D.N.C., Sept. 1, 2020), alleges violation of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has
systematically disclosed the names, addresses, and driver's license
numbers of hundreds of thousands of drivers, either via the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department records division or the
Website. The Defendant has allegedly disclosed those names,
addresses and driver's license numbers without requiring a
permissible purpose under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant published on its Website
and made freely available to all internet users the Plaintiff's
name, address, and driver's license number shown on each DMV-349.
But the Defendant did more than just make the list of names
available. The Defendant, through its contract with PRUS/LexisNexis
and the Website, in fact, disclosed the Plaintiff's name, address
and driver's license number to one or more internet users who
obtained the name to use in targeted direct mail solicitation. Such
disclosure(s) were for a purpose not permitted under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. David Stradley, Esq.
          Robert P. Holmes, IV, Esq.
          WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC
          3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 844-0400
          E-mail: stradley@whiteandstradley.com
                  rob@whiteandstradley.com

               - and -

          John F. Bloss, Esq.
          Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
          HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
          301 North Elm Street, Suite 800
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 273-1600
          E-mail: jbloss@greensborolaw.com
                  fberry@greensborolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
          James R. Faucher, Esq.
          BROWN FAUCHER PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
          822 N. Elm Street, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 478-6000
          E-mail: drew@greensborolawcenter.com
                  james@greensborolawcenter.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL: Fox Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Megan Fox, Bridget McMahon, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN
GRILL, INC., trading and doing business as CHIPOTLE, Case No.
GD-20-008917, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01448-DSC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., often known simply as Chipotle, is an
American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos
and Mission burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl
name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
          ROTHMAN GORDON, P.C.
          310 Grant Street, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 338-1185
          Fax: (412) 281-7304
          Email: fgsalpietro@rothmangordon.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lindsey C. Kennedy, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          600 Grant St., 44th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 566-2105
          Email: lkennedy@eckertseamans.com


CIEE INC: Zhao Appeals Order & Judgment in CAFA Suit to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Annie Zhao filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated August 31, 2020, and Judgment dated August 31, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled ANNIE ZHAO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIEE, INC., and COUNCIL
ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00240-LEW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 20,
2020, the Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against the Council on
International Education Exchange over its decision not to refund
the costs of study abroad programs cut short by COVID-19.

Portland-based CIEE suspended all of its spring programs in March,
and nearly all students have returned home. The nonprofit's website
says only those who could not finish their classes virtually would
be considered for refunds.

Annie Zhao filed her complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court,
and the case was transferred to federal court. She is a Harvard
College student from Texas, and she was studying at the University
of Amsterdam in the Netherlands earlier this spring when the
nonprofit suspended her program. She seeks class-action status to
represent other students and interns who were similarly sent home
and not refunded any of their costs.

On July 6, 2020, the Defendants timely removed the case from the
Maine Superior Court, Cumberland County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA").

On August 31, 2020, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim has been GRANTED.

The appellate case is captioned as ANNIE ZHAO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellant CIEE,
INC.; COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, INC.
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1878, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANNIE ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Alexandra A. Harriman, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
          One City Center P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME, 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: sschutz@preti.com
                  ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  aharriman@preti.com

               - and -

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310)536-1000
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com

Defendants-Appellees CIEE INC. and COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, INC. are represented by:

          Chad W. Higgins, Esq.
          Patrick I. Marass, Esq.
          Robert J. Keach, Esq.
          Zachary B. Brandwein, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN SHUR
          100 Middle Street, West Tower
          P.O. Box 9729
          Portland, ME 04104−5029
          Telephone: (207) 774−1200
          E-mail: chiggins@bernsteinshur.com
                  pmarass@bernsteinshur.com
                  rkeach@bernsteinshur.com
                  zbrandwein@bernsteinshur.com


CITIZENS BANK: Palmer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LAWRENCE PALMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A.; CITIZENS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; FARMERS GROUP, INC.; FARMERS EXCHANGE; HSBC
BANK, USA, N.A.; and DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
CGC-20-584241, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on September 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06309.

Citizens Bank, National Association, provides commercial banking
services. The Company offers checking accounts, investing and
benefits, managing cash flow, healthcare, savings and money
markets, card products, student loans, and other banking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pete S. Michaels, Esq.
          Michael E. Pastore, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
          One Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617.542.6000
          Facsimile: 617-542-2241
          E-mail: psmichaels@mintz.com
                  mepastore@mintz.com

               - and -

         Alyssa B. Roy, Esq.
         MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO
         44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 432-6000
         Facsimile: (415) 432-6001
         E-mail: abroy@mintz.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Final Approval of $120,000 Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH M. STEFFEK, and JILL
VANDENWYNGAARD, et al., v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., a Missouri
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00160 (E.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion for
final approval of class settlement agreement.

The settlement provides for these terms:

   Class Recovery:

   CSI will create a class settlement fund of $120,000 (Class
   Recovery), which Class Counsel through the Administrator will
   distribute pro rata ($29.13) to each Class Member who did not
   previously seek exclusion and whose Notice of Settlement was
   not returned as undeliverable.

   Plaintiffs' Recovery:

   Subject to Court approval, CSI agreed to pay each Plaintiff
   $1,000.00 for their statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
   section 1692k(a)(2)(A), plus an additional $4,000.00 in
   recognition of their services on behalf of the Class.

   Attorneys' Fees and Costs:

   CSI agreed the Plaintiffs brought a "successful action" under
   15 U.S.C. section 1692k and, therefore, subject to Court
   approval, are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs
   of $165,000.00, which covers all fees and expenses arising
   from the Litigation and does not in any way reduce, the Class
   Recovery.

On July 31, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and
certified the following litigation class, consisting of 4,124
members:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
   Client Services, Inc. mailed an initial written
   communication, between January 30, 2017 and February 20,
   2018, which was not returned as undeliverable, and which
   lists "RE: CHASE BANK USA, N.A." and states "The above
   account has been placed with our organization for
   collections."

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges CSI violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing them collection letters which,
by their terms, only described a debt CSI sought to collect and
failed to "clearly and accurately" disclose the name of the
creditor to whom the debts were then owed in satisfaction of 15
U.S.C.

Client Services offers collection services. The Company provides
accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and
customer care solutions. Client Services assists businesses
throughout markets in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of
class settlement agreement is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3l9zx0K at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Katelyn@SternThomasson.com

COATZINGO ENTERPRISES: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coatzingo
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sandra G. Palacios
Lopez, Dulce Karen Palacios Martinez, Jeny Catalina Arcos Perez,
Haida Sarmiento, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Coatzingo Enterprises, Inc. doing business as: California Bar and
Taqueria; Rufino Zapata, Case No. 1:20-cv-07881 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
24, 2020).

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

California Bar and Taqueria is a Mexican restaurant located in
Jackson Heights, New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


COLONY CREDIT: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. (NYSE: CLNC) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed
under 20-cv-08305, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
the common stock of Colony Credit pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's false and/or misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony
NorthStar") and NorthStar Real Estate Income Trust, Inc.
("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc.
("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the "Merger"),
seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Colony Credit securities
during the class period, you have until November 9, 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 newaction@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.

Colony Credit is a commercial real estate ("CRE") credit real
estate investment trust ("REIT") that purports to manage a
diversified portfolio of CRE senior mortgage loans, mezzanine
loans, preferred equity, debt securities, and net leased properties
predominantly in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Taps Mediator to Resolve Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Columbia
University employees and the trustees of the school's retirement
plans have tapped a professional mediator to resolve the ongoing
class action challenging the plans' fees and investment options,
according to court papers filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The parties on Sept. 11 asked Judge George B. Daniels to call off
the case's January 2021 trial date so they can attempt to resolve
things out of court during a mediation session scheduled for next
month. The parties will request a trial date no later than March
2021 if mediation is unsuccessful. [GN]


CORT BUSINESS: Doerner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY DOERNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02146 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 22, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received telemarketing
text messages to the cellular telephone number ending in 5530 on
May 23, 2020, and May 28, 2020, that were allegedly from the
Defendant. In an attempt to promote its business, the Defendant
purportedly engages in unsolicited marketing by transmitting
advertisement messages to numerous consumers, including the
Plaintiff and the class, without obtaining their express written
consent to be contacted using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS).

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated have suffered actual harm.
Thus, they seek actual and statutory damages and an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging
activity.

Cort Business Services Corporation provides furniture rental
services throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


COTY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 3 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY)

Class Period: October 3, 2016 to May 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020

Coty is one of the world's largest beauty companies. The Company
operates three divisions: Coty Consumer Beauty ("Consumer Beauty")
which focuses on color cosmetics, retail hair coloring and styling
products, body care and mass fragrances sold primarily in the mass
retail channels; Coty Luxury ("Coty Luxury") which focuses on
prestige fragrances and skincare brands; and Coty Professional
Beauty ("Coty Professional") which focuses on servicing nail salon
owners and professionals in both hair and nail.

On the first day of the Class Period, October 3, 2016, Coty issued
a press release announcing the completion of its blockbuster merger
with The Proctor & Gamble Company's fine fragrance, color
cosmetics, salon professional and hair color and certain styling
businesses ("P&G Specialty Beauty Business") for $12.5 billion to
scale up its beauty business. In the press release, defendant
Becht, Chairman of Coty's Board of Directors, confirmed that ". . .
. we now have a much improved team, structure and culture to make
the vision of this merger a reality."

On July 1, 2019, Coty announced the write down of about $3 billion
in value of brands acquired from P&G as part of a four-year
restructuring plan, confirming that the P&G Specialty Beauty
Business had been overvalued.

On this news, Coty's stock price dropped $1.94, or over 14%, from
an opening price of $13.53 per share on July 1, 2019 to a closing
price of $11.59 per share.

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

But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner "has
been inflating the size and success of her business. For years." -
revealing that defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition.
On this news, Coty's stock price fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a
close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May
29, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 4, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
Coty's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did
not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and
properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie
Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for
the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that
Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and
support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an
adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate
infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty
brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the
acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty's
financial statements and defendants' statements about Coty's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Coty class action go to:
https://bespc.com/COTY


                         About Bragar Eagel

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


CREDIT COLLECTION: Martinez Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Armani Martinez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Collection Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05632 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 22, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Credit Collection Services (CCS) is recognized as one of the
nation's largest and most respected collection firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com



CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Henderson FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aykee Henderson filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled AYKEE HENDERSON, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No.
1:20-cv-01351, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 2,
2020, the lawsuit is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as non-exempt hourly
capacity to perform duties as detention officer.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
detention officers frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, that include undergoing a security screening at the beginning
of each shift prior to clocking in which is integral and
indispensable to the officers' principal activities.

Allegedly, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the
similarly situated detention officers for time spent undergoing
pre-shift security screenings, thereby failing to pay them
overtime.

The appellate case is captioned as Aykee Henderson v. Cuyahoga
County, OH, Case No. 20-4009, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant AYKEE HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER
          614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH, is represented by:

          Kenneth Michael Rock, Esq.
          CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
          1200 Ontario Street, Eighth Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 443-7825


CVS PHARMACY: Lee Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa L. Lee, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island
Corporation; CVS Health Corporation, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-02020-00022843-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 25,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01923-BEN-RBB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

CVS Pharmacy Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company
offers prescription, drugs, vitamins, beauty aids, diaper, health
supplement, and other medical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN, KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 595-3001
          Fax: (619) 595-3000
          Email: msinger@ckslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Spertus, Esq.
          SPARTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER
          1990 South Bundy Drive, Suite 705
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 826-4700
          Fax: (310) 826-4711
          Email: jim@spertuslaw.com


DALLAS COWBOYS PRO: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dallas Cowboys Pro
Shops, L.P. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Dallas Cowboys Pro
Shops, L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07943 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

The Dallas Cowboys Pro Shop offers Dallas Cowboys licensed products
and accessories, as well as miscellaneous Jerry Jones sports
memorabilia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELAWARE: Gibbs Files Suit Asserting Civil Rights for Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carney, et al. The
case is styled as Dion D. Gibbs, Andre L. Jackson, Justin Erskine,
Gary Klaft, Dru Smith, William Brocklehurst, Anthony C. Woods,
Roderick Brown, James E. Stansbury, Mark Taylor, Nirangan Riker,
Matthew E. Starr, Matthew Hoskins, Tyrone Braxter, Jesse Dudley,
William Mark McKinney, Wayne H. Thompson, Jr., Philip Brewer,
Dereck E. Stones, Joseph LeVon, LaJeef Dickerson, Nathan Yates,
George W. Bradford, Jr., Areon Gibbs, Jeffrey D. Scott, Antonio
Serpa, Joshua Dutton, Darrell A. Bivens, James Hugh Henson, Jr.,
Joseph Parker, Alan E. Dorman, Eric Howell, Jeff E. Paddock, Hasini
Perkins, Alex D. Justice, Jeremy Jones, George A. Jackson, John M.
Franklin, Shelton Caldwell, Raymire Briscoe, Tyrell Mackey,
Leonardo Street, Kregg Walton, Ryan Bradford, Brandon Beene, Keith
Czajka, Trevion Brown, Jason Lineweaver, Shamar Walker, Aleem
Abdu-Wahhab, Omar Cameron, Jeffrey S. Sullivan, Jermane Vessels,
Jonathan L. Stevens, David B. Dolan, Adam Longacre, Shane
DeShields, Michael VanVliet, Cortez T. Harmon, Frederick Massey,
Donta E. Vickers, Korey Twyman, Charles H. Upshur, Brian R. Melvin,
Damiere Harris, Charles E. Boone, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated S.C.I. inmates, Plaintiffs; Jermaine
Brinkley, Petitioner v. John Carney, Governor of the State of
Delaware; Commissioner Claire DeMatteis, sued in her individual and
official capacities; Warden Truman Mears, sued in his individual
and official capacities; Department of Correction; Case No.
1:20-cv-01301-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

John Carney took office as Delaware's 74th Governor in January
2017.

The Plaintiffs and Petitioner, who are currently incarcerated at
the Sussex Correctional Institution (SCI), in Georgetown, Delaware,
appear pro se.[BN]


DEON REALTY: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO SANTOS VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. DEON REALTY, LTD. (D/B/A DEON REALTY),
BHAGDATT'S SPICES & SAREE CENTER LTD. (D/B/A BHAGDATT'S SPICES &
SAREE CENTER), BHAGDATT DEONARAIN, and BARBARA DEONARAIN, Case No.
1:20-cv-07837 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, including failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class
members minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a superintendent at
the building located at 2081 Grand Concourse, in Bronx, New York,
and as a general assistant at the store in the same address from
September 2017 until September 18, 2020. The Plaintiff also asserts
claims for failure to provide required wage notice and accurate
wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses incurred in
performing their duties, and unlawful wage deductions.

Deon Realty, LTD., d/b/a Deon Realty, is an owner and operator of a
residential building and an associated general store, located at
2081 Grand Concourse, in Bronx, New York. Bhagdatt's Spices & Saree
Center LTD., d/b/a Bhagdatt's Spices & Saree Center, is an owner
and operator of a residential building and an associated general
store, located at 2081 Grand Concourse, in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Foulk Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Resorts
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as James Foulk, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diamond
Resorts Holdings, LLC, doing business as: Diamond Resorts, doing
business as: Diamond Resorts International, Diamond Resorts
Financial Services, Inc. and Monarch Grand Vacation Owners
Association, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01876-MMA-BLM (S.D.,
Cal., Sept. 22, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Diamond Resorts Holdings LLC operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides hospitality services
and holiday packages. Diamond Resorts serves customers throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas M Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group, APC
   3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 400
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


DISH NETWORK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Goings Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA GOINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-04532-JLG-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Goings was employed by the Defendant as home based tech
employee.

Dish Network L.L.C. provides broadcasting services. The Company
offers international channels, HD, and DVR technology. Dish Network
serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
         Massillon, OH 44646
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


DOONEY & BOURKE: Jariwala Asserts Breach of ADA in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dooney & Bourke, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., a
Connecticut corporation and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01881-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020).

Dooney & Bourke is a company specializing in fashion accessories,
such as handbags, luggage, bracelets, watches, and briefcases, as
well as a limited clothing line, which includes sweaters, shoes,
jackets, and scarves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard
   12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com



DOUYU INT'L: Liang Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled LUDE LIANG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS LIMITED; SHAOJIE CHEN; WENMING ZHANG; CHAO CHENG; MINGMING
SU; HAO CAO; TING YIN; HAIYANG YU; XI CAO; XUEHAI WANG; ZHAOMING
CHEN; ZHI YAN; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED;
TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED; RICHARD ARTHUR; and COGENCY GLOBAL INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07234-ALC, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 4, 2020.


The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02747 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
Stephen V. Wilson, and referred to Magistrate Maria A. Audero.

DouYu International Holdings Limited operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, focuses on development of
live game streaming. DouYu International Holdings serves customers
in China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


E&R SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Santos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR SANTOS, ONTONIEL MORALES, and ISIDRO FLORES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. E&R SERVICES, INC.,
and EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 8:20-cv-02737-PX (D. Md., Sept. 22,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland
Workplace Fraud Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers, allege that the Defendants maintained a common policy or
practice of not paying the required overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 in a week, including off the clock work. Despite
regularly working over 40 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiffs
sometimes were not compensated for all the hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek at one and one-half times of their
regular rate of pay.

The Defendants also allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs'
employee share of the Federal and Maryland employment taxes,
unemployment insurance taxes and workers' compensation insurance as
a result of the Defendants misclassification of the Plaintiffs as
independent contractors.

E&R Services, Inc., is a construction services company owned and
operated by Defendant Emilio Rodriguez.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Rubin, Esq.
          RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 208502
          Tel: (301) 760-7914
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com

                - and –

          Aaron Z. Uslan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AARON Z. USLAN LLC
          5034 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 250
          Washington, DC 20016
          Tel: (202) 350-2900


EASTMAN KODAK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:
KODK). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK)

Class Period: July 27, 2020 to August 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

The securities class action concerns several matters, including the
suspicious timing of insider trading activity in connection with
Kodak's July 28, 2020 announcement that it had reached an agreement
with the U.S. government to receive a $765 million loan to produce
pharmaceutical ingredients.

As news of the deal broke, Kodak, which had been trading under $2
per share, skyrocketed, and within two days, the stock was trading
around $60 per share, with 284 million shares changing hands. Just
prior to the announcement of the loan, insiders purchased or were
granted over 2 million shares of Kodak stock.

More specifically, the day before the deal was announced, the
company granted CEO James Continenza options for 1.75 million
shares, just under 29% of which vested immediately. As a result of
the suspicious timing of the announcement, lawmakers have asked
federal regulators to investigate securities transactions made by
the company and its executives around the time Kodak learned it
could receive the government loan, and the SEC has announced an
investigation. On August 7, 2020, the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation said it was holding up the payout
of the loan as regulators look into insider trading activity.

On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 13, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the prices of
Kodak's securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class
Period purchasers of Kodak's securities by failing to disclose to
investors that the company's financial results were materially
misleading and misrepresented material information. When
defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were
disclosed and became apparent to the market, the prices of Kodak's
securities fell precipitously as the prior inflation came out of
the Company's stock price.

For more information on the Kodak class action go to:
https://bespc.com/KODK

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


EF INSTITUTE: Grabovsky Suit Moved From S.D. Calif. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATALIA GRABOVSKY, an individual person on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. EF INSTITUTE FOR
CULTURAL EXCHANGE, INC. and EF EDUCATION FIRST INTERNATIONAL, AG
a/k/a EF EDUCATION FIRST INTERNATIONAL Ltd., Case No.
3:20-cv-00508, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on September 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-11740-DLC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law by refusing to issue full cash
refunds for EF Tours that have been canceled due to the COVID-19
pandemic. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated persons
entered into an EF 2019-2020 Adhesion Contract with the Defendant
for EF Tours that were scheduled to leave on and after January 31,
2020.

EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc., is a company that
specializes in arranging and assembling tours for sale through
travel agents, with its principal place of business in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

EF Education First International, AG, a/k/a EF Education First
International Ltd., is an international education company that
offers study abroad, language learning, cultural exchange and
academic programs, with its principal place of business in Zurich,
Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    

         William McGrane, Esq.
         Matthew Sepuya, Esq.
         MCGRANE PC
         4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 292-4807
         E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com
                 matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com

               - and –

         Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
         REALLAW, APC
         1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 359-7500
         E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us


ENCLARITY INC: Sixth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Fulton TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW N. FULTON, D.D.S., P.C., individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENCLARITY, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
FL, INC.; JOHN DOES, 1-12, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1380
(6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, PC, a dental practice in Linden,
Michigan, commenced the suit on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.  Fulton alleges that his dental practice
received a fax from the Defendants in September 2016 that was an
unsolicited advertisement under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), but failed to include the requisite opt-out
provision.  

The Defendants responded to the complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  They argued that the fax did not meet
the TCPA's definition of an advertisement and therefore was not
required to have an opt-out provision.

The district court agreed.  It found that nothing mentioned in the
fax is available to be bought or sold, and concluded that the fax
lacked the commercial components inherent in ads.  It also found
that even if the Defendants might profit from verifying the
Plaintiff's contact information to third parties, there is no
allegation or argument that the Defendants are advertising -- or
will advertise— -- any goods or services to the Plaintiff.  The
district court disregarded the attachments to the complaint, on the
basis that the Court's decision in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., constrained its analysis to the four
corners of the fax.   After dismissing Fulton's TCPA claim with
prejudice, the district court determined that the state law
conversion claim belonged in state court and dismissed it without
prejudice.

The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for additional
proceedings.  The Sixth Circuit denied the Defendants' petition for
rehearing by the panel and for rehearing en banc.

The Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.  The
Supreme Court issued an order -- known as a grant, vacate, and
remand order ("GVR") -- directing the Court to reconsider the
appeal in light of its recent opinion in PDR Network, LLC v.
Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.   The threshold issue in the
appeal is whether the Supreme Court's decision in PDR Network
changes the reasoning or outcome of the Court's 2018 Fulton
opinion, which concluded that Fulton's complaint stated a claim for
TCPA relief.

The Sixth Circuit holds that clarification of Sandusky governs her
analysis.  The district court misconstrued Sandusky when it
disregarded the exhibits attached to Fulton's complaint.  The
exhibits are part of the record, and the Court may consider them
when evaluating Fulton's TCPA claim.  And it may do so without
converting the Defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary
judgment.  Under this circuit's precedent, documents attached to
the pleadings become part of the pleadings and may be considered on
a motion to dismiss.  Indeed, the Defendants do not challenge the
authenticity of Fulton's exhibits, having conceded that their
contents may be accepted as facts.  The Judge's review of the
Defendants' motion to dismiss properly includes the exhibits Fulton
attached to the complaint.

Taking the complaint's allegations as true and drawing all
inferences in Fulton's favor, as the Court must at the motion to
dismiss stage, the Sixth Circuit finds that Fulton has adequately
alleged that the fax Fulton received was an unsolicited
advertisement because it served as a commercial pretext for future
advertising opportunities.  Fulton has therefore stated a plausible
TCPA claim under the fax-as-pretext theory.  Because this
conclusion is sufficient to warrant reversing and remanding the
case, the Sixth Circuit need not reach Fulton's alternative theory
that the fax was an advertisement because the Defendants sent it
with a profit motive.

After dismissing Fulton's TCPA claim, the district court dismissed
Fulton's state law conversion claim.  The district court concluded
that because no federal law claim remains before the Court, and
because the case is in its preliminary stages, the court concludes
that the litigation of the Plaintiff's state law claim would most
appropriately be conducted in state court.  Because Fulton did
state a TCPA claim over which the district court had original
jurisdiction, Fulton's conversion claim also remains before the
district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the Sixth Circuit concludes that the law
is clear that a GVR order does not necessarily imply that the
Supreme Court has in mind a different result in the case, nor does
it suggest that the Sixth Circuit's prior decision was erroneous.
Rather, its task following the GVR is to determine whether the
original decision to reverse the district court's order was correct
or whether PDR Network compels a different resolution.  PDR Network
does not impact the resolution of the case.  Applying the standards
governing dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim,
the Sixth Circuit finds that Fulton has plausibly alleged that the
fax was an unsolicited advertisement insofar as it alleged that the
fax served as a pretext to send Fulton additional marketing
materials.

Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of
the Defendants, and remanded Fulton's TCPA and conversion claims
for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/3cVXt4U from Leagle.com.

ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com --
David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
& OPPENHEIM, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San
Francisco, California, Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com --
Adam L. Sorensen, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yaakov Gross, individually, and on behalf of
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, Defendant, was transferred from the NYS Supreme
Court, County of Kings with the assigned Case No. 515345/2020 to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn) on September 22, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04459.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Ryan Gabay, Esq.
   King & Spalding LLP
   1185 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 556-2137
   Email: rgabay@kslaw.com



ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: May 31 Opinion & Order in Dougherty Amended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN L. DOUGHERTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ESPERION
THERAPEUTICS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-10089 (E.D.
Mich.), Magistrate R. Judge Steven Whallen of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
granted the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Opinion and Order
Granting Class Certification.

The case is a securities fraud case brought under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and 78t(a), and Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Judge Whallen amended the Opinion and Order entered on May 31,
2020.  Judge Whallen holds that the parties are correct that 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) does not permit a Magistrate Judge to
enter a final order on a motion for class certification, but must
instead proceed by Report and Recommendation under Section
636(b)(1)(B).  The confusion arose because the order of reference
specified that the motion for class certification was being
referred for a hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(A).

Therefore, the Opinion and Order will now be designated a Report
and Recommendation, and the statement at page 1, PageID.7461 that
"the motion will be GRANTED" is changed to "pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B), I recommend that the motion be GRANTED."  The
Conclusion, PageID.7477, will likewise be changed to read "I
recommend that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and to
Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel be GRANTED."

Judge Whallen also ordered that the following is added the
Conclusion: "Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be filed within 14 days of service of a copy the Order granting the
Joint Motion to Amend, as provided for in 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).  Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.
Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise
others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a
party might have to the Report and Recommendation.  Any objections
must be labeled as Objection #1, Objection #2, etc., and any
objection must recite precisely the provision of the Report and
Recommendation to which it pertains.  Not later than 14 days after
service of an objection, the opposing party must file a concise
response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity.
The response must specifically address each issue raised in the
objections, in the same order and labeled as Response to Objection
#1, Response to Objection #2, etc."

Although the inadvertent typographical errors at ECF No. 152,
PageID.7461 and 7477 have no substantive impact, the Judge ordered
that a corrected spelling of the words "members" and
"representatives" will be made.

Also, the second sentence in the penultimate paragraph at ECF No.
152, PageID.7473 will be amended to read, " In its response to
Plaintiffs' Request for Admission No. 44 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10,
ECF No. 66-10, PageID.1765, Esperion admits 'that the weekly
trading volume of Esperion common stock during the week of
September 27, 2015 was greater than 20 million shares."

These amendments do not otherwise alter the legal discussion and
analysis set forth in ECF No. 152.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/34s4ZRv from Leagle.com.


EVOLUTION WELL: Copley Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RYAN COPLEY, individually, and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. GD-20-009129, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on September 24, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01442-RJC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff for hours worked,
failing to pay overtime, and failing to pay wages on schedule.

Evolution Well Services, LLC is a pressure pumping company with its
principal place of business located at 3 Hughes Landing, 1780
Hughes Landing Boulevard, in The Woodlands, Texas.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         Catherine S. Ryan, Esq.
         Christopher S. Bouriat, Esq.
         REED SMITH LLP
         225 Fifth Avenue
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 288-4226/4119
         Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
         E-mail: cryan@reedsmith.com
                 cbouriat@reedsmith.com


FAIRLIFE LLC: Figueroa Claims Milk Shake Vanilla Label Deceptive
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FAIRLIFE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04584
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the New York General Business Law, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
misleading advertising and marketing of vanilla high protein milk
drink under its Core Power brand. The Core Power High Protein Milk
Shake's front label representation of "Vanilla" leads consumers,
including the Plaintiff, to believe that it is flavored with
vanilla extract, or another vanilla flavoring derived solely from
vanilla beans. In reality, the Product's vanilla taste is not
derived exclusively or even predominantly from vanilla sources
because instead of listing vanilla extract, it contains "Natural
Flavors." Consumers expect the Product's vanilla taste to only come
from vanilla because the front label lacks any qualifying terms
like "flavored," "other natural flavors" or "artificially
flavored."

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members paid a premium price for the Product. They would
not have purchased or paid more for the Product had they known that
much, if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant
sources.

Fairlife LLC is a dairy company that produces milk products based
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAMOUS DAVE'S: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. FAMOUS DAVE'S OF
AMERICA, INC., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 1:19-cv-00486-DKC
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order:

   1. denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's motion to
      certify class and conditionally certify collective;

   2. directing the parties to confer regarding access to
      identifying information about putative plaintiffs and the
      nature and contents of notice and report to the court
      within 14 days;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   4. denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike; and

   5. denying the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

Famous Dave's of America is a chain of barbecue restaurants
primarily located in the Midwestern United States, serving pork
ribs, chicken, beef brisket, and several flavors of barbecue
sauce.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/34fZxRv at no extra charge.[CC]

FAREPORTAL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Alcala Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALCALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAREPORTAL INC.; and SHAILESH JAIN, Case No.
1:20-cv-07274 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 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.

Plaintiff Alcala was employed by the Defendants as helpdesk
analyst.

Fareportal Inc. provides technological support services. The
Company develops and operates interactive and transactional
e-commerce web-based portals, booking engines, middleware,
management tools, and back-office technologies. Fareportal serves
travel industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         William Brown, Esq.
         BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
         275 7th Avenue, Suite 701
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (718) 971-0326
         Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
         E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com


FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)

Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly's edge
cloud platform purportedly enables "customers to create great
digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing,
serving, and securing [its] customers' applications as close to
their end-users as possible."

On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020
earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed
that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly
popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2
2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for
the six months ended June 30, 2020.

This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy
scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due
to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed
by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President
Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national
security concerns. As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer admitted on
the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app by the US
would create uncertainty around our ability to support this
customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would have an
impact on our business."

On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately
17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to
close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.

Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false
and/or misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
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) that 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) that, as a result, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Fastly securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/FSLY

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


FASTLY INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Fastly, Inc.  (NYSE: FSLY) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and docketed under
20-cv-06454, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Fastly
securities between May 6, 2020, and August 5, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") and were damaged thereby, seeking to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (the "Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fastly securities during the
class period, you have until October 26, 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 newaction@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.

Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform.  Fastly's edge
cloud platform purportedly enables "customers to create great
digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing,
serving, and securing [its] customers' applications as close to
their end-users as possible."

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (i) that 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;
(ii) that 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 (iii) that, as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 5, 2020, after market close, Fastly held its second
quarter ("Q2") 2020 earnings conference call.  During the call,
Defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that
operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest
customer in Q2 2020 and that TikTok represented about 12% of
Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020.

This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy
scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due
to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed
by the Chinese government.  Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President
Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national
security concerns.  As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app
by the US would create uncertainty around our ability to support
this customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would
have an impact on our business."

On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28 per share, or
approximately 17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price
of $108.92 per share, to close at $89.64 per share on August 6,
2020.  Fastly's shares continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, declining another $10.31 per share from the closing price
on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 per
share on August 7, 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.

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


FASTLY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 26 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY) between
May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Fastly investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Fastly class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1940.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. [GN]


FLATIRON SCHOOL: Dau Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ford Gerald Dau, on Behalf of Himself and All
Other Similarly Situated v. Flatiron School LLC, Case No.
156492/2020, was removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on Sept. 28, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-08028 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Flatiron School is an accelerated adult-education tech school that
teaches you the skills you need to become a software engineer, data
scientist, cybersecurity analyst, or cybersecurity engineer.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Phoebe Anne Wilkinson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          390 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 918-3000
          Fax: (212) 918-3100
          Email: phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com


FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Bryant Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Glendon Bryant, Individually and on Behalf of
a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v. Flywheel Energy
Production LLC, An Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Case No.
15CV20-163, was removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court, Conway
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas on Sept. 25, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01147-JM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets with an emphasis on the Rockies and Micontinent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE A. BARTON
          7227 Metcalf Avenue, Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Phone: (913) 563-6253
          Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
                 stacy@georgebartonlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen L. Gershner, Esq.
          DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD.
          Post Office Box 1300
          Little Rock, AR 72203-1300
          Phone: (501) 374-9977
          Email: slg@dlf-ar.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
          M. Christine Dillard, Esq.
          Samuel McLelland, Esq.
          PPGMR LAW, PLLC
          Post Office Box 251618
          Little Rock, AR 72225-1618
          Phone: (501) 603-9000
          Email: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
                 christine@ppgmrlaw.com


FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Darrell Oliger, Carol Oliger, Co-Trustees of
the Darrell and Carol Oliger Revocable Trust Dated June 19, 2007,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, An Oklahoma Limited Liability
Company, Case No. CV2020-158, was removed from the Arkansas Circuit
Court, Conway County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on Sept. 25, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01146-JM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets with an emphasis on the Rockies and Micontinent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Edward Morgan, Esq.
          Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          148 Court Street
          Clinton, AR 72031
          Phone: (501) 745-4044
          Fax: (501) 745-5358
          Email: eddie@medwardmorgan.com
                 nathan@morganlawfirmpa.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058
          Fax: (501) 374-2222
          Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                 willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
          M. Christine Dillard, Esq.
          Samuel McLelland, Esq.
          PPGMR LAW, PLLC
          Post Office Box 251618
          Little Rock, AR 72225-1618
          Phone: (501) 603-9000
          Email: alan@ppgmrlaw.com
                 christine@ppgmrlaw.com


FRANCO FOOD: Faces Aponte Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEMMIL APONTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PILAR FRANCO ENCARNACION, individually, and FRANCO FOOD
CORP. d/b/a ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET, Case No. 1:20-cv-07747
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful pay policies in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked 6 days
per week and 10-11 hours per day for the Defendants. But, he never
received spread of hours premium and overtime pay for the hours he
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Additionally, the Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiff with a written notice of his rate
of pay and failed to keep proper payroll records as required by the
law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a butcher from fall
2014 through December 11, 2018, and then from March 15-29, 2019.

Franco Food Corp., d/b/a Associated Supermarket, is a grocery store
owned and operated by Defendant Pilar Franco Encarnacion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP P.C.
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Tel: 212-344-9022
          Fax: 212-344-0301


G. WILLI-FOOD: Subsidiary Faces NIS57-Mil. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (NASDAQ: WILC) (TASE: WILF) (the
"Company" or "Willi-Food"), a global company that specializes in
the development, marketing and international distribution of kosher
foods, announced on Sept. 14 that an application for approval of a
class action was filed against a subsidiary of the Company (the
"Statement of Claim"). The class action alleges that the Company
violated its obligations to sell certain cheese products marketed
by the Company in the quantities and prices to which it undertook.
The total claim is for approximately NIS 57 million (about $16.58
million). The Company is examining the Statement of Claim and at
this preliminary stage is unable to assess its chances of success,
if any.

              About G. Willi-Food International Ltd.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (http://www.willi-food.com)is an
Israeli-based company specializing in high-quality, great-tasting
kosher food products. Willi-Food is engaged directly and through
its subsidiaries in the design, import, marketing and distribution
of over 600 food products worldwide. As one of Israel's leading
food importers, Willi-Food markets and sells its food products to
over 1,250 customers and 2,500 selling points in Israel and around
the world including large retail and private supermarket chains,
wholesalers and institutional consumers. The Company's operating
divisions include Willi-Food in Israel and Euro European Dairies
Ltd. (Former: "Gold-Frost Ltd."), a wholly owned subsidiary who
designs, develops and distributes branded kosher, dairy-food
products. [GN]


GATEWAY MORTGAGE: Langston Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Jennifer M. Langston, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC, Case No.
CIVDS2010650, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 14,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01902-VAP-KK to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Judge Virginia A. Phillips.

The nature of the suit is stated as Contract: Other.

Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC operates as a mortgage banking
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES AND PULLIAM PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hunter R. Eley, Esq.
          Evan Miller Ladd, Esq.
          DOLL AMIR AND ELEY LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3275
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 542-3380
          Facsimile: (213) 542-3381
          E-mail: heley@dollamir.com
                  eladd@dollamir.com


GENENTECH INC: Williamson Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ANDREW WILLIAMSON and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF KANSAS CITY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. GENENTECH, INC. and GENENTECH USA, INC., Case
No. 19-CIV-01022, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of San Mateo to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on September
24, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06695-LB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and unfair
business practices by packaging Genentech medications in such a way
that needlessly costs patients with cancer and other serious
diseases hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City is a non-profit health
insurance provider with its primary place of business located in
Kansas City, Missouri.

Genentech, Inc. is an American biotechnology corporation with its
principal place of business located at 1 DNA Way, in South San
Francisco, California. Genentech USA, Inc. is a biotechnology
company with its principal place of business located in South San
Francisco.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

         Alicia J. Donahue, Esq.
         Joan R. Camagong, 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: adonahue@shb.com
                 jcamagong@shb.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Winegard Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. General Motors Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04557 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENIUS BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Genius Brands International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS).  Stockholders have until the deadlines below
to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Genius Brands International, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS)

Class Period: March 17, 2020 to July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Genius conducted a nonstop campaign of hype and press releases to
boost the share price of Genius shares. These releases touted the
intellectual properties connected to Genius and, among other
things, hyped the launch of its new free educational multimedia
platform, the "Kartoon Channel!" app. These releases had their
intended effect, as the price of Genius shares skyrocketed.

But the Genius story was not all that it seemed. On June 5, 2020,
Hindenburg Research published a report titled "A Bagholder's Guide
to Why We Think Genius Brands Will Be a $1.50 Stock Within a Month"
(the "Hindenburg Research Report"). This report questioned the
valuation of Genius and highlighted inaccurate public statements
made by Genius.

On July 2, 2020, Genius issued a press release touting that a "Key
Business Development" would be announced on July 6, 2020. This
vague announcement significantly boosted the stock price, as the
price jumped from $2.31 on July 1, 2020 to $3.55 on July 2, 2020.

The July 6th announcement, however, was another exaggerated press
release whereby Genius announced the creation of a joint venture
with POW! Entertainment regarding the intellectual property that
Stan Lee created after his time at Marvel Entertainment. Defendant
Heyward stated that "[t]he potential value in this single asset, is
greater than any IP anywhere in Hollywood."

With these exaggerated statements, investors realized that there
was little substance behind the hype. Following the July 6, 2020
press release, the price of Genius stock dropped significantly from
a close of $3.55 on the previous trading day to a closing price of
$2.66 on July 6, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 18, 2020, alleges throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast expansion of
Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription fees for the
Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth potential and
overall prospects as a company. While the share price of Genius
stock was artificially inflated due to these misstatements, Genius
registered for sale tens of millions of shares, allowing certain
longtime investors to cash out at the expense of Plaintiff and the
Class.

For more information on the Genius class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GNUS

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


GENIUS BRANDS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Sept. 13 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Genius
Brands who purchased shares within the class periods listed below.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT GNUS:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9227&from=1

Class Period: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


GF INC: Class Certification of Tipped Il Canale Employees Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA GUZMAN, ET AL., On
Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. GF, INC.
D/B/A IL CANALE, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-02338-DLF (D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting a Court-supervised notice to, and conditional
      certification of:

      "all current and former tipped bussers, servers, and
      bartenders Il Canale worked for Il Canale at any time from
      April 6, 2017 through April 6, 2020";

   2. compelling the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs'
      counsel, within 15 days, a list of the full names,
      telephone numbers, and last known address of each and
      every individual Server, Busser and Bartender who worked
      for Il Canale at any time from April 6, 2017 through April
      6, 2020";

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the information in an
      electronic form that can be used by Plaintiffs in mailing
      and/or e-mailing out the Court-approved Notice.;

   4. allowing the Plaintiffs to mail and Email the Notice Form
      to Tipped Employees and require Defendants to post the
      Notice Form (for 60 days following this Court's Order) in
      an area at Il Canale readily and routinely available for
      review by Tipped Employees; and

   5. providing the Plaintiffs a 60-day opt-in period, measured
      from the date notice is mailed; and

   6. granting all other and further relief that the nature of
      this cause may require.

The Plaintiffs contend that Il Canale paid its Tipped Employees
below the minimum wage, while similarly failing to meet the
requirements to off-set their minimum wage obligations with a legal
"tip credit." Additionally, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and the putative class at the rate of time and a half
Plaintiffs' hourly rate for all hours Plaintiffs worked each week.

The Plaintiffs have brought this class and collective action to
recover unpaid wages and associated damages under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act
of 1992, and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Il Canale is a large Italian style restaurant operating in the
District of Columbia. Il Canale employed the Plaintiffs and the
putative class.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GdKDDj at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael K. Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: 301 587-9373
          Facsimile: 240 839 9142
          E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com

GOHEALTH INC: Piumetti Suit Balks at 40% Drop in IPO Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
PIETRO PIUMETTI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GOHEALTH, INC., CLINTON P. JONES, BRANDON M. CRUZ,
TRAVIS J. MATTHIESEN, NVX HOLDINGS, INC., CENTERBRIDGE PARTNERS,
L.P., CCP III AIV VII HOLDINGS, L.P., CB BLIZZARD CO-INVEST
HOLDINGS, L.P., BLIZZARD AGGREGATOR, LLC, CENTERBRIDGE ASSOCIATES
III, L.P., and CCP III CAYMAN GP LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-05701 (N.D.
Ill., Sept. 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired GoHealth Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in
connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering.

GoHealth Holdings was formerly known as Blizzard Parent, LLC, until
it was acquired by the private equity firm Centerbridge in
September 2019 for $1.1 billion in equity and cash. In connection
with the acquisition, Centerbridge also agreed to pay the Company's
selling shareholders up to $275 million worth of additional
contingent consideration, to be paid in the form of common and
senior preferred earnout units, if the Company achieved certain
earnings targets in late 2019 and 2020.
  
On June 19, 2020, just nine months after the acquisition, GoHealth
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration
statement for the initial public offering on Form S-1, which, after
two amendments, was declared effective on July 14, 2020. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement for the IPO was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement
failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare
insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which
had begun in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a
higher risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business
model and limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from
degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result of
elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the
Company's concentrated carrier business model, and GoHealth's
efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (v) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock
suffered significant price declines, and by September 15, 2020,
GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.53 per share-over
40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock in
the IPO less than two months previously.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated Section 15 of
the Securities Act, and the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered
harm as a result.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, GoHealth, Inc. operates a
health insurance marketplace.

NVX Holdings, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based investment vehicle
created for the benefit of Defendants Cruz and Jones to house their
ownership of GoHealth Class A and Class B stock.

Centerbridge Partners, L.P. is a New York-based private equity
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


GOL LINHAS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 10 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol
Linhas" or the "Company") (NYSE: GOL) of the November 10, 2020
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities
class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Gol Linhas stock or options between March 14,
2019 and July 22, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
click here: www.faruqilaw.com/GOL. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Gol Linhas securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Hornea v. GOL Linhas Areas Inteligentes
S.A., et al, No. 20-cv-04243 was filed on September 11, 2020.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Gol Linhas had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2)
there was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue
to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Specifically, on June 16, 2020, Gol Linhas filed a Notification of
Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC, stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for fiscal year 2019.

On this news, Gol Linhas's stock fell from a closing price of $7.57
per share on June 15, 2020 to $7.30 per share on June 16, 2020-a
$0.27 or 3.57% drop.

Then, on June 29, 2020, after the market closed, Gol Linhas filed
its annual report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 on
Form 20-F with the SEC (the "2019 20-F"). There, the Company
disclosed several material weaknesses in its internal controls.

On this news, Gol Linhas's stock fell from a closing price of $6.92
per share on June 29, 2020 to $6.78 per share on June 30, 2020-a
$0.14 or 2.02% drop.

Finally, on July 23, 2020, Gol Linhas announced that it had
dismissed KPMG Auditores Independentes as the Company's registered
auditing firm.

On this news, Gol Linhas's stock fell from a closing price of $7.80
per share on July 22, 2020 to $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020-a
$0.55 or 7.05% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Gol Linhas's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


GOLAR LNG LTD: Faces Zarabi Suit in N.Y. Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ZARABI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOLAR LNG LIMITED, IAIN ROSS, and EDUARDO NAVARRO
ANTONELLO, Case No. 1:20-cv-07926 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Exchange Act by issuing
false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
between April 30, 2020, and September 24, 2020, about Golar's
business, operations, and prospects in order to attract investors
and artificially inflate Golar securities' prices during the Class
period. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain employees, including Hygo Energy
Transition Ltd. chief executive officer (CEO) Eduardo Navarro
Antonello, had bribed third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery
policies; (2) that, as a result, the Company was likely to face
regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties; (3) that, as a result
of the foregoing reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its
initial public offering would be significantly impaired; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the Company's share price fell $3.28, or
32%, to close at $6.86 per share on September 24, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Golar LNG Limited is a liquefied natural gas shipping company with
its principal executive offices located in Hamilton, Bermuda.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
            
         Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         230 Park Ave., Suite 530
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 682-5340
         Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
         E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and –

         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and –

         Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 914-5007


GOOGLE INC: Attorney General to File Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Stebbins, writing for Times Union, reports that as U.S.
Attorney General William Barr is reportedly rushing to file an
antitrust lawsuit against Google, an action that has all the
markings of a political vendetta, progressives in the New York
state Senate are launching their own campaign against Big Tech.

The Senate Consumer Protection Committee was set to hold a hearing
on Sept. 14 to consider a misguided proposal known as the
"Twenty-First Century Anti-Trust Act." The bill would dramatically
adjust the purpose of New York's antitrust laws. Current law aims
to prevent price-fixing, while the new proposal would shift the law
to a nebulous standard that targets any player assumed to be
dominant in the market. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Actions in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Anusuya Datta, writing for Geospatial World, reports that this
surely can't be a case of any publicity is good publicity. Google
and Facebook are in the eye of the storm once again, as
controversies over data privacy and protection continue to crop up.
Even as the Irish privacy watchdog told Facebook that that it would
soon have to stop transferring European users' data to the United
States, in Canada, proposed class action lawsuits have been filed
in three provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec against
Google on behalf of "the millions of Canadians whose personal
information the global internet giant collects and profits from".

Facebook fights back

Facebook has maintained it would seek a judicial review of the
Irish regulator's preliminary decision. "The Irish Data Protection
Commission (IDPC) has commenced an inquiry into Facebook controlled
EU-US data transfers, and has suggested that SCCs (Standard
Contractual Clauses) cannot in practice be used for EU-US data
transfers," Facebook's VP of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, said in a
statement, adding that "this approach is subject to further
process".

The IDPC order would need the backing of other EU data watchdogs.
But given that it comes on the back of a landmark ruling in June by
the European Court of Justice that struck down the Privacy Shield
mechanism for transferring data between the EU and US due to
concerns over US national security laws, for now, it could raise
concerns over data flows by other tech firms in Ireland.

The impact, as Facebook points out, could be far reaching on
businesses that rely on SCCs and on the online services many people
and businesses rely upon. "Lack of safe, secure and legal
international data transfers would damage the economy and hamper
the growth of data-driven businesses in the EU".

This would obviously reach beyond the business world, and could
impact critical public services such as health and education. For
instance, Ireland's COVID Tracking App states that it relies on
SCCs as one of a number of mechanisms to transfer data to one of
its processors in the US. Similarly, international Cloud providers
and email platforms render services to schools, universities and
hospitals across Europe, while millions use video conferencing
software every day. In such a situation, the impact would be felt
across multiple sectors, and by large and small businesses alike.

Google on messier ground

Meanwhile, the lawsuit in Canada is seeking compensation for
invasion of privacy, trespass, and consumer protection violations,
and other causes of action, while seeking an order preventing
Google from continuing these practices.

The action involves data collected by Google's own services and
through Google Ads and Google Analytics, which are installed on
more than half of global websites, the statement noted, while
claiming that "Google trespasses on users' devices by sending code
to their computers, tablets, or smartphones when they visit any of
these thousands of sites or services", which apparently then makes
the devices secretly share personal details such as such as users'
name, gender, location, search terms and preferences, IP address,
type of devices, etc. Google then uses this personal information to
generate profiles of all users for target advertising, without the
users' knowledge or consent, "which is in violation of Canadian
laws that protect privacy and personal interests".

"The claim alleges that Google turns Canadians' electronics into
tracking devices, which it uses to build profiles on almost every
Internet user in Canada; even people Google has no relationship
with, all without their consent," Luciana Brasil, Partner at the
Vancouver firm of Branch MacMaster LLP, said in a statement.

What makes it worse

Google claims its users have a choice on how their information is
used, but as Reidar Mogerman QC, a partner at Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman LLP, points out, there is little evidence to
believe that users have a choice about whether or not Google
collects their information in the first place. "This is misleading
advertising and is a direct violation of consumer protection law."

This comes right on the back of Google's "Oh sh**" moment last
month, when newly released court documents made available by the
Arizona Attorney General's office revealed that its own engineers
disagreed with the privacy settings when it was secretly tracking
people's movements.

"The day the AP story was published, Google turned into crisis mode
and held a self-styled 'Oh sh**' meeting," the documents revealed.
They are part of a new version of the earlier lawsuit filed against
Google by the State in May 2020 "for deceptive and unfair practices
used to obtain users' location data", which "Google then exploits
for its lucrative advertising business".

That isn't all. In yet another case, a recently unsealed decision
by a district court in Illinois reveals that the court ruled that
Google users shouldn't be considered to be voluntarily handing over
their location data just because they used smartphones. "The Court
finds it difficult to imagine that users of electronic devices
would affirmatively realize, at the time they begin using the
device, that they are providing their location information to
Google in a way that will result in the government's ability to
obtain -- easily, quickly and cheaply -- their precise geographical
location at virtually any point in the history of their use of the
device," the court wrote.

This isn't just telling on Google, but also the authorities, since
the case involved geofence warrants, which, the courts have ruled,
violate the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity
requirements.

Clear laws and regulations
Facebook is right in one aspect -- in asking for clear cut rules
and regulations regarding data collection and transfers. But this
will need time and, most importantly, political will. More than two
months after the ECJ ruling, EU Justice Commissioner Didier
Reynders told EU Parliament that the EU was working with the US
counterparts to evaluate the possibility of a strengthened
framework, ". . . and of course it's possible to build on existing
elements but of course it's maybe also a necessity to have
legislative changes . . . And that will of course have an impact on
the time needed to put in place a new framework."

But then this is not only about transatlantic data transfers. Every
time we get onto the Internet, we leave behind a data trace --
which is then open for corporations to exploit for their own
benefit. The data privacy imbroglios that technology companies are
repeatedly getting caught up in only proves that there is a
pressing need for authorities to get together for framing the right
digital public policies that uphold people's rights and privacy.
[GN]


GRANDE GAMES: Heathcote Suit Seeks Money Lost at Online Gambling
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRANDE GAMES LIMITED, Case No. 2:20-cv-01310
(W.D. Wa., Sept. 1, 2020), alleges that the Defendant's Cash Frenzy
Casino is an unlawful gambling device.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has
violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act because its virtual
casino games, including Cash Frenzy Casino, are unlawful "gambling
device." The Defendant's virtual casino games, including Cash
Frenzy Casino, are gambling device because they are devices where
players provide consideration (e.g., by purchasing coins and
wagering the coins) and by an element of chance (e.g., spinning a
virtual slot machine) create a right to credits and other things of
value (e.g., additional coins that would otherwise be purchased for
cash, and that award additional replays).

The Defendant's acts and practices constitute unfair methods of
competition or are unfair or deceptive because (a) they offend
public policy as it has been established by law; (b) are unethical,
oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (c) cause substantial injury to
consumers; and also (d) have the capacity to deceive a substantial
portion of the public to whom they are directed and to whom
Defendant holds itself out as operating legally and in accordance
with applicable law, the Plaintiff contends.

Grande Games Limited owns and operates a video game development
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wright A. Noel, Esq.
          CARSON NOEL PLLC
          20 Sixth Avenue NE
          Issaquah, WA 98027
          Telephone: (425) 837-4717
          Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
          E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com

              - and -

         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com


GRIFFIN ALEXANDER: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CUELLAR and ELISSA
LAPPAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GRIFFIN ALEXANDER, P.C., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
2:19-cv-20529-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a settlement class
      defined as:

      "All New Jersey consumers who were sent an initial notice
      and/or letter from GRIFFIN, between November 20, 2018 and
      November 20, 2019, concerning a debt owed to another,
      which stated in part, "The debt described in the letter
      will be assumed to be valid by the creditor, unless a
      debtor, within thirty days after receipt of this notice,
      disputes in writing, the validity of the debt or some
      portion thereof.

      and/or,

      If a debtor notifies the creditor in writing within thirty
      days of the receipt of this notice that the debt or
      portion thereof is disputed, the creditor will obtain
      verification of the debt and a copy of the verification
      will be mailed to the debtor by the creditor.

      and/or,

      If the creditor who is named in the attached letter is not
      the original creditor, and if the debtor makes written
      requests to the creditor within thirty days from the
      receipt of this notice, the name and address of the
      original creditor will be mailed to the debtor by the
      creditor."

   2. approving conditionally the settlement of this action upon
      the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action
      Settlement Agreement to the Joint Memorandum;

   3. conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes
      of Settlement;

   4. approving the form and substance of, and the directing the
      manner of service of, the notice to the Class;

   5. setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and

   6. granting the parties to this action and the Class such
      other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
      proper.

Griffin Alexander is a law firm serving business and personal needs
of clients throughout New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

A copy of the joint notice of motion for conditional certification
of settlement class is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2ER2QWw at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Joseph R. Lang, Esq.
          LENOX, SOCEY, FORMIDONI, GIORDANO
          LANG, CARRIGG & CASEY, LLC
          136 Franklin Corner Road, Unit B-2
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 896-2000
          E-mail: jlang@lenoxlaw.com

GROUPE SEB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GROUPE SEB USA, Case No. 1:20-cv-07095-SHS (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 1, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.krupsusa.com/,is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.

Groupe Seb Holdings Inc. was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of electrical
appliances, television and radio sets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


GUAM: Faces Class Action Over Mandatory 14-Day Quarantine
---------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Cotero, writing for KUAM News, reports that the mandatory
14-day quarantine in a GovGuam facility has travelers yet again
reaching out to attorneys pleading for help to be released, arguing
their civil rights are being violated. In the latest case, the
Superior Court of Guam ruled in favor of civilians, however
according to plaintiff attorney Rachel Ayuyu, DPHSS is still not
complying and a class action lawsuit is underway.

"There is a bigger problem that is going on with Public Health and
the court has recognized that problem," Ayuyu told KUAM News.

The problem: there's no written directive. Ayuyu represents Guam
Customs & Quarantine Agency officer Eugene Igros. Despite having
negative COVID 19 results upon arrival on September 1, Igros along
with his family of four, remain in one room at a mandatory 14-day
GovGuam quarantine facility.

"I filed this petition on behalf of myself and my family, I did not
file this petition as my position as a Customs officer," Igros
emphasized. "I got a negative test results, the bottom line is I
went, we all got COVID testing and we all got negative test results
so why quarantine me at a government facility of this hotel when I
have my own home," he stressed.

Igros has brought this question forward to the superior court
having filed a lawsuit against Public Health. According to the
petition Igros argues quarantine at a government facility is not
voluntary ,is  in violation of his rights and he asks for a release
to home quarantine.

In Judge Iriarte's decision and order issued on Saturday, September
12, the court finds the Igros family's quarantine was not
voluntary, but mandatory and orders all travelers receive a
physical copy of their rights prior to signing a voluntary
quarantine document.

The family is to stay at the quarantine facility unless they test
negative by day 12. Said Ayuyu, "The court found that Public Health
as of Sept. 11, Sept. 12 and even as of Sept. 14, has not valid
written directive for quarantine of these individuals at this
government facility so right now they are being held improperly."

Public health has the option to properly file a 30-day directive
with the courts, explains Ayuyu, noting, "Continuously and
regularly, Public Health has to explain to the judge why they
continued government facility is necessary," she said.

And this isn't the first time DPHSS was a defendant in court on
similar issues. Then, director Linda Denorcey utilized powers under
a public state health emergency to place travelers in a quarantine
facility, and that March directive has since expired.

"And Public Health did nothing to try and revive it, to try and
extend it - and all on the basis that they have this emergency
health power as if this emergency health power allows them to
bypass the same requirements that are contained in the same statute
that they are relying on," she said.

Attorney Ayuyu says bottom line since April to present public
health has been operating these government facilities for
quarantine illegally. She is now putting together a class action
lawsuit for people like Eugene who did not receive notice of their
rights and were placed in a facility since april without a valid
written directive.

In the meantime, Igros and his family are still waiting for their
release.

"Yes, it's a four-star, five-star hotel - but my home is my
palace," Igros said. "The governor keeps saying, stay at home
order, hello governor this is not my home. Let me go home." [GN]


HARRIS ORIGINALS: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris Originals of
NY, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Harris Originals of
NY, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07944 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Harris Originals of New York, Inc. was founded in 1955. The
Company's line of business includes the retail sale of jewelry,
such as diamonds and other precious stones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HDFC BANK: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 13 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
HDFC Bank Limited ("HDFC Bank" or "the Company") (NYSE:HDB) for
violations of Sec. 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 July 31,
2019 and July 10, 2020, 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. HDFC Bank failed to maintain appropriate
disclosure controls and internal controls on financial reporting.
The Company engaged in improper lending practices in its vehicle
financing business. 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 HDFC Bank,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


HIRERIGHT LLC: Smith Sues in N.D. Georgia Over Violation of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HireRight, LLC. The
case is styled as Reshonda M. Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HireRight, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03956-LMM-JKL (N.D. Ga., Sept. 24, 2020).

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

HireRight is a global family of background screening companies. Its
parent holding company is based in Irvine, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Phone: (612) 594-5999
          Fax: (612) 584-4470
          Email: emdrake@bm.net
                 jhashmall@bm.net


HOME DEPOT: Schilling Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RICHARD SCHILLING, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV28884, 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 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08740-FMO-MRW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, Wage Orders, and California Business and
Professions Code, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to provide compliant wage statements and to maintain accurate
payroll records, failure to timely pay wages during employment, and
unfair business practices.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                  

         Evan R. Moses, Esq.
         Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
         Melis Atalay, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                 aaron.cole@ogletree.com
                 melis.atalay@ogletree.com


HUDSPETH & ASSOCIATES: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUDSPETH & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02867-STV
(D. Colo., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the overtime provisions under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Foreman from 2017
until July 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was misclassified as a salaried
employee by the Defendant and exempted him from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Although the Plaintiff was required by
the Defendant to regularly work over 40 hours in a one-week period,
the Defendant, however, failed to compensate him for his lawfully
earned overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week.

Hudspeth & Associates, Inc., provides demolition, dismantlement and
excavation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


I.C. SYSTEM: Guzman Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Carolina Guzman, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04545 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2020).

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

IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider and one of
the largest collection companies in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ICELINK WATCH: Jariwala Alleges Violation of ADA
------------------------------------------------
Icelink Watch & Jewelry Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Icelink Watch & Jewelry Inc, a
California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01879-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020).

Geneva-based IceLink is the creator of luxury timepieces. The
brand's watches infuse the craziness of Los Angeles and the rigor
of the Swiss watch-making industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard
   12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Regala Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER REGALA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No.
3:20-cv-01910-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's practice of assessing overdraft fees on transactions
that did not actually overdraw the customer's account.

The complaint challenges the Defendant's practice of charging
overdraft fees to the Plaintiff and similarly situated on what are
referred to in this suit as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle
Negative Transactions." The said type of transactions worked when
the Defendant immediately reduces a consumer's checking account for
the amount of the purchase at the moment debit card transactions
are authorized on an account with positive funds to cover the
transaction. As a result, a customer's accounts will always have
sufficient available funds available to cover these transactions
because the Defendant has already sequestered those funds for
payment.

Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for a particular
debit card transaction at the time the transaction is authorized,
the Defendant later assesses $32 overdraft fee on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle, usually days later, into
a negative account balance, the Plaintiff alleges.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., provides retail banking services to
consumers, which includes the issuance of debit cards for use by
its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts. Chase
operates banking centers and branches across the State of
California and the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  aaron@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


JUST ANOTHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Aniseto Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN FELICIANO ANISETO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. JUST ANOTHER DELI, INC. (D/B/A Q MARQET),
YEONG JA SHIN and LEE DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-07991 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including failure
to pay proper wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees appropriate
minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, to give them spread-of-hours pay for any day
in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of worked hours, and to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a sandwich preparer
and counter attendant at the hot food bar and deli located at 1414
Madison Avenue, in New York City from approximately 2010 until
April 2, 2020.

Just Another Deli, Inc., owns and operates a hot food bar and deli
under the name Q Marqet, located at 1414 Madison Avenue, in New
York City.[BN]

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


JUUL LABS: Conditional Certification of Campaign Workers Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA DE LA LUZ
BAUTISTA-PEREZ, LUZ PEREZ BAUTISTA and SALVADORA CORREA, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JUUL LABS,
INC., COALITION FOR REASONABLE VAPING REGULATION, LONG YING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. HO, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-01613-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff Maria de la Luz
Bautista-Perez will move the Court on November 5, 2020 for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective action of
      Campaign Workers under of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

      "all individuals who were hired by Long Ying
      International, Inc. to work on the Yes on C Campaign and
      who either: (a) worked 11 or more shifts in a work week;
      or (b) worked 10 shifts in a work week and reported to two
      different work locations in at least one day of that
      week";

   2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed Collective Action
      Notice and Opt-In form, and its distribution by
      Plaintiff's counsel by First Class mail and email; and

   3. facilitating notice, by ordering the Defendants to produce
      a complete list of potential collective action members in
      Excel format, including names, addresses, e-mail
      addresses, home and cell phone numbers within 30 days of
      the Court's order.

The Campaign Workers worked on the political campaign for Yes on C,
a voter measure placed on San Francisco's November 2019 general
election ballot. On May 14, 2019, the ballot measure was submitted
to the Department of Elections by a Vice President of Defendant
Juul Labs, Inc., which "designs, manufactures and markets
electronic nicotine delivery systems."  The measure would have
overturned a San Francisco ordinance that suspended the sale of
electronic cigarettes in the city.

Defendant Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation operated the
Campaign. The Coalition was formed as a non-profit corporation on
July 3, 2019 by James Sutton. Juul's Director of Public Affairs,
Jon Berrier, was named the Coalition's CEO.

A copy of the the Plaintiff Maria de la Luz Bautista-Perez's
amended motion for conditional certification is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iuQC3S at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  golmedo@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

          George A. Warner, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
          E-mail: gwarner@legalaidatwork.org

K.J.C. INC: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN SANTANA AND GERALDO BUSANET v. K.J.C., INC. D/B/A K.J.C.
WATERPROOFING, BPM CONTRACTING LLC, VINCENT CAPAZZI, KAREN CAPAZZI,
AND GARY CAPAZZI, Case No. 7:20-cv-07848 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23,
2020), is a putative class action lawsuit brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The lawsuit asserts claims for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked
in excess of 10 hours each day, and failure to give required
notices and wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt employees at the
Defendants' job sites in New York and New Jersey from 2015 to
2020.

K.J.C. Inc., d/b/a K.J.C. Waterproofing, Inc., is a full-service
commercial/industrial roofing company with a principal place of
business located at 39 West Quackenbush Avenue, in Dumont, New
Jersey. BPM Contracting LLC is a contracting company with a
principal place of business located at 140 Empire Blvd., in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
         675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (718) 669-0714
         E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


KENOSHA, WI: Faces Discrimination Class Suit Over Curfew Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Rogan, writing for The Journal Times, reports that a
class-action discrimination lawsuit, filed in federal court by four
people who were arrested for breaking Kenosha's curfew during
protests, alleges that their rights were inappropriately infringed
upon while pro-police demonstrators were allowed to "roam" without
harassment by law enforcement.

The lawsuit points out that more than 100 protesters were arrested
"for violating the County imposed curfew order, yet in spite of the
presence of pro-police protesters and militias, NOT A SINGLE
PRO-POLICE demonstrator has been arrested" for violating curfew.

The lawsuit alleges that the Kenosha Police Department and the
Kenosha County Sheriff's Department used the curfew "to silence the
voices of those who peacefully demonstrate against police brutality
while allowing pro-police activists and militias to roam the
streets without fear of arrest." Unrest unfolded in the city after
the Aug. 23 shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha police officer.

Curfew arrests became more common starting Aug. 26, the night
violence became less common. The night prior, three people were
shot -- two of whom died -- allegedly by 17-year-old Kyle
Rittenhouse of Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse, who is claiming
self-defense in both cases, identified himself as a member of a
"local militia" who was in Kenosha to protect lives and property.

Video shared widely on social media shows law enforcement officials
thanking militia members, including Rittenhouse, for being in the
streets on Aug. 25, despite the curfew being in effect. Within that
same video, other officers on loudspeakers can be heard telling
Black Lives Matter demonstrators to clear the streets.

"The video makes clear that there are two sets of laws — one for
those whose message the police support, and one for those who
message the police oppose," the lawsuit alleges.

It's one of several moments in which plaintiffs are claiming BLM
demonstrators were treated more harshly than others in Kenosha over
the past two weeks.

The day after the video was posted, Kenosha County Sheriff David
Beth said "our deputies would toss a water to anybody" who asked,
including Black Lives Matter demonstrators. He later said that the
views expressed by those officers do not represent the views of all
law enforcement in Kenosha County.

After the Rittenhouse shooting, leaders in Kenosha called on armed
groups and militia to stay away from the city to avoid further
violence.

The four plaintiffs are all Wisconsin residents: Two from Kenosha
(Adelana Akindes and Victor Garcia), one from Milwaukee (Oscar
Walton) and one from Wauwatosa (Danica Gagliano-Deltgen).

'A caged bird'

Garcia, who is a 23-year-old University of Wisconsin-Parkside
student, said that he was arrested by federal agents who "didn't
announce themselves (and had) guns drawn . . . I was tackled to the
ground, I had a gun in my face. From there, I was handcuffed, and
it became clear they were law enforcement, and we were swarmed by
seven other cars. Then we were all separated, taken and eventually
handed over to Kenosha County police."

Garcia said he wasn't processed until the day after he was
arrested. "You're put in that situation (in jail) as a caged bird,
all because you wanted to go out there and have a voice for people
who no don't have voices. They strip you of your freedom, and you
are treated like an animal. I was no longer a free American, I had
a number, I had no name, I wasn't a person."

"I love this community, and that's how I was rewarded (for)
standing up for people who are being unjustly killed and taken down
by law enforcement," he said. "I was locked in a cage.

The defendants in the lawsuit are listed as the City of Kenosha and
the County of Kenosha.

The lawsuit notes that "some demonstrators have engaged in
destructive activity" but claims that "these incidences have been
remote when compared to the hundreds of otherwise peaceful
protesters."

The plaintiffs also are claiming that the curfew directly infringes
on their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. The curfew
has since been lifted.

"By commencing the curfew at such an early time each day and
providing no room for any free expression," the lawsuit states,
"the curfew has the effect of crowding out much of Plaintiffs' and
Plaintiff Class's opportunity to exercise their rights."

Garcia said "I had spent 24 hours locked in a cell against my will,
and I had not committed any crime other than (breaking) a made-up
curfew by the U.S. government because they don't want us exercising
our First Amendment rights."

The offices of the Kenosha County District Attorney and the Kenosha
City Attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment
on Sept. 11. [GN]


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Ibarra Suit Seeks $500MM in Damages for Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOE IBARRA, individually, on behalf of himself, the general public
and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated v.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION,
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, aka:
KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION individually, dba: a
California Corporation, individually, dba: KOHL'S SEAL BEACH, STORE
#10604, individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually,
Doing business as a Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of
California, individually, et al., Case No. 20STCV35427 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 15, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for damages in the sum of
$500 million because they are responsible in some manner for
certain events and happenings to the Plaintiff that legally caused
him injury and damages.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action against each DOE Defendant,
who allegedly acted with malice and oppression and with the intent
to vex, annoy, frighten, and severely injure the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the Defendants in an
amount to punish and make an example of the Defendants.

As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants' malicious
conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earned income, loss
of future earned income, and diminished earning capacity in an
amount according to proof at the time of trial. As a direct and
proximate result of the wrongful acts and omissions of the
Defendants, the Defendants are allegedly liable to the Plaintiff
for damages in the sum of $500 million.

The other Defendants are KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, formerly
aka: KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION,
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, dba:
KOHL'S SEAL BEACH, STORE #10604, individually, dba: a California
Corporation, individually, Doing business as a Public Entity Under
Laws of and in the State of California, individually: KOHL'S SEAL
BEACH, STORE #10604, individually, dba: a California Corporation,
individually, formerly aka: KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES. INC., a
DELAWARE CORPORATION, individually, dba: a California Corporation,
individually, aka: KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION,
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, MICHELLE
D. GASS (PETKERS) individually and in her official capacity as CEO
and DIRECTOR of KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION individually,
dba: a California Corporation, individually, formerly aka: KOHL'S
DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION, individually, dba:
a California Corporation, individually, dba: KOHL'S SEAL BEACH,
STORE #10604. individually, dba: a California Corporation,
individually, Doing business as a Public Entity Under Laws of and
in the State of California, individually; LOUIE BELLASSAI,
individually, aka: Lou Bellassai, individually, aka: Louis
Bellassai, individually, aka: Lewis Bellassai, individually, and in
his official working capacity as Human Resource Director/Manager
on/in the behalf of KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, formerly
aka: KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES. INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION,
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, dba:
KOHL'S SEAL BEACH, STORE #10604, individually, dba: a California
Corporation, individually, Doing business as a Public Entity Under
Laws of and in the State of California, individually; LEWIS
BELLASSAI, individually, aka: Louis Bellassai, individually, aka:
Louie Bellassai, individually, aka: Lou Bellassai, individually,
and in his official working capacity as Human Resource
Director/Manager on the behalf of KOHL'S SEAL BEACH, STORE #10604,
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, formerly
aka: KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION
individually, dba: a California Corporation, individually, aka:
KOHL'S, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION individually, dba: a
California Corporation, individually, as a public entity under laws
of and in the State of California, individually; and DOES 1 through
200, inclusive, each of them.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the general public and on
behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated, appears
pro se.[BN]


KOWALSKI HEAT: Sued by Davis Under FLSA for Underpaying Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY DAVIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
KOWALSKI HEAT TREATING CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-02137-JG (N.D. Ohio,
Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal pay policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The complaint asserts these claims: the Defendant unlawfully
deducted 30 minutes from the Plaintiff's daily hours worked for a
meal break that the Plaintiff did not take at all or that was
interrupted by work duties; the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff for integral and indispensable pre-shift work; and the
Defendant failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in the
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay when calculating overtime.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt salt furnace operator beginning in January 2017 until
May 2020.

Kowalski Heat Treating Co. operates a business that provides
distortion sensitive thermal processing services to customers
throughout Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Tel: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com


KPMG LLP: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Kassman Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Donna Kassman, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated July 15, 2020, and Order dated
August 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Kassman v. KPMG
LLP, Case No. 11-cv-3743, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motions for Rule 23 class
certification and EPA collective certification; and (i) denied the
parties' Daubert motions and motions to strike.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative sex discrimination class action
against KPMG. They assert claims under the disparate impact and
disparate treatment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 on behalf of a nationwide class of more than 10,000 female
KPMG employees, from 2009 to the present, and analogous claims
under New York state and city law on behalf of a New York subclass.
The Plaintiffs also seek second stage collective action
certification of the Equal Pay Act claims of 1,112 Opt-In
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit on June 2, 2011, claiming that KPMG
discriminates against thousands of women in their pay and
promotions. Less than three weeks later, the Supreme Court decided
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Dukes makes it
extremely difficult for a gender discrimination suit to proceed as
a class action when the discriminatory treatment was the product of
local supervisors exercising their discretion in awarding pay and
promotions.

Most of the conduct challenged in the lawsuit occurred after Dukes
provided a roadmap to avoid class certification of a nationwide
class asserting gender discrimination. Not surprisingly, during the
years since Dukes, with the instant lawsuit pending, KPMG has
utilized a decentralized system for determining pay and promotion
reminiscent of that used by Walmart in Dukes. KPMG also has been
attentive to gender disparities and workplace misconduct.

The appellate case is captioned as Kassman v. KPMG LLP, Case No.
20-3126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Donna Kassman, Individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly- situated female employees; Sparkle Patterson,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female
employees; Jeanette Potter, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated female employees; Tina Butler; Heather Inman;
Ashwini Vasudeva, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated female employees; Cheryl Charity; Nancy Jones;
and Carol Murray, are represented by:

          Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: tzegeye@lchb.com

Defendant-Appellee KPMG, LLP is represented by:

          Peter O. Hughes, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 630-1600
          E-mail: peter.hughes@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Colleen M. Kenney, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: ckenney@sidley.com

               - and -

          Wendy M. Lazerson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 565-7000
          E-mail: wlazerson@sidley.com


KTM HOLDINGS: Nisbett Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
KTM Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KTM Holdings, LLC, doing business
as: Sculpthouse, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07781 (S.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 22, 2020).

Sculpthouse is a fitness studio and athleisure boutique.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEE MICHAELS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee Michaels Fine
Jewelers. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lee Michaels Fine
Jewelers, Case No. 1:20-cv-07947 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Lee Michaels Fine Jewelry is a fine jewelry retailer in the Baton
Rouge area, expanding throughout Louisiana to San Antonio, Texas;
Jackson, Mississippi; and now Albuquerque, New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEWIS UNIVERSITY: Miller Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LEWIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05473 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who paid, or
will pay, tuition and fees to attend Lewis University for an in
person, hands-on educational services and experiences for the
semesters or terms affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to refund any
amount of the tuition or any of the mandatory fees paid by the
Plaintiff and the Class members, even though it has implemented
online only distance learning starting on March 12, 2020, in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University's failure to
provide the services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were
intended to cover since approximately March 12 is a breach of the
contracts between the University and her and the members of the
Class, and it is unjust, the Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student of the University during
the Spring 2020 semester. She seeks for herself and Class members
protections including injunctive and declaratory relief protecting
Class Members from paying the full cost of tuition and fees during
the pendency of the pandemic in light of the educational services,
opportunities, and experiences the Defendant can actually safely
provide.

Lewis University is a private University in Romeoville, Illinois,
that was founded in 1932. The University offers numerous major
fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
                  nlange@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edward Ciolko, Esq.
          James P. McGraw, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                  jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


LG ELECTRONICS: Park Suit Removed to Southern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAIJIN PARK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; and DOES
1 through 10, Case No. ECU001427, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Imperial, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on September
4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01738-GPC-BLM.

LG Electronics of USA manufactures and distributes consumer
electronic products. The Company offers light emission diode
televisions, mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing
machines, dryers, air conditioners, and projectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hollis R. Peterson, Esq.
          Aaron A. Buckley, Esq.
          Evan A. Pena, Esq.
          PAUL PLEVIN SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
          101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101-8285
          Telephone: (619) 237-5200
          Facsimile: (619) 615-0700
          E-mail: hpeterson@paulplevin.com
                  abuckley@paulplevin.com
                  epena@paulplevin.com


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: My Dream Boutique Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Los Angeles
Board of Supervisors, et al. The case is styled as My Dream
Boutique, a California Corporation; Anahit Khachatryan, an
individual; Nelli Virabyan, an individual; Di Oro Salon, Inc., a
California Corporation; Vardges Avetisyan, an individual; Al-Azim
Inc., a California corporation; Riaz Mohammed, an individual;
Westfield Property Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Westfield Topanga Owner LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Sherman Oaks Fashion Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited
liability partnership; Culver City Mall LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; Santa Anita Shoppingtown LP, a Delaware limited
liability partnership; Valencia Town Center Venture, L.P., a
Delaware limited liability partnership; on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. County of Los Angeles Board of
Supervisors; Barbara Ferrer, in her official capacity as Director,
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health; Muntu Davis,
individually and in his official capacity as County of Los Angeles
Health Officer; Alex Villanueva, in his official capacity as
Sheriff, County of Los Angeles; County of Los Angeles; Case No.
2:20-cv-08893 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the five-member
governing body of Los Angeles County, California, United
States.[BN]


LOVELY TWINS: Rosario Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CARLOS CASTILLO ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LOVELY TWINS WINES & LIQUORS INC. (D/B/A
LOVELY TWINS), WACAL SOTO, DANILO CABRERA, and WASCAR SOTO, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07941 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law, including failure to pay proper wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants: failed to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated counter attendants
appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, made unlawful deductions from
their wages, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of worked
hours, and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a counter attendant
at Lovely Twins liquor store in New York from October 2017 until
July 19, 2020.

Lovely Twins Wines & Liquors Inc. is a company that owns and
operates a liquor store under the name Lovely Twins, located at
3826 Third Ave., in The Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMINA SOLAR: $249,000 Deal in Rogers Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRELL ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LUMINA SOLAR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-2128 (KBJ) (D. D.C.), Judge Ketanji Brown
Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of settlement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Darrell Rogers sued Defendant Lumina Solar on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals, alleging that Lumina Solar violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using an automated
dialing system to send to him certain text-message advertising
without obtaining his prior express consent.  After engaging in a
period of discovery, the parties reached a settlement of the
putative class action.

On Sept. 11, 2019, the Court issued an order preliminarily
certifying a settlement class consisting of all individuals to whom
Lumina Solar sent text message advertisements between July 2, 2018
and Sept. 20, 2018, which, based on information disclosed during
discovery, pertained to 2,488 individuals.  The Court's order also
approved the notice that would be sent to the class members
advising them of the settlement.

Following the preliminary approval of the settlement,
Class-Settlement.com as settlement administrator sent an email to
the 2,488 identified class members containing the Class Notice and
Claim Form that the Court had approved.  Of these email messages,
1,868 did not bounce back; therefore, the Settlement Administrator
presumes that this many were received by the intended recipient.
For the 619 emails that bounced back, the Settlement Administrator
located a U.S. Mail address for each class member, using both the
class list Lumina Solar provided and internet searches.  The
Settlement Administrator then mailed those individuals a copy of
the Class Notice and Claim Form.  

The Settlement Administrator also set up a website, which contained
the Class Notice, Claim Form, and Settlement Agreement, as well as
details regarding deadlines for submitting claims and opting out
of, or objecting to, the settlement; the date of the Final Approval
Hearing; and contact information for Class Counsel.  The class
members were also invited to submit claims through the website, or
by using U.S. Mail or facsimile.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Lumina Solar is required to
establish a $248,800 settlement fund.  The fund amount will be used
to make several types of payments: settlement payments to the class
members, attorney's fees in the amount of $39,808 (which represents
16% of the fund); a $5,000 incentive payment to Rogers; and the
fees and costs of the Settlement Administrator.  

The class members who submit valid claims for payment are entitled
to a pro rata share of the settlement fund that remains after the
deduction of attorney's fees, the incentive payment to Rogers, and
administration costs -- up to $100 -- and any part of the
settlement fund that is not paid out reverts to Lumina Solar.  The
Settlement Agreement further provides that the class members who do
not opt out of the settlement have released all claims of any kind
that arise out of or relate to the sending of the 2,488 text
messages.

The Court then held a final fairness hearing in April 2020.  At
that hearing, the class counsel represented that the notices to the
potential class members had been issued and delivered successfully;
that no class members had opted out of the settlement; and that no
objections to the settlement had been lodged.  

Upon further consideration at the final hearing, Judge Jackson
agrees with the parties that the proposed class meets the
requirements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); that the notice
provided to the class members comports with Rule 23(c)(2) and the
Due Process Clause; and that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly, Judge Jackson granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval, and dismissed the instant
legal action.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/IPYUQN from Leagle.com.


LYFT INC: 9th Cir. to Hear Drivers' Appeal in Sick Leave Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
two federal appeals courts have or will consider whether Lyft and
GrubHub drivers are engaged in interstate commerce, and so exempt
from the requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The
California labor lawsuit, Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., began as a dispute
about the drivers' lack of paid sick leave. The drivers' appeal
from a decision of the Northern District of California will be
heard by the Ninth Circuit. On August 19, the Ninth Circuit held
that Amazon last-mile delivery drivers were engaged in interstate
commerce even when they never crossed state lines.

Wallace v. GrubHub began as overtime lawsuit under Illinois law. As
with Rogers, the plaintiffs had signed work contracts that required
them to arbitrate disputes with the company and to waive their
rights to participate in class-action lawsuits. The drivers have
asked the full Seventh Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel
decision that would force the dispute into arbitration. On
September 9, the Seventh Circuit declined to reconsider the
decision.

All eyes turn now to the Ninth Circuit. If the circuit courts reach
different conclusions about the applicability of the FAA to
similarly situated workers, the scene may be set for the Supreme
Court to consider the issue. The question is critically important
to the protection of the employment rights of gig workers
throughout the country.

ROGERS V. LYFT, INC.  

In Rogers, three Lyft drivers filed an emergency motion to require
Lyft to reclassify all of its drivers in California as employees
rather than independent contractors, as required by AB 5, a 2020
law governing worker classification. Lyft has steadfastly refused
to reclassify the drivers. The plaintiffs argued that emergency
action was necessary so that drivers could qualify for sick pay
under California law. As well as risks to the drivers' health, they
argued that the lack of sick pay exposed the public to the risk of
coronavirus contagion.

However, each of the drivers had agreed, as a condition of their
work contract with Lyft, to settle disputes by arbitration and to
waive their rights to participate in class-action lawsuits.
Research suggests that arbitration overwhelmingly favors
employers.

Counsel for the drivers argued that they should not be compelled to
arbitrate for a collection of reasons, one of which was that they
were exempt from arbitration as transportation workers. In general,
under Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
arbitration agreements required as a mandatory condition of
employment and are generally enforceable. The FAA makes an
exception, however, for "the employment contracts of "seamen,
railroad employees, [and] any other class of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce."

The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase "workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce " (the "residual clause") to cover
only transportation workers" who are engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce.

In Rogers, the District Court was not persuaded that the Lyft
drivers were engaged in interstate commerce. It denied the driver's
emergency motion for re-classification, granted Lyft's motion to
compel arbitration and struck the class allegations. The drivers
have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit has held that Amazon last-mile
delivery drivers, who are generally independent contractors, make
only short-distance deliveries within the same metropolitan area,
and almost never cross state lines, are transportation workers
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the residual
clause.

The decision in Rittmann v. Amazon appears to focus on the issue of
whether the business of the contracting company is interstate,
rather than on whether the worker crosses state lines. It will be
interesting to see whether the Ninth Circuit will distinguish
between Lyft and Amazon or whether it will see itself as bound by
the Rittmann precedent

WALLACE V. GRUBHUB

Wallace also focuses on the meaning of the residual clause. The
consolidated lawsuit was filed by GrubHub drivers in Portland, New
York and Chicago who alleged that GrubHub violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime. As in Rogers, each of the
drivers had signed a "Delivery Service Provider Agreement" that
required them to submit to arbitration for "any and all claims"
arising out of their relation-ship with GrubHub.

GrubHub moved to compel arbitration. The drivers insist that they
are exempt from the arbitration requirements of the FAA because
they are engaged in interstate commerce. The three-judge panel
sitting for the Seventh Circuit focused on whether the drivers were
actively engaged in the enterprise of moving goods across state
lines, rather than whether the goods themselves have moved across
state lines at some point in their journey to the customer.
Accordingly, it affirmed the decision of the Northern District of
Illinois to grant GrubHub's motion to compel arbitration. The
drivers asked the entire Seventh Circuit to re-consider the
decision of the panel, which the court has now declined to do.

Two federal circuits appear to be interpreting the same section of
the same federal law in vastly different ways. If the Ninth Circuit
and the Seventh Circuit decide the question in different ways, the
issue would be ripe for Supreme Court consideration. The role of
arbitration in employment disputes is profoundly important for the
future of wage and hour protections. [GN]


MAMA'S PIZZA: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
DANIEL VENTURA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A MAMA'S PIZZA (A.K.A
MAMA'S FOOD COURT)), MANNY GARCIA, and MISHAN DOE, Case No.
1:20-cv-07990 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Plaintiff Ventura is a former employee of Defendant John Doe
Corp. He was employed as a porter for his first two months of
employment and then became a cook and a food preparer.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 705
8th Avenue, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MENASHA PACKAGING: Landa BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOSE LANDA, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. MENASHA PACKAGING COMPANY, LLC,
Case No. 2020-CH-05251, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on September 24, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05691 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by requiring the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers to scan their
fingerprints each time they began and ended their workday, as well
as each time they clocked in and out for breaks.

Menasha Packaging Company, LLC, is a producer of paper and paper
related products based in Neenah, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           

         Richard P. McArdle, Esq.
         Joseph Donado, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: rmcardle@seyfarth.com
                 jdonado@seyfarth.com


MICHIGAN: Court Denies Petition for Habeas Corpus in Resch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON MARCUS RESCH, Petitioner, v. RANDEE REWERTS,
Respondent, Case No. 1:20-cv-515 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Paul L.
Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed Resch's petition for habeas
corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust available
state-court remedies.

The case is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner
under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.  Petitioner Resch is incarcerated
with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Carson City
Correctional Facility in Montcalm County, Michigan.  He pleaded
nolo contendere in the Macomb County Circuit Court to unlawful use
of a motor vehicle, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws Section
750.414, and breaking and entering a building, in violation of
Mich. Comp. Laws Section 750.110.

On Aug. 22, 2018, the Court sentenced Petitioner as a fourth
habitual offender, to 6 months' to 15 years' imprisonment on the
motor vehicle conviction and 6 months' to 10 years' imprisonment on
the breaking and entering conviction.  Those sentences, in turn,
were to be served consecutively to a string of offenses for which
the Petitioner was on parole at the time he unlawfully used the
motor vehicle and broke into and entered the building.  The
accumulation of his various maximum sentences yields a maximum
discharge date of Jan. 24, 2073.  However, as of Feb. 21, 2019, the
Petitioner had already served his combined minimum sentences.  He
is, therefore, eligible for parole.

On June 3, 2020, the Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition.
The petition purports to raise, on behalf of a class of MDOC
inmates who have already served their minimum sentences, the claim
that the risk of infection arising from the COVID-19 pandemic
renders continued imprisonment cruel and unusual in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.  He contends that the cruelty is even more
apparent in a subclass of individuals, including the Petitioner,
who have already served their minimum sentences and who are
medically fragile.  The Petitioner asks the Court to appoint
counsel, certify the class and subclass, release him and the other
class and subclass members, and order further relief to which he,
the class, and subclass may be entitled.

Judge Maloney opines that the relief the Petitioner seeks --
release from custody -- is available only upon habeas corpus
review.  The Supreme Court has held that release from confinement
is the heart of habeas corpus.  A challenge to the fact or duration
of confinement should be brought as a petition for habeas corpus
and is not the proper subject of a civil rights action brought
pursuant to Section 1983.  Undoubtedly, for that reason, the
Petitioner has sought relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.

The Petitioner's decision to pursue relief under Section 2254,
however, circumscribes the relief available.  He asks the Court to
provide other relief, if appropriate.  Even if there might be
conditions of confinement, short of release, that would mitigate
the risk -- and eliminate the cruel or unusual character of the
punishment -- it is not within the Court's habeas jurisdiction to
grant such relief.  A claim seeking relief other than release is
properly brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Before the Court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the
prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts.
Hence, the Petitioner bears the burden of showing exhaustion.  The
Court finds that the Petitioner has more than 60 days remaining in
his limitations period.  Assuming that he diligently pursues his
state-court remedies and promptly returns to the Court after the
Michigan Supreme Court issues its decision, he is not in danger of
running afoul of the statute of limitations.  Therefore, a stay of
these proceedings is not warranted, the Court opines.

The Judge has considered the complexity of the issues and the
procedural posture of the case.  At this stage of the case, the
assistance of the counsel does not appear necessary to the proper
presentation of the Petitioner's position.  The Petitioner's
request for a court-appointed attorney will therefore be denied.

As to class certification, the Judge holds that the Petitioner
cannot adequately represent the class or sub-class.  The Sixth
Circuit has also stated that non-attorneys proceeding pro se cannot
adequate represent a class.  Thus, the Petitioner, as an
incarcerated, pro se litigant, is poorly suited to represent the
class and certification of the class and sub-class is not
warranted.

Finally, the Judge finds that reasonable jurists could not find it
debatable whether the Petitioner's application should be dismissed
for lack of exhaustion.  Therefore, a certificate of appealability
will be denied.  Moreover, although the Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution
and has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, the Judge does not conclude that any issue
Petitioner might raise on appeal would be frivolous.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Maloney will enter an order and
judgment dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust state-court
remedies, denying the appointment of counsel, denying the
Petitioner's request for class certification, and denying a
certificate of appealability.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/3jwHcWy from Leagle.com.


MICHIGAN: MDOC Faces Lee Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michigan Department
of Corrections. The case is styled as Daniel Lee, New #419145,
named as Daniel Lee New #419145 and all others similarly situated
on complaint v. Michigan Department of Corrections; Case No.
2:20-cv-00184-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich., Sept. 28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) oversees prisons and
the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan,
United States.

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Newberry
Correctional Facility, in Newberry, Michigan, appears pro se.[BN]


MILLER PIPELINE: Class Status Sought for Non-Exempt Field Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS O'NEIL, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. MILLER PIPELINE, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04034-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act collective on behalf of:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt field employees
      of Defendant who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek
      during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      and continuing through the final disposition of this
      case";

   2. implementing the Plaintiff's proposed procedure, including
      a 90-day opt-in period, whereby Court-approved notice of
      FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to the
      members of the class as requested; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of the Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the full names, their dates of employment, job titles,
      locations worked, their last known home addresses, and
      their personal email addresses of all Potential Opt-In
      Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any time from three
      years preceding the filing of this Motion through the
      present.

This case involves the Defendant's policies and/or practices with
regard to shop time, travel time, pre-shift work duties, post-shift
work duties, and meal breaks.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant does not compensate its
hourly, non-exempt field employees for: (1) shop time where they
report to Defendant's facilities, gather supplies and equipment,
load the company vehicle, inspect the company vehicle, among other
things; (2) time they spend traveling from Defendant's facilities
to the jobsite, (3) additional setup and preparatory duties upon
arrival at the jobsite; (4) meal breaks that were either not taken
or were interrupted by work; (5) end of day cleanup activities at
the jobsite; (6) travel from the jobsite to the facilities; and (7)
unloading the company vehicle upon arrival.

Miller Pipeline, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, is a
natural gas distribution, water/wastewater, and transmission
pipeline and utility contracting company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional
class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/30lk9Xt at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Jaquez ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mondelez Global LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08015 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2020).

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

Mondelez International, Inc., is an American multinational
confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company
consisting of former Kraft Foods Inc. brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOORE INGRAM: Faces Russo FLSA Suit in Tenn. Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moore Ingram Johnson
& Steele, LLP. The case is styled as Julia Russo, Individually And
on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Moore Ingram Johnson &
Steele, LLP, Case No. 3:20-cv-00820 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 24, 2020).

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

Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP, is a full service law firm
providing legal advice to its clients in virtually all aspects of
Captive Insurance Company Formation and Management; Civil
Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Commercial Real Estate, Zoning
and Land Use; Corporate Law; Estate Planning; Family Law; Insurance
Defense; Intellectual Property; Mergers & Acquisitions;
[Intellectual Property includes patent law]; Taxation; and Workers'
Compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER
          P. O. Box 192
          Rockwood, TN 37854
          Phone: (865) 354-3333
          Fax: (865) 354-4442
          Email: mfoster@marknfoster.com


MUSICIANS PENSION FUND: Stoner Appeals Order in Snitzer ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Martin Stoner filed an appeal from the District Court
Judgment dated August 28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
ANDREW SNITZER and PAUL LIVANT, individually and as representatives
of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the American
Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Plan v. THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS AND EMPLOYERS'
PENSION FUND, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS AND EMPLOYERS' PENSION FUND,
RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., AUGUSTINO GAGLIARDI, GARY MATTS, WILLIAM
MORIARITY, BRIAN F. ROOD, LAURA ROSS, VINCE TROMBETTA, PHILLIP E.
YAO, CHRISTOPHER J.G BROCKMEYER, MICHAEL DEMARTINI, ANDREA
FINKELSTEIN, ELLIOT H. GREENE, ROBERT W. JOHNSON, ALAN H. RAPHAEL,
JEFFREY RUTHIZER, BILL THOMAS, MAUREEN B. KILKELLY, and DOES NO.
1-6, WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, Case No. 17-cv-5361, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of a class of Plan participants and beneficiaries
against the Plan fiduciaries for their alleged breach of fiduciary
duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plan is a defined benefit, non-contributory, multi-employer
pension plan maintained in accordance with thousands of collective
bargaining agreements between unions and employers in the music
industry. The collective bargaining agreements are negotiated by
The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada, or one of its 145 local unions.  The Plan is funded by the
American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund under
the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing the Fund. The
Plan is funded by employer contributions and investment returns.

The Plan sponsor is the Board of Trustees, and the Plan and Fund
are administered and operated by the Board of Trustees from its
headquarters, which is located at Penn Plaza, in New York City. The
Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees, includes Defendants
Hair, Gagliardi, Brockmeyer, Yao, and at least six other members of
the Board of Trustees, named as Does 1-6.

Objector-Appellant Martin Stoner of New York, NY, appears pro
se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees The Board of Trustees of the American
Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund, Raymond M.
Hair, Jr., Augustino Gagliardi, Gary Matts, William Moriarty, Brian
F. Rood, Laura Ross, Vince Trombetta, Philip E. Yao, Christopher
J.G. Brockmeyer, Michael DeMartini, Robert W. Johnson, Alan H.
Raphael, Jeffrey Ruthizer, Bill Thomas, JoAnn Kessler, and Marion
Preston are represented by:

          Jani K. Rachelson, Esq.
          COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 356-0221
          E-mail: jrachelson@cwsny.com

               - and -

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3021
          E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com


NAN MCKAY: Faces Johnson Labor Suit Over Unlawful Wage Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NAN MCKAY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-586796 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the
Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants are liable for unpaid
wages, unlawfully deducted wages, unpaid meal and rest break
premium wages, statutory wages, and other related relief. These
claims are based on the Defendants' alleged (1) failure to provide
all rest and meal periods; (2) failure to pay all wages earned for
all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; (3) failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, (4) failure to timely pay
wages upon termination of employment, and (5) failure to fairly
compete.

The Defendants first employed the Plaintiff to work in San
Francisco, California, as an hourly customer service representative
on November 4, 2019. The Defendants continuously employed the
Plaintiff in this role until May 26, 2020, when her employment
ended.

Nan McKay and Associates, Inc., is a California-based provider of
professional services to the affordable housing industry, serving
agencies and municipalities across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Carl J. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  carl@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Seeks Class Status
--------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS W. LUCZAK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.  NATIONAL
BEVERAGE CORP., NICK A. CAPORELLA, and GEORGE R. BRACKEN, Case No.
0:18-cv-61631-KMM (S.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff filed his Motion
for Class Certification, accompanied by an expert report to
establish that shares of National Beverage traded in an efficient
market during the Class Period of May 4, 2017 to June 26, 2018, as
well as the expert's ability to calculate the damages in this case
on a classwide basis.

On September 1, 2020, the Court issued a paperless scheduling order
(Scheduling Order) for this action. The Scheduling Order set trial
for January 31, 2022. The Scheduling Order set a deadline for
completion of all pre-trial motions, but it did not address the
Parties' request for class certification deadlines.

                           *     *     *

The Parties have requested that the Court set the following
schedule for briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, which was filed on September 25, 2020:

     (1) Defendants will file their Response on December 4, 2020;
and

     (2) Plaintiff will file its Reply on January 22, 2021.

The Parties argue that this briefing schedule is necessary to
permit the Parties to conduct discovery to determine whether a
class can be certified in this action.

Further, the Parties argue that this briefing schedule will not
affect any deadlines as set forth in the Court's prior Scheduling
Order.

In light of the expert discovery that the Parties need to conduct
to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion, Chief Judge K. Michael Moore
agreed to extend the deadline to file a response and reply to
Plaintiffs' Motion.  Judge Moore granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Plaintiffs' request.  The Defendants are directed to file
a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on or before
November 13, 2020; and Plaintiff must file a reply in support of
his Motion on or before December 4, 2020. Any renewed motion to
extend the time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion shall inform the
Court why the extension of time is required.

National Beverage is an American beverage developer, manufacturer,
and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on
flavored soft drinks.

A copy of the joint motion for scheduling order for class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36ruaG7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLP
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

               - and -

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

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Anderson Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deborah Anderson, as attorney-in-fact for Marcus
Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02120, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 25, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05585 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bloom Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Bloom, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02115, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05568 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Byrd Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jerome Byrd, Jr., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02112, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05564 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Freeman Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andre Freeman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02085, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05545 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gallardo Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrie Gallardo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02111, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05563 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gill Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Garylyn Gill, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02095, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05552 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Glover Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Glover, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02119, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 25,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05573 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Harris Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Omre Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02114, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05566 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hatch Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jenifer Hatch, in her capacity as guardian of
Robert Larsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02124, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05594 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hawkins Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leo Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02087, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05547 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: James Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Javarris James, Garry Vujanov, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02093, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept.
24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05550 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Keys Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Sean Keys, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02170, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept.
24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05595 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: MacAulay Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John MacAulay, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02122, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05587 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McCurdy Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert McCurdy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02123, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05588 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McKnight Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Byron McKnight, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02260, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05597 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Miller-Hobbs Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Miller-Hobbs, as attorney-in fact for
Daniel Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02248, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05596 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Miroth Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Melvin Miroth, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02113, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept.
24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05565 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ori Suit Moved From Indiana to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frank Ori, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02109, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05559 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Reaves Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Silas Bernard Reaves, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02121, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept.
24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05586 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seeks Dismissal of College Athletes' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) is seeking to dismiss a federal lawsuit by two
college athletes that seeks to prevent the association from
limiting compensation athletes can make from their names, images
and likenesses.

Attorneys for the NCAA filed a motion to dismiss an antitrust
lawsuit by Oregon women's basketball player Sedona Prince and
Arizona State swimmer Grant House that also seeks damages for
potential past earnings athletes have been denied by current NCAA
rules, The Oregonian reported on Sept. 13.

Prince and House are also suing the Power Five conferences - the
Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern
Conference - for unspecified damages. Their suit seeks class-action
status.

In their Sept. 11 filing in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, NCAA lawyers argue in part that college
athletes "have no cognizable NIL rights in game broadcasts" and
thus cannot seek damages based on a share of television revenues
generated by the NCAA and the Power Five conferences.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Northern
District of California is scheduled to hear the matter Nov. 18.

The NCAA is working to change rules to allow college athletes to
earn money from third parties for social media endorsements,
sponsorships and personal appearances. Several federal lawmakers,
including Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, are working with the NCAA to craft
a federal law on name, image and likeness compensation to supercede
similar legislation at the state level.

California, Florida and Colorado already have approved compensation
laws; Florida's goes into effect next year, and California and
Colorado in 2023. Dozens of other states have introduced at least
one piece of NIL legislation. [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sterling Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Glenn Sterling, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02110, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 24,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05560 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sherwood Taylor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02118, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 25,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05572 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Thomas Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Thomas, Justine Buries, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02099, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept.
24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05553 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Watson Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Watson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02116, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 25,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05570 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wiljanen Suit Moved From Indiana to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thor Wiljanen, on behalf of Roy Wiljanen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02094,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Sept. 24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05551 to the proceeding.

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in Hyland Class Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR,
JESSICA SAINT-PAUL, REBECCA SPITLER-LAWSON, MICHELLE MEANS,
ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER GUTH, MEGAN NOCERINO, and ANTHONY CHURCH
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-9031-DLC-BLM (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Denise
Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted preliminary approval of the proposed class
settlement.

The Settlement Class entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Defendants on Jan. 23, 2020 to resolve the claims in the
class action lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release with the Defendants on April 24, 2020, which
memorializes the terms of their settlement.

Judge Cote, having read and considered the Settlement Agreement and
its exhibits, the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Agreement and its accompanying memorandum of law, the pleadings,
and all other papers filed in the Litigation, finds that the Motion
should be granted.  The Settlement Agreement, including the
releases contained therein, is preliminarily approved as being
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(e).

The Judge further approved the Cy Pres Recipient, described in
Section V.C of the Settlement Agreement, to launch the PSLF
Project, as set forth in the Term Sheet for Cy Pres Recipient and
PSLF Project Proposal attached as Exhibit 1-E to the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement Class described is conditionally certified as:

  All individuals who, at any point from Oct. 1, 2007 to the
  Effective Date (i) have or had Federal Family Education Loans
  (FFEL) or Direct Loans serviced by Navient; (ii) are or were
  employed full-time by a qualifying public service employer or
  employers for purposes of PSLF; and (iii) spoke to a Navient
  customer service representative about subjects relating to
  eligibility for PSLF.

The Class Representatives are appointed as the representatives of
the Settlement Class.  

The following attorneys are appointed to act as the Class Counsel:


   Faith Gay  
   Maria Ginzburg
   Lena Konanova
   Margaret Siller
   SELENDY & GAY PLLC
   1290 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10104
   Tel: 212-390-9000
   E-mail: fgay@selendygay.com
           mginzburg@selendygay.com
           lkonanova@selendygay.com
           msiller@selendygay.com

   Mark Richard
   PHILLIPS, RICHARD & RIND, P.A.
   9360 SW 72 Street, Suite 283
   Miami, FL 33173
   Tel. No: 305-412-8322
   E-mail: mrichard@phillipsrichard.com
           (admitted pro hac vice)

Rust Consulting is appointed as the Settlement Administrator.

The Judge has reviewed and approved the form, substance, and
requirements of the (a) Short-Form Notice and (b) Long-Form Notice,
as modified and appended to the Order.  The Notice Plan set forth
in Section VI of the Settlement Agreement is also preliminarily
approved, with the modification that subsections VI.A.1.b and
VI.A.2 will have their references to the "Effective Date" changed
to the "date of the Court's Preliminary Approval Order."

The Final Approval Hearing was set for Oct. 2, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3d1MmaH from Leagle.com.


NCAA: Holmes Class Suit Moved From S.D. Indiana to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02086, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September
24, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05546 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's negligence, breach of express
contract, and fraudulent concealment by failing to implement,
promulgate, or require appropriate and up-to-date guidelines
regarding concussion management protocols and failing to inform
student-athletes about the dangers and latent effects of
concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries, also referred to as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs).

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three
college sports and over 400,000 students in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             

         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Mayer Class Suit Moved From S.D. Indiana to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAWN MAYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02117, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September
25, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05571 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's negligence, breach of express
contract, and fraudulent concealment by failing to implement,
promulgate, or require appropriate and up-to-date guidelines
regarding concussion management protocols and failing to inform
student-athletes about the dangers and latent effects of
concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries, also referred to as traumatic brain injuries (TBIs).

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three
college sports and over 400,000 students in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEVADA: Workers Seek Mediation in Unemployment System Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Nevada's unemployment system and
laid-off workers suing over delayed or erroneously denied claims
asked a Reno judge on Sept. 4 to delay their case to allow the
parties to enter into mediation.

"All parties agree the purpose of this litigation is to obtain
payment of unemployment compensation to as many people who are
entitled to such compensation as possible and to make those
determinations as quickly as possible," attorneys representing both
the workers and the state wrote in a jointly filed motion.

Decades-old computers and bureaucratic hurdles continue to delay
benefit payouts to thousands of Nevada workers who have filed
unemployment insurance claims since businesses closed to contain
the coronavirus pandemic. The need to constantly defend the system
against a rising number of fraud attempts has led to erroneous
denials as well.

In July, District Court Judge Barry Breslow ordered the state to
pay out denied or delayed claims to certain categories of workers,
including independent contractors and gig-economy workers. Breslow
is scheduled to revisit the state's compliance with his order on
Sept. 10.

The two parties asked Breslow to grant them 30 days to resolve the
case in mediation.

Nevada officials reported on Sept. 3 that the state's unemployment
rate fell 0.4% to 16% from a week prior. [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA,
NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW,
VTIQU), between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Nikola investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Nikola class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house"
design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola
overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result,
Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel;
(5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the
work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including
Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not
have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were
disclosed by a market research firm.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

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


NILKANTH PIZZA: Burton Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sahara Burton filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Sahara Burton, Individually and on Behalf
of All Those Similarly Situated v. Nilkanth Pizza, Inc., and Jenny
Patel, Case No. 4:19-cv-00307-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated as delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and
overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated worked.

At times during the three years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff or other delivery drivers an
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek;
rather, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers their regular rates of pay for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant for periods in 2016,
2017, 2018 and 2019, as an hourly paid delivery driver.

The appellate case is captioned as Sahara Burton v. Nilkanth Pizza
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2984, 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 November 3, 2020;

   -- Brief of Appellant Sahara Burton is due on November 3,
      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 Sahara Burton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          One Financial Center, Suite 411
          650 S. Shackleford Road
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees Nilkanth Pizza Inc. and Jenny Patel are
represented by:

          Brian A. Vandiver, Esq.
          COX & STERLING
          8712 Counts Massie Road
          North Little Rock, AR 72113
          Telephone: (501) 954-8073
          E-mail: bavandiver@csmfirm.com


NORTH COAST: Gunther Remanded to Humboldt County Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH GUNTHER, Plaintiff, v. NORTH COAST
COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02325-RMI (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Eureka Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Remand, and remanded the action to the Humboldt County
Superior Court.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Humboldt County Superior Court
against his former employer, North Coast, alleging 10 causes of
action -- nine claims based on California Labor Code Provisions and
one claim based on California's unfair business practices
provision.  The Plaintiff's claims are as follows: (1) unpaid
overtime in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510 and 1198; (2)
unpaid meal period premiums in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections
226.7 and 512(a); (3) unpaid rest period premiums in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7; (4) unpaid minimum wages in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1997, 1197.1; (5) final wages not
timely paid in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201 and 202;
(6) wages not timely paid during employment in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Section 204; (7) non-compliant wage statements in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a); (8) failure to keep
requisite payroll records in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section
1174(d); (9) unreimbursed business expenses in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 2800 and 2802; and (10) unfair business
practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

The Complaint did not assert any claim under federal law, and it
did not raise or refer to the collective bargaining agreement
("CBA").  The Plaintiff alleges he was a hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee for Defendant from October of 2017 to August of 2019 in
Humboldt County, California.  The gist of his allegations is that
the Defendant had a pattern or practice of failing to compensate
him, and other similarly situated employees, for regular and
overtime hours worked and for missed meal periods and rest breaks.
Other violations of the California Labor Code flowed from these
violations, such as failure to provide accurate wage statements and
keep accurate payroll records.

The Complaint identifies a class and a subclass.  The putative
class is defined as all current and former hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees who reside in California and who worked for
Defendant in the State of California in the four years preceding
the filing of the Complaint up until the final judgment.  The
subclass adds employees who earned shift differential pay,
non-discretionary bonuses, and non-discretionary performance pay
separate from their regular rate of pay such that those added
compensation features were not included in the calculation of their
overtime pay rate.

The Defendant removed the case invoking the Court's federal
question jurisdiction asserting that Section 301 of the Labor
Relations Management Act ("LMRA"), preempted the state law claims.
The Plaintiff moved to remand, and the Defendant filed a response
in opposition.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's overtime and meal period
and rest break claims are completely preempted by Section 301 of
the LMRA, and thus, removal was proper.  Before assessing each
claim under the Burnside test, Judge Illman addresses the
Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendant fails to show he was a
member of the Union during the putative class period, and thus,
covered by the CBA.  The Plaintiff argues that the only proof that
the Defendant puts forward is a settlement agreement from June of
2018 between the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Union.  He
argues that the settlement agreement does not show that he was a
member of the Union.

However, Article 2 of the CBA provides that on or after 30 days of
employment, or the date of execution of the agreement, each full
and part-time employee will become and remain a member of the Union
in good standing as a condition of employment.  The Plaintiff
worked for Defendant from Oct. 16, 2017 to Aug. 30, 2019.  The
Plaintiff was covered by the CBA by virtue of working for the
Defendant for more than 30 days, being a member of the Union was a
condition of his employment, and Defendant employed him for nearly
two years.  Thus, the Defendant met its burden of proof to
establish the Plaintiff's employment was subject to the CBA.

Turning to each claim, Judge Illman concludes that the Plaintiff's
claims for unpaid overtime, meal periods, and rest breaks are not
preempted, and the grievance and arbitration provision also fails
to establish preemption.  

Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff is covered
by Section 510 because the CBA fails to meet the requirements of
Section 514 exemption for all covered employees including the
Plaintiff.  Because the Plaintiff's right to overtime pay exists
independently of the CBA, the claim for unpaid overtime is not
preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.  

Judge Illman also rejected the Defendant's argument that whether
the practice of paying employees for only on-premise meal periods
was evidence of discouraging off-duty meal periods; the Judge
stated that he would only need to "consider," not interpret, the
CBA.  The past practices between Defendant and its employees in
taking meal periods or rest breaks may require the Court to
"consider" past practices, but not interpret, the CBA in order to
resolve the Plaintiff's state law claims.  Therefore, the state law
claims for meal periods and rest breaks are not preempted by
Section 301 of the LMRA.

Because the Defendant's removal was based solely on these
arguments, Judge Illman granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.
The Judge remanded the action to the Humboldt County Superior
Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3nhMjwg from Leagle.com.


OCALA, FL: Final Judgment in Discount Sleep Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DISCOUNT SLEEP OF OCALA, LLC D/B/A MATTRESS WAREHOUSE,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED OTHERS, AND DALE W. BIRCH, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC., Appellants,
v. CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA, Appellee, Case No. 5D19-1899 (Fla. Dist.
App.), the U.S. District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fifth
District reversed the final judgment in favor of the City of Ocala,
declared the City's fire service fee an unconstitutional tax, and
remanded for establishment of a common fund to refund the illegally
collected fees.

Between 2006 and 2010, the City of Ocala enacted several ordinances
that established, repealed and then re-established a fire service
fee.  The fee was intended to offset a portion of the general
operating costs of the City's fire department.  The City began
assessing the fee in 2006, but repealed it effective October 8,
2009, by enacting Ordinance 6015.  Ordinance 2010-43, enacted by
the City on May 4, 2010, then re-established the City's fire
service fee.

On Feb. 20, 2014, the Appellants filed a class action lawsuit
against the City, alleging that the City's fee was an
unconstitutional tax imposed in violation of article VII, section
(1)(a) of the Florida Constitution.  They asked the trial court to
declare the City's fire service fee unlawful and order class-wide
refunds to the greatest extent permitted by law.  In response, the
City moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the statute of
limitations had expired.

The trial court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
Court reversed, ruling that the City repealed its original
ordinance imposing the fire service fee effective Oct. 8, 2009, and
the enactment of Ordinance 2010-43, re-establishing the fire
service fee, triggered a new 4-year statute of limitations.  The
Court concluded that the Appellants' claims were timely and that
the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.

When the matter returned to the trial court, the Appellants sought
to certify a class of all those who paid the City's fire service
fee from and after Feb. 20, 2010 (four years prior to the filing of
the initial complaint).  The trial court denied class certification
and again ruled that the City never repealed the fire service fee.


The Court reversed again, concluding that the trial court erred in
denying class certification.  It also rejected the City's argument,
for a second time, that the fire service fee had never been
repealed.

When the matter again returned to the trial court, following a
non-jury trial, the court entered final judgment for the City,
concluding that the City's fire service fee was not a tax, but a
valid user fee, and that the Appellants' cause of action was barred
by the statute of limitations.

On appeal, the Appellants challenge both the trial court's rulings
that the City's fire service fee is a valid user fee and that their
class claims are barred by the statute of limitations.  

The Appellate Court first considers whether the City's fire service
fee is a valid user fee or an invalid tax.  The Appellate Court
finds that the fire service fee is used to fund the typical
"functions the sovereign is called on to perform" -- those
advancing the general welfare and protection of its citizens that
are funded through taxes, not user fees.  Thus, the Appellate Court
concludes the City's fee is a charge that is not paid in exchange
for a service, is not specifically authorized by statute, and is
used to provide a service typically funded from ad valorem taxes.
As a result, the fee fails the first prong of the City of Port
Orange test.

Next, the Appellate Court sees no reason to interpret the "special
benefit" required of a valid special assessment differently than
the "benefit not shared by other members of the society" required
for a valid user fee. While class members and non-class members
alike have access to the same fire services, the class members
receive financial benefits not shared by others, which are
attributable to the fire protection that the City provides, such as
lower insurance premiums.  Hence, the Appellate Court finds no
error with the trial court's ruling on this prong of the test.

The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellants had no choice but
to pay the fire service fee that the City tacked onto their utility
bills.  The only options to avoid payment were to forgo the City's
water, sewer and electric services -- all unrelated to fire service
-- or to move outside of the City.  Neither presents a real
choice.

The trial court also ruled that the class claims were barred by the
applicable four-year statute of limitations, because it concluded
that Ordinance 6015 did not repeal the fire service fee.  As a
result, the trial court concluded the fee had been charged
continuously since 2006, meaning the class claims fell outside the
limitations period.  The trial court's ruling directly contradicts
the Court's holding that the Appellants' class claims were not
barred by the statute of limitations.

The Appellate Court holds that the plain language of the Ordinance
made clear that the repeal became effective on the Mayor's signing.
It is well-established that the best indicator of legislative
intent is the statutory text itself.  And, when the statute is
clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's
plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of
statutory construction to ascertain intent.  Accordingly, the plain
text of Ordinance 6015 controls.  Discount I is the law of the
case, and the trial court erred in its judgment that the
Appellants' claims are time barred.

The City also asserted the affirmative defenses of voluntary
payment and good faith.  As a general rule, a taxpayer is normally
entitled to a refund of taxes paid pursuant to an unlawful
assessment.  The Appellate Court holds that nothing in the record
shows that the City meets either requirement.  First, no statute
specifically allows the City to charge a fire service fee.  Second,
the City did not show that a refund would cause an intolerable
burden.

For these reasons, the Appellate Court reversed the final judgment,
declared the City's fire service fee an unconstitutional tax, and
remanded for establishment of a common fund to refund the illegally
collected fees.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/9unzip from Leagle.com.

Derek A. Schroth, James A. Myers, and Sasha O. Garcia, of
Bowen/Schroth, Eustis, for Appellants.

George Franjola, of Gilligan, Gooding, Franjola & Batsel, P.A.,
Ocala, and Patrick G. Gillgan, of Gillgan, Gooding, Batsel &
Anderson, P.A., Ocala, for Appellee.


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ODT) and
certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, and
docketed under 20-cv-01828, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Odonate securities between December 7, 2017, and August
21, 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 Odonate securities during
the class period, you have until November 16, 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 newaction@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.

Odonate was founded in 2013 and is based in San Diego, California.
Odonate is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapeutics for
the treatment of cancer.  The Company is focused on developing
tesetaxel, an orally administered chemotherapy agent.

Tesetaxel is in Phase 3 clinical study for patients with locally
advanced or metastatic breast cancer ("MBC"), called the CONTESSA
trial, which is evaluating tesetaxel in combination with
capecitabine in patients with MBC.

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 that: (i) tesetaxel was not as safe or
well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii)
consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer
treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 24, 2020, during pre-market hours, Odonate issued a press
release announcing top-line results from the CONTESSA trial.
Although the study met its primary endpoint, tesetaxel plus
capecitabine was associated with Grade 3 or higher neutropenia (low
levels of white blood cells), which occurred in 71.2% of patients
with the combination treatment versus 8.3% for capecitabine alone.
Various other Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events
("AEs") were also associated with tesetaxel plus capecitabine
versus capecitabine alone.  Further, discontinuation rates were
4.2% from neutropenia and 3.6% from neuropathy, and the overall
discontinuation rate was 23.1% in the treatment group compared to
11.9% in the capecitabine alone group.

On this news, Odonate's stock price fell $15.21 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $18.33 per share on August 24, 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.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


OMNI HOTELS: Martinez Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, an individual, ERIC TRUMPE,
an individual v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-0002267-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on September 25, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01924-MMA-BLM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Private Attorneys General Act, including failure to calculate the
base rate of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
employees correctly for the purposes of overtime and sick-time
payments, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
authorize or permit rest breaks, and failure to pay all wages due
upon termination of employment.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

         Jason R. Dawson, Esq.
         John P. Nordlund, Esq.
         Melissa D. Owens, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         225 Broadway, Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 573-4900
         Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
         E-mail: Jason.Dawson@jacksonlewis.com
                 John.Nordlund@jacksonlewis.com
                 Melissa.Owens@jacksonlewis.com


ONESPAN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against OneSpan Inc. You can review a
copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ:OSPN)

Class Period: May 9, 2018 - August 11, 2020

Deadline: October 19, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/ospn

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a
result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain
contracts with customers involving software licenses in its
financial statements spread out over the quarters from the first
quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020; (3) as a result, it
was foreseeably likely that the Company would eventually have to
delay one or more scheduled earnings releases, conference calls,
and/or financial filings with the SEC; (4) OneSpan downplayed the
negative impacts of errors in its financial statements; (5) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation;
and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Contact:

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


PARK PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULINO CASTILLO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PARK PIZZA, INC. (D/B/A PIZZA PARK), ARTURO
IENTILE, and SALVADOR DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-07986 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
25, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. The Defendants allegedly employed the policy and practice
of disguising the Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by
designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped
employee. The said practice allowed the Defendants to avoid paying
the Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him
at the tip-credit rate.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Pizza Park as a
laborer and a delivery worker from December 2018 until July 26,
2020.

Park Pizza, Inc. owns, operates, or controls a Pizza restaurant
located in New York City under the name "Pizza Park."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Stirpe v. Pioneer Credit
Recovery, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00882 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Michael J. Roemer entered an order denying without prejudice a
motion to certify class.

On August 9, 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action, raising
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Pioneer Credit is a collection agency.[CC]

POOL CORP: Hickerson Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 10th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alec Hickerson, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled ALEC HICKERSON and EDINAM MOTEN, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons v. POOL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:19-CV-02229-CMA-STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all current and former
exempt-classified Operations Managers (hereinafter, regardless of
precise title, referred to as "OMs") who work and/or worked for
Poolcorp within the United States at any time from August 5, 2016,
to the date of judgment in this action.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the Collective Action
Members are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation from Poolcorp
for all unpaid hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, and are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to
the FLSA. Poolcorp violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs
and the Collective Action Members premium overtime compensation for
all of their overtime hours worked. Because Plaintiffs and the
Collective Action Members regularly worked more than forty hours in
a workweek, Poolcorp's policy and practices resulted in Plaintiffs
and the Collective Action Members working overtime hours for which
they were not compensated in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs worked for Poolcorp from June 2016 to March 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Hickerson, et al. v. Pool
Corporation, Case No. 20-1332, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Notice of appearance is due on October 8, 2020 for Pool
      Corporation; and

   -- Transcript order form, notice of appearance, and docketing
      statement are due on October 8, 2020, for Alec Hickerson
      and Edinam Moten.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEC HICKERSON and EDINAM MOTEN, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, are represented by:

          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
      
               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
          800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mapalitz@shavitzlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee POOL CORPORATION is represented by:

          Chanda Marie Feldkamp, Esq.
          William J. Kelly, III, Esq.
          KELLY LAW PARTNERS
          501 South Cherry Street, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (720) 236-1800
          E-mail: cfeldkamp@kellylawpartners.com
                  wkelly@kellylawpartners.com

               - and -

          Gregory Rouchell, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 585-0285
          E-mail: gregory.rouchell@arlaw.com


PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Portland General Electric
Company ("PGE") (NYSE: POR), and Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Portland General Electric Company ("PGE") (NYSE: POR)

Class Period: April 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets
by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the
needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of
$127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with
increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into
the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the
Company." In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special
Committee "to review the energy trading that led to the losses and
the Company's procedures and controls related to the trading."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%,
to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the class period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading
practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during
2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second
quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
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.

                      About Bragar Eagel

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Sept. 13 announced that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Portland
General Electric Company (NYSE:POR).  There is no cost to
participate in the suit.  If you suffered a loss, you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.

Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR)
Class Period: April 24, 2020 - August 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

The complaint alleges that during the class period Portland General
Electric Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective internal
controls over its energy trading practices; (2) PGE personnel had
entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume
accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter,
that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3)as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant
losses; and (4) 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in POR:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-loss-submission-form?id=9229&from=1

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

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

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Portland General Electric
Company (NYSE:POR).  Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR)

POR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2020 -
August 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 2, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-information-request-form?prid=9199&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Portland
General Electric Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective
internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) PGE
personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing
volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third
quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for
PGE; (3)as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur
significant losses; and (4) 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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


PRIVATE LABEL: Class Cert. Denied w/ Leave to Renew in Schourup
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER SCHOURUP, v. PRIVATE
LABEL NUTRACEUTICALS LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01026-TJH-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter has denied, with leave to
renew, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class and subclass consisting
of:

   Class:

   "all persons residing in the United States who 13 purchased
   any of Private Label's Green Coffee Extract Product products
   within four years of the date [the complaint was] filed"; and

   Subclass:

   consisting of only California residents who purchased any of
   Private Label's Green Coffee Extract Products within the same
   time frame."

The Court said, "Schourup bears the burden of establishing that
this case satisfies all four threshold requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a): (1) Numerosity of proposed class members; (2) Commonality
of issues of fact and law; (3) Typicality of the named
representatives’ claims; and (4) Adequacy of the named
representatives and class counsel to fairly and adequately pursue
the action. Schourup, also, bears the burden of establishing at
least one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here,
Schourup seeks to certify this putative class as a Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) class action -- that common questions of law or fact
predominate over individualized issues, thereby, making class
adjudication the superior method of adjudicating this controversy.
Schourup has satisfied her burden as to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
(b) as to the California subclass. However, Schourup did not seek
certification on just the California subclass. If the Court were to
certify only the California subclass, the scope of Schourup's case
would be drastically changed. The Court will leave it to Schourup
to decide how to proceed here."[CC]

PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Grunfeld Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Channah Grunfeld, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07887 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2020).

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

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., provides healthcare revenue cycle
management solutions. The Company offers insurance follow-up,
medical debt collections, revenue cycle consulting, skip tracing,
and practice management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGENITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 27 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PROG). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG)

Class Period: Common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement, as amended, issued in connection with
Progenity's June 2020 IPO (the "Registration Statement").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 27, 2020

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

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

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

For more information on the Progenity class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PROG

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


PROGENITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 27 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 13 announced that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Progenity Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until
the deadlines listed to petition the court.  Further details about
the cases can be found at the links provided.  There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ:PROG)

This lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of Progenity common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement, as
amended, issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 initial
public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 27, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/progenity-inc-information-request-form?prid=9224&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) that Progenity had overbilled
government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and,
thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash
flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided
in the registration statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to
refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same
quarter in which the initial public offering was conducted),
adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (iii) that Progenity
was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second
quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes,
revenues and product pricing.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


RENT RECOVERY: Faces Vanderwoude Suit Over Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER VANDERWOUDE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. RENT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00125-DBB(D. Utah, Sept. 25, 2020), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
alleged illegal actions of the Defendant in making false
representations of its legal status and using deceptive means to
imply that Plaintiff was obligated to pay the debt in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff incurred certain
financial obligations to La Dawn Apartments prior to October 2019.
The Plaintiff allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed
on the alleged debt. In October 2019, the alleged debt was assigned
to Defendant for collection. The Defendant began reporting on
Plaintiff's credit report in an attempt to influence the Plaintiff
to pay the alleged debt. The Plaintiff does not believe the alleged
debt owed to Defendant was accurate. On November 4, 2019, the
Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff attempting to collect a debt
from the Plaintiff. The letter indicated the debt originated with
La Dawn Apartments and that Plaintiff owed $1,463.70 to Defendant
and La Dawn Apartments. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
falsely represented the legal status of the debt collector and used
deceptive means to imply that Plaintiff was obligated to pay the
debt in violation of the FDCPA.

The Defendant is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW GROUP
          290 25th Street, Suite No. 102
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Telephone: (801) 392-9324
          Facsimile: (801) 337-2087
          E-mail: theron@morlg.com

RICCA GROUP: Progressive Health Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RICCA GROUP, INC. The
case is styled as Progressive Health and Rehab Corp., an Ohio
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class
similarly situated persons v. RICCA GROUP, INC., doing business as:
MEDISURVEY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04766-HB (E.D. Penn., Sept. 28,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Ricca Group is a medical market research field agency specializing
in conducting Internet and telephone surveys with physicians,
allied health professionals and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett M. Freeman, Esq.
          SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC
          216 N. Blakely St.
          Dunmore, PA 18512
          Phone: (570) 341-9000
          Fax: (570) 504-2769
          Email: bfecf@sabatinilawfirm.com


ROCKET BALL: Faces Paguada Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Ball, Ltd. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rocket Ball, Ltd., Case No.
1:20-cv-07950 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Rocket Ball, Ltd., was founded in 1993. The Company's line of
business includes operating and promoting professional and
semiprofessional athletic clubs and events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S&P DATA: Fails to Properly Pay CS Agents' Wages, Sanchez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANCHEZ on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. S&P DATA NEW MEXICO, LLC, and S&P DATA, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00979-JHR-GJF (D.N.M., Sept. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and the common law of New
Mexico law for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' unlawful employment
policies include: (1) failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated current and former customer service
agents for their compensable preliminary activities, (2)
instituting a policy of only paying for the time spent by customer
service agents on active calls with customers instead of all time
worked between the start and end of the workday, and (3) failing to
include bonus payments in the calculation of the regular rate of
pay.

S&P Data New Mexico, LLC, and S&P Data, LLC are business process
outsourcing companies with their principal place of business
located at 26 E. Michigan Dr., in Hobbs, New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S.F. EXPRESS: Drape Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fingerprints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMION DRAPE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S.F. EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 2020L001094 (Ill.
Cir., DuPage Cty., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disregards the
statutorily protected privacy rights of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees by unlawfully collecting,
obtaining, storing, disseminating, and using their biometric data.
Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and continues not to: (a) properly inform the
Plaintiff and Class members in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected,
obtained, stored, and used; (b) develop and adhere to a publicly
available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying their fingerprints; (c) obtain a written release from
its employees to collect, obtain, store, disseminate, or otherwise
use their fingerprints; and (d) obtain consent from them to
disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints
to a third party.

S.F. Express Corporation is a multinational integrated express
logistics service provider based in Shenzhen, China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
         STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
         100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 233-1550
         Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
         E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


SENEX LAW: Tenants File for Class Action
----------------------------------------
Ned Oliver at nbc12.com reports that three Virginia residents are
asking a federal judge to certify a class-action lawsuit against a
prolific Virginia law firm that in 2017 filed more than 20,000
eviction lawsuits.

The lawsuit alleges Hampton-based Senex Law violated federal debt
collection laws and tacked on unreasonable attorney fees as they
attempted to collect unpaid rent on behalf of landlords around the
state.

In a statement announcing the suit, the tenants' lawyers accused
the firm of holding a "starring role in the state's mass
evictions."

"They lurk in the shadows so they can flout necessary consumer
protections and charge attorneys' fees that put Virginians who are
already in financial trouble further into the hole," said Brenda
Castañeda, Legal Director with the Legal Aid Justice Center, which
is representing the tenants with the Legal Aid Society of Roanoke
Valley and Charlottesville-based MichieHamlett.

Senex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In 2018, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported the firm filed four
times more eviction lawsuits than any other lawyers in the state,
advertising "wholesale pricing on its eviction filings and an
online system that lets apartment managers take their tenants to
court with a few clicks."

The lawsuit, filed by Jennifer Lord and Ebony Reddicks in Roanoke
and Toniraye Moss in Hopewell, accuses the company of violating
consumer protections that require debt collectors to identify
themselves as such. Instead, they say the company sends out
delinquent notices on the letterhead of the property that hired
them, sidestepping disclosure requirements in the process.


"Senex Law must provide the specific information required by
federal law to prevent abusive and unfair debt collection
practices," the Legal Aid Justice Center said in a statement. "This
includes the right to have 30 days to verify that the amount billed
is accurate, among other protections. Instead of providing this
required information, Senex Law ignores the law by attempting to
hide behind landlords, disguising its true role in the profit
scheme."

The lawsuit also accuses the company of inflating its fees, which
are passed on to tenants, without conducting a meaningful review of
the cases: "With each notice, Senex charges the tenant attorney's
fees - through the firm did little more than print and mail a
letter - raking in big profits off the backs of those most in need.
Senex Law then, a few days later, files hundreds of Unlawful
Detainers in court, again adding their attorney fee despite no
meaningful review of the cases they file. It is simply impossible
for Senex Law to provide the services they claim to the enormous
volume of notices and cases they process." [GN]


SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY: Snider Files ERISA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Administrative
Committee Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan, et
al. The case is styled as Christopher Snider, on behalf of the
Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan and a class of
similarly situated participants of the Plan v. Administrative
Committee Seventy Seven Energy Inc Retirement & Savings Plan, Cary
Baetz, Karl Blanchard, Christin Borden, Linda Clark, Clint Clover,
Gino DeMarco, Lance Haffner, Jerome Loughridge, Case No.
5:20-cv-00977-F (W.D. Okla., Sept. 28, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor.

Seventy Seven Energy Inc. operates as a diversified oilfield
services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby L. Latham, Jr., Esq.
          James L. Colvin, III, Esq.
          LATHAM STEELE LEHMAN KEELE RATCLIFF FREIJE & CARTER
          1515 E 7th St., Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Phone: (918) 970-2000
          Fax: (918) 970-2002
          Email: blatham@law-lsl.com
                 jcolvin@law-lsl.com


SIS KISS: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------
The Sis Kiss, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Sis Kiss, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04445 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020).

The Sis Kiss is a Bay Village, OH based wedding invitations
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SN SERVICING: Thomas Sues in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SN Servicing
Corporation. The case is styled as Andre L. Thomas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SN Servicing
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05751 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2020).

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

SN Servicing Corporation (SNSC) delivers quick and flexible
mortgage loan servicing solutions for owners of loans and real
estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE, LLC
          105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
          Schaumburg, IL 60193
          Phone: (630) 460-7655
          Email: jdavidson@fightbills.com


SOMA INTIMATES: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Soma Intimates, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Soma Intimates, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01878-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020).

Soma Intimates, LLC was founded in 2005. 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:

   Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard
   12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baqer, et al. Seek to Certify Detainees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER; KLABERT JOSEPH
GUILLOT, JR.; and KLABERT JOSEPH GUILLOT, SR. v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH
GOVERNMENT, a/k/a/ ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL; ST. TAMMANY PARISH
SHERIFF'S OFFICE; RANDY SMITH, in his official and individual
capacity; RODNEY J. STRAIN, in his official and individual
capacity; GREG LONGINO, in his official and individual capacity;
and LACEY KELLY, in her official and individual capacity, Case No.
2:20-cv-00980-WBV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. granting their motion to certify a class consisting of:

      "all detainees who have been or will be placed into the
      custody of the St. Tammany Parish Jail and were detained
      for at least two consecutive days in holding cells. The
      class period commences when this practice began, including
      but not limited to the time period commencing on March 22,
      2019, and extends to the date on which St. Tammany Parish
      is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its
      policy, practice and custom of refusing to abide by
      appropriate detention and housing standards to all pre-
      trial detainees admitted to the St. Tammany Parish Jail
      and held in the intake and/or holding cell area."

      Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
      and all of its respective affiliates, legal
      representatives, heirs, successors, employees or
      assignees.; and

   2. appointing one or more of the Plaintiffs as Class
      Representatives, and appointing Jacob Litigation,
      the Glorioso Law Firm, and Romanucci & Blandin, LLC as
      Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The Plaintiffs represent a class of more than 5,000 men who were
detainees held in the holding cells at St. Tammany Jail from March
22, 2019 until the present. As detainees, in the holding cells at
St. Tammany Jail, the detainees were held in deplorable conditions
and experienced egregious, severe and demeaning violations of their
constitutional rights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed claims alleging violations of their 14th
Amendment Rights under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMOrr0 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maria B. Glorioso, Esq.
          Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., Esq.
          THE GLORIOSO LAW FIRM
          2716 Athania Parkway
          Metairi, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 569-9999
          Facsimile: (504) 569-9022
          E-mail: maria@gtorts.com

               - and -

          Devon M. Jacob, Esq.
          JACOB LITIGATION, INC.
          P.O. Box 837
          Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0837
          Telephone: (717) 796-7733
          E-mail: djacob@jacoblitigation.com

               - and -

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Bhavani K. Raveendran, Esq.
          Nicolette A. Ward, Esq.
          Ian P. Fallon, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
                  b.raveendran@rblaw.net
                  nward@rblaw.net
                  ifallon@rblaw.net

STAAR SURGICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that 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]


STAAR SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of STAAR Surgical Company
(NASDAQ: STAA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA)

Class Period: February 26, 2020 to August 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

STAAR designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses
for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the
lenses into the eye. STAAR's primary products are: (1) "implantable
Collamer(R) lenses," or "ICLs," used in refractive surgery; and (2)
intraocular lenses, or "IOLs," used in cataract surgery.

On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR announced its
financial results for the quarter ended July 3, 2020, reporting a
net loss of $0.03 per share, versus net income of $0.08 per share
in the prior year quarter, among other things.

On this news, the company's share price dropped approximately 10%,
from a closing share price of $61.81 on August 5, 2020, to a close
on August 6, 2020 at $55.86.

On August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research Limited published a
report stating that "[w]e think 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." J Capital
stated that the report was based on "over 75 interviews," as well
as visits to STAAR locations in China and Switzerland.

On this news, STAAR's stock price sharply declined, closing at
$48.25 on August 11, 2020, down approximately 6.2% from its August
10, 2020 closing price of $51.42.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to
investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the STAAR class action go to:
https://bespc.com/STAA

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Appeal in Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bens BBQ, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated July 7, 2020, and August 26, 2020, and Judgment dated
August 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Bens BBQ, Inc. v.
County of Suffolk, Case No. 19-cv-3584, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts claims under the Civil Rights Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Bens BBQ, Inc. v. County of
Suffolk, Case No. 20-3254, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Bens BBQ, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, DBA Bobbique, is represented by:

          Christopher Adam Bianco, Esq.
          EGAN & GOLDEN LLP
          96 South Ocean Avenue
          Patchogue, NY 11772
          Telephone: (631) 447-8100
          E-mail: cbianco@egangolden.com

Defendant-Appellee County of Suffolk is represented by:

          Brian C. Mitchell, Esq.
          ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          H. Lee Dennison Building
          100 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          E-mail: brian.mitchell@suffolkcountyny.gov


SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE: Phelps Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTY PHELPS and MIRANDA EVANS, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. SUMIRIKO TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421 (E.D.
Tenn., Sept. 24, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs
and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week
within weekly pay periods at the rate of time and one-half their
regular rate of pay, according to the complaint. The Defendant
allegedly had a common plan, policy and practice of automatically
"editing-out/deducting" a 30-minute meal period during each work
shift of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated production
employees, regardless of whether they were fully relieved of their
job duties and/or, performed job duties during such
"edited-out/deducted" 30-minute meal periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
production employees.

SumiRiko Tennessee, Inc., is a Midway, Tennessee-based company that
manufactures anti-vibration rubber products for the automotive
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


TARGET: Agrees to Review Screening Practices After Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Rogan, writing for The Journal Times, reports that why didn't
you tell us about the felony on your record?" the manager of a
Target angrily asked Bryan Strong over the phone.

"I don't have a felony on my record," Strong replied.

That is the conversation that led to Strong being part of a class
action lawsuit addressing discriminatory hiring practices. His
situation illustrated the problem, although he was only a small
part of the case.

The conversation was when Strong realized Target had dug really
deep in its background check. It wasn't the first time, and it
wasn't the last time, that Strong says corporations digging into
his history have hurt his ability to get a job.

This phone call occurred in the summer of 2016. Strong had been
hired to work at the Target department store in Pleasant Prairie.
But about two weeks after he was told he had been hired, the Racine
native still had not been given a start date. He called the store,
and that's when the manager inaccurately accused him of being a
felon and not disclosing it.

Strong's past

When Strong was 17, he was accused of trying to pass a counterfeit
bill at the now-closed Pick 'n Save on Rapids Drive across from
Horlick High School. Using a counterfeit bill can be prosecuted as
a felony, but the case was never investigated, Strong said. He also
has had another misdemeanor case expunged from his record.

The remains of those cases have somehow live on in background
checks -- making it tougher for him to get hired, particularly at
major corporations.

"That's got to be illegal," Strong thought to himself after the
Target manager hung up on him. But he found there wasn't much he
could do about it at the time.

According to Christopher McNerney, an associate in the national law
firm Outten & Golden, "on the federal level, there are no
protections that specifically say a private employer cannot deny
someone based on criminal history." However, if a company is going
to deny someone a job, they cannot do it discriminatorily.

A multimillion-dollar civil case (Times v. Target Corp.) that
McNerney started working on in 2018 alleged that Target was acting
discriminatorily because it was filtering out so many applicants
due to criminal background.

The basis for that argument was that, in the American legal system,
people of color have been continuously prosecuted, investigated,
tried and convicted at higher rates than the average. As such, the
plaintiffs argued, Target's screening process was overbroad and
discriminatory since it was so consistently screening out people of
color for jobs for which they were qualified.

Bigger issue

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, black adults
are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites, and
Hispanics are 3.1 times more likely. The Sentencing Project, a
criminal justice advocacy nonprofit based in Washington D.C.,
concluded that "African Americans are more likely than white
Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be
convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to
experience lengthy prison sentences."

When it comes to businesses, "you have to have a reasonable
(background check) process," McNerney said. "You can't have
overbroad screens . . . you can't paint with too broad of a brush.
You have to look at each specific person's situation."

In winter 2019, Target agreed to pay upwards of $3.7 million in the
case and agreed to review its screening practices.

"Due to the bias and prejudice present in every level of the
criminal justice system, Black and Latinx individuals are
disproportionately likely to have an arrest or conviction record,"
the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund said in a statement
about the case. "These disparities are then carried over into the
employment realm, when companies implement overly broad criminal
background screening policies. Under Target's prior screening
policy, a disproportionate number of otherwise-qualified Black and
Latinx applicants were automatically disqualified from employment
opportunities."

The plaintiffs fought for that settlement not by showing Target was
discriminatory toward people with a criminal record, but by showing
Target's broad screening out of people with smudges on their
records was racially discriminatory toward people of color because
people of color have been disproportionately and heavily
prosecuted.

By having background checks that aren't too strict, McNerney also
pointed out that businesses would expand the pools of quality
applicants. That's one of the ways businesses can counter systemic
racism, he said: "I think that's one of the things we're trying to
address with these lawsuits: Showing that having a conviction in
and of itself is a bar to employment (because) that's not fair and
that's not right."

"This is a very American concept, that we are more than just the
worst thing we did."

Strong, who is Black, said that the Black Lives Matter movement
won't make a difference unless this type of discrimination is
ended.

Strong was part of Times v. Target. But he received just $156.86,
according to a copy of the check he received. He could have made
that money in a couple shifts had he been hired at Target, which is
now paying a minimum of $15 per hour to its employees.

Now 34, Strong says he has run into similar issues with other
corporations, which have stated directly that the decision not to
hire Strong "was influenced in part by information contained in a
consumer/investigative consumer report," according to a copy of an
employment rejection letter that Strong provide to The Journal
Times. Although he's talked about these problems in the past, there
is rarely any recourse. Cases like Times v. Target are few and far
between.

Most recently, Strong was working at Amazon after fighting to get a
job in Kenosha, but he left in the early days of the COVID-19
pandemic; he is at higher risk of complications due to a
respiratory problem. Once again, he finds himself out of work.

Correction: Bryan Strong's history has been updated since it was
originally published in this story to clarify two prior cases that
no longer are supposed to be on his record but have come up in
background checks conducted by potential employers. [GN]


TECOVAS INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tecovas, Inc. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Tecovas, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07946
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020).

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

Tecovas, Inc., manufactures footwear products. The Company offers
handmade cowboy, cowgirl, and roper boots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Writers' OT Wages, Dailey Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA DAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS,
LLC; and CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-06734 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other appeals writers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an appeals writer
since 2015. She contends that the denial of the overtime pay is due
to the Defendants classifying her and others as exempt from
overtime provisions of the FLSA at least until August 1, 2020.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a multinational healthcare services
company with its principal place of business located in Dallas,
Texas. Conifer Health Solutions, LLC is a subsidiary of Tenet
Healthcare Corporation that offers healthcare business solutions,
with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.

Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC, is a subsidiary of Conifer
Health Solutions, LLC that provides revenue cycle solutions to
healthcare providers, with its principal place of business in
Frisco, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
         LEONARD CARDER, LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 272-0169
         Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
         E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com

               - and –

         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
         2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
         Telephone: (615) 250-2000
         Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
         E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


TESLA INC: Class Certification in Securities Litigation Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit RE TESLA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Glen
Littleton will move the Court on February 18, 2021, for an order:

   1. certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Lead his proposed Class
      of:

      "all individuals and entities who purchased or sold Tesla
      stock, options, and other securities from 12:48 p.m. EDT
      on August 7, 2018 to August 17, 2018 (the "Class Period"),
      and were damaged thereby (the "Class")."

      Excluded from the Class are: the Defendants; the officers
      and directors of Tesla, Inc., at all relevant times;
      members of their immediate families and their legal
      representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any
      entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling
      interest.

      Class members who do not have recoverable damages as a
      result of the alleged fraud would not be eligible to
      participate in any recovery.

   2. appointing Littleton as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel.

This is a securities class action arising from statements by
Defendants Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc. from August 7, 2018 to August
17, 2018 regarding a potential transaction where Tesla would go
private at a price of $420 per share. These statements caused
Tesla's stock to trade at inflated prices and distorted the prices
of Tesla options until the truth that the proposed transaction was
illusory was finally revealed in a New York Times interview with
Musk published on August 17, 2018.

Lead Plaintiff purchased stock and traded options from August 7,
2018.

Tesla is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company
based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include
electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale,
solar products and related products and services.

A copy of the Lead plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n6k8jJ at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Adam C. McCall, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
                  amccall@zlk.com

TORRO LLC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TORRO LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-08777 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants contacted his cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system in an
attempt to promote and market their services without prior express
consent.

Torro LLC is a business financing company headquartered in
Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOWN SPORTS: Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nia Hamm, writing for NBC Boston, reports that Town Sports
International, which owns Boston Sports Club, New York Sports Club
and other gyms, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sept. 14.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to take a toll on the fitness
industry, the parent company of Boston Sports Club has been
burdened by financial strains for months.

Gym operators nationwide -- large and small -- have been suffering
as the pandemic cut off the monthly membership and personal
training fees that make up much of their revenue.

The company said on its website that its facilities would continue
to operate normally, saying the move was made to restructure to
face challenges posed by the pandemic.

"Restructuring is the best way to properly respond to the COVID-19
pandemic, with the long-term goal to emerge as a thriving
powerhouse in the fitness industry," the company said in a
statement.

Several members of BSC filed a class action lawsuit against the
club in April, claiming they continued to charge members despite
the closure of its facilities back in March.

Town Sports sent out an email shorty after notifying people that
they company was freezing memberships at no cost while their
facilities were shut down due to the pandemic.

What began as a small chain of squash clubs in New York City in
1973 has grown to 185 fitness centers, including with about 580,000
members.

Town Sports also owns gyms in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
named for those cities, as well as as Lucille Roberts and Total
Woman Gym and Spa. [GN]


TRULUCK'S RESTAURANT: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truluck's Restaurant
Group LP, et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Truluck's Restaurant Group LP, a Texas limited partnership; DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01911-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal., Sept.
24, 2020).

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

Truluck's owns and operates seafood and steak-based
restaurants.[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


TULANE UNIVERSITY: Ellis Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ELLIS, on behalf of himself and all other individuals
similarly situated v. TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02518
(E.D. La., Sept. 15, 2020), is a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons, who paid tuition and/or fees to attend the Tulane
University for an in person, hands-on educational services and
experiences for the semesters or terms affected by Coronavirus
Disease 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to refund any
amount of the tuition or any of the mandatory fees paid by the
Plaintiff and the Class members, even though it has implemented
online only distance learning starting in March 13, 2020, in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University's failure to
provide the services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were
intended to cover since approximately March 13 is allegedly a
breach of the contracts between the University and the Plaintiff
and the members of the Class, and it is unjust.

Plaintiff John Ellis was an undergraduate student during the Spring
2020 semester.

Tulane University is a private university in New Orleans,
Louisiana, that was founded in 1847. The University offers numerous
major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of
graduate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
          RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
          P.O. Box 358
          Carencro, LA 70520-0358
          Telephone: (337) 371-0375
          E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  agonnelli@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  jfrancise@thesultzerlawgroup.com
          
               - and -

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Scooters Lack Safety Device, Norman Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN NORMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., SEGWAY, INC.
WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS SEGWAY INC. OF DELAWARE,
and XIOAMI USA LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-06700-SK (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24,
2020), is brought under the Class Action Fairness Act arising from
the Defendants' act of selling or leasing scooters in the state of
California without first providing the necessary warnings and/or
providing a safe means of legal operation.

Jump, a division of the ride-sharing app company, Uber, is one such
scooter rental company and has deployed a fleet of tens of
thousands of scooters in cities across the country, including,
inter alia, Atlanta, Denver, New Orleans, Tampa and San Diego, the
Plaintiff avers.

According to the complaint, Jump advertises its scooters as "fun,
affordable, and easy to use" and as requiring no instruction of any
sort before a rider is able to lease a scooter and ride it. To ride
a scooter safely, due to the design and geometry of the vehicle, a
rider must always use both hands. However, Jump fails to warn its
customers that following traffic laws will require operation of a
scooter in a manner that is well known to be dangerous to
passengers. The Manufacturing Defendants allegedly designed and
intended their scooters to be used on city streets where signaling
is required as a matter of law, but they did not equip their
scooters with any device or mechanism to safely signal a turn while
operating the scooter with both hands.

As a result of the design defects, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, and negligence of the Defendants,
the Plaintiff was severely injured while riding a Jump scooter and
operating it in a manner prescribed by the laws of California.

Uber Technologies is a Delaware corporation, with headquarters in
San Francisco, California. In addition to ride-sharing services,
Uber offers scooter rental services through its subsidiary, Jump.

Neutron Holdings, Inc., doing business under the name Lime, offers
dockless vehicles, which users find and unlock via a mobile app,
which knows the location of available vehicles using GPS. Lime
recently purchased the Jump business from Uber.

Segway, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ninebot, Inc., a
Chinese transportation/robotics company, headquartered in Beijing,
China. Xiaomi USA, is the U.S.-based subsidiary of Xiaomi, a
Chinese electronics company based in Beijing, China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jesse Hindman, Esq.
          HINDMAN APC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 255-4078
          E-mail: jesse@hindmanapc.com


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other
OTC: UPLCQ, NASDAQ: UPL). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other OTC: UPLCQ, NASDAQ: UPL)

Class Period: April 3, 2017 to August 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development company with primary
assets in the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of
southwest Wyoming. 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
and 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 exited the bankruptcy in "growth mode." Defendants stated
that the Company was poised to maximize the value of its
substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19
billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves)
through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018 and that Ultra
Petroleum was on track to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic
feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production growth over
these figures in 2018. Defendants represented that the Company had
the financial and production flexibility to weather even a
low-commodity-price environment and was set 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
Petroleum executives claimed was set to significantly expand the
production capabilities of the Company's existing wells.

Then, beginning in August 2017, soon after exiting bankruptcy,
Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations demonstrating
that it could not grow production by any meaningful amount and that
its wells were worth a fraction of the values previously
represented. Finally, on August 9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced
disappointing results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing
that total revenues for the quarter had decreased 18%, that the
Company'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.

On this news, the price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% to
just $0.09 per share and continued 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 Company was
forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a
court-ordered reorganization.

The complaint, filed on September 1, 2020, alleges that these and
similar statements issued by defendants during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading when made. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants, inter alia: (i) materially overstated the
value of Ultra Petroleum's oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially
misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up production and its
financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose the Company's
extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in natural gas prices;
and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the Company's vaunted
horizontal well drilling program.

For more information on the Ultra Petroleum class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ultrapetroleum

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 13 announced that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ultra
Petroleum Corp.  Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ)

UPLCQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 -
August 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-information-request-form?prid=9224&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ultra
Petroleum Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Ultra's proved reserves were
materially overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of
dollars less than represented; (b) Ultra's proved undeveloped
reserves were of de minimis value because they contained low
quality deposits that lacked a commercially viable path to
development; (c) Ultra was unable to meet the production and
development estimates provided to investors and such estimates
lacked a reasonable basis; (d) Ultra was unable to withstand even a
modest downturn in the price of natural gas because, inter alia,
Ultra's business had less financial and production flexibility than
claimed; and (e) Ultra did not have the technical or financial
capabilities or available asset base to sustainably grow its oil
and natural gas production by any meaningful amount.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Warehousemen, Rivera FLSA Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Case No. 7:20-cv-07753 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including
failing to properly pay warehousemen.

The Plaintiff worked as a warehouseman in the Defendant's shipping
facility from November 4, 2019, until January 18, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay 45 minutes
of his work each workday due to the time clock error and waiting
time; approximately 40 hours of unpaid overtime wages; and
approximately 2.5 hours of call in pay. Unfortunately, the
Plaintiff was unlawfully fired by the Defendant when he and his
coworkers complained about its pay practices, as well as its
failure to provide lunch breaks as required by the NYLL.

United Parcel Services is an American multinational package
delivery and supply chain management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          777 Westchester Ave., Suite 101
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Tel: (914) 218-6190
          Fax: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Condry Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rachel Condry, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled 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, et al. v.
Unitedhealth Group Inc. et al., Case No. 20-16857, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on December 28, 2020, for
      UMR, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United
      Healthcare Services, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and
      UnitedHealthcare, Inc.;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on January 27, 2021;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on March 1, 2021, for
      UMR, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United
      Healthcare Services, Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and
      UnitedHealthcare, Inc.; and

   -- The optional cross appeal Reply brief for Felicity Barber,
      Laura Bishop, Rachel Carroll, Rachel Condry, Christine
      Endicott and Jance Hoy is due within 21 days of service of
      the Third brief on cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHEL CONDRY, JANCE HOY, FELICITY BARBER,
RACHEL CARROLL, CHRISTINE ENDICOTT, and LAURA BISHOP, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly Donaldson, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: NEC@Chimicles.com
                  KMD@Chimicles.com
                  SES@Chimicles.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ronald Scott Kravitz, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 429-5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          1640 Town Center Circle
          Weston, PA 19063
          Telephone: (866) 849-7545
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE,
INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., and UMR, INC. are represented by:

          Martin J. Bishop, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Hanson, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-1000
          E-mail: mbishop@reedsmith.com
                  rhanson@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Raymond A. Cardozo, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          E-mail: rcardozo@reedsmith.com


UNIVERSITY OF MAINE: Stewart Sues Over Failure to Refund Students
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER STEWART and NEHEMIAH BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF MAINE and THE UNIVERSITY
OF MAINE SYSTEM, Case No. 1:20-cv-00347-JDL (D. Me., Sept. 24,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract,
violation of the Takings Clause, failure to provide adequate due
process under the U.S. Constitution, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to provide a
pro-rated refund of the tuition and mandatory fees paid by the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated undergraduate students
at the University of Maine during the Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiffs and Class members have asked for a refund after
their in-person classes were discontinued and moved online and
following the closure of the Defendants' facilities and
cancellation of educational events due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendants' failure to provide the educational services and
facilities that the Plaintiffs and Class members paid for,
including first-rate education and an on-campus, in-person
educational experiences, constitutes a breach of contracts, the
Plaintiffs contend.

University of Maine is a public research university in Orono,
Maine. The University of Maine System is a network of public
universities in the state of Maine, created by the legislature in
1968.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Stephanie G. Albert, Esq.
         BARNS, GREENFIELD & THORNTON
         8 Fundy Road
         Falmouth, ME 04103
         Telephone: (207) 781-7677
         E-mail: salbert@bgt-law.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

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


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Grad Student Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A University of Washington grad student on Sept. 16 filed a
class-action lawsuit against UW, its board of regents and its
president, demanding repayment for tuition and other mandatory fees
citing the university's response to COVID-19 campus closure and
online learning, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman
representing the proposed class.

If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at any
U.S. college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more
about the lawsuit and your rights.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 16, 2020, in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington, King County, and accuses the university of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment along with alleged
violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The law firm representing the
student has also brought similar lawsuits against Boston
University, Brandeis University, Brown University, Emory
University, George Washington University, Harvard University,
Hofstra University, University of Miami, New York University,
Pepperdine University, Quinnipiac University, Rutgers University,
University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University and
Washington University in St. Louis for failure to repay
tuition-payers for their losses.

"Our Seattle-based law firm includes many individuals who call UW
their alma mater, and while we understand the unforeseen
limitations the pandemic has placed on institutions of higher
learning, we believe UW's community and its students deserve
better," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and
attorney for students in the class action. "It is our hope that
through this litigation, UW can come to recognize its
responsibility to tuition-payers and the ways in which it has
failed to deliver what it promised them."

The complaint reads, "Despite sending students home, transitioning
to online instruction, and closing its campuses, University of
Washington continued to charge for tuition and/or fees as if
nothing changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of
millions of dollars from students."

The grad student bringing the lawsuit states that he paid UW for
"opportunities and services that he did not receive, including
on-campus education, facilities, services, and activities."

"With the University of Washington's effective campus closure,
cancellation of campus events, suspension of many campus services
and programs, and transition to exclusively online instruction
starting in the Winter Quarter 2020 and continuing in the Spring
Quarter 2020 and beyond…Plaintiff lost access to the on-campus
instruction, opportunities, facilities, and services for which
Plaintiff had bargained for by selecting—and paying tuition and
fees for—in-person courses and experiences," according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit highlights that the plaintiff enrolled to obtain
in-person, on-campus instruction including ability to attend
professors' office hours and access campus amenities and faculty
mentorship.

The suit also says that in the university's efforts to recruit
students, it touts its face-to-face campus experience including
student life: "Your Husky Experience doesn't end when you leave the
classroom. The hours you spend outside class are just as vital as
the ones you spend inside," according to UW promotional material
cited in the lawsuit. UW says on its website, "[a] UW education is
more than a degree," and "[b]y more we mean skills, knowledge and
abilities gained through classroom learning as well as high impact
experiences such as studying abroad, jobs and internships, research
and leadership projects, and participating in clubs and community
organizations."

"UW's renowned faculty, immersive on-campus experience and
facilities are what it promised to students who would be
attending," Berman said. "And it cannot be denied that during
COVID-19, the winter and spring quarters at UW did not meet the
university's standards, nor its promises to tuition-payers."

Other Affected Universities

Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are
currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at all U.S.
colleges and universities that have been forced to close due to the
outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or
college students who are paying for their own costs of college.

Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students
and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning
continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively,
these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students
despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy
campus buildings and dorms.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against colleges and
universities for tuition, room and board and other costs incurred
during the outbreak of COVID-19.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. [GN]


VANLAW FOOD: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Torre Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IGNACIO TORRES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VANLAW
FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No.
G058320 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order
denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Ignacio Torres worked for Defendant VanLaw from September 2015
until January 2017.  After separating from employment, he brought
the lawsuit against VanLaw and its current and former presidents,
John Gilbert and Matthew Jones.  The Plaintiff asserts various wage
and hour class claims arising from violations of the Labor Code and
the Unfair Competition Law, and a representative claim under the
Private Attorney General Act.

VanLaw produces and distributes food products to stores,
restaurants, and food service operators.  The Plaintiff began
working on VanLaw's production line around June 2015 through a
staffing agency.  In September 2015, VanLaw offered the Plaintiff a
full-time position, which he accepted.

On the day he was hired, the Plaintiff attended an orientation with
three other new employees. The new employees were given copies of
VanLaw's employee handbook.  There were not enough copies of the
handbook for each attendee, so the Plaintiff was told to share a
copy with another employee.  Appendix A of the handbook (pages 35
through 38) contained an arbitration agreement that stated the
subject employee and VanLaw agreed to arbitrate "any and all claims
or disputes" they had against each other.

At orientation, the Plaintiff was also given an Acknowledgement of
Receipt to sign to confirm his receipt of the handbook and his
agreement to be bound by its policies and rules.  The
acknowledgment further affirmed that he agreed to resolve any
dispute with VanLaw according to the terms of the agreement, and
that by entering into such an agreement, he waived his right to a
judicial forum for the determination of any dispute with VanLaw.  

The Plaintiff was not allowed to negotiate the terms of the
agreement or opt out of it.  Instead, he was only given a few
minutes to review the handbook and sign the acknowledgement.  The
Plaintiff was told he needed to sign it to work at VanLaw.  Thus,
he signed the acknowledgment even though he did not have sufficient
time to review the handbook or receive his own copy of it.  He was
never given a copy the handbook during his employment despite
requesting one.

Plaintiff worked at VanLaw until January 2017.  In September 2017,
Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against VanLaw,
asserting violations of the following statutes: (1) sections 1194
and 1198 (failing to pay overtime); (2) sections 226.7 and 512
(failing to provide meal periods); (3) section 226.7 (failing to
provide rest periods); (4) sections 201 through 203 (failing to
timely pay wages after separation from employment); (5) section
2802 (failing to reimburse necessary expenses); 6) sections 226,
1174, and 1175 (failing to show total hours and all pay rates on
wage statements); and 7) the UCL (by committing the enumerated
Labor Code violations).

The Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add a cause of action
for penalties under the Private Attorney General Act, and then
amended it again to designate the true names of Jones and Gilbert
that were previously listed as Does 1 and 2, respectively.  Gilbert
is the current president of VanLaw, while Jones is its former
president.

After several unsuccessful mediations, defendants filed a motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's non-representative claims.
The Plaintiff opposed the motion on grounds the agreement was
unconscionable and that the Defendants had waived their right to
arbitration due to their unreasonable delay in bringing their
motion.

The trial court denied the motion.  It rejected the Plaintiff's
waiver argument but found the agreement unconscionable.  The trial
court found the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because,
among other things, it was not a negotiated agreement and was
required as a condition of employment.  It also found the agreement
contained several substantively unconscionable provisions, which it
could not sever because doing so would substantially alter the
nature of the agreement.

In the appeal, the Defendants argue the trial court erred by
finding the agreement to be unconscionable.  And, to the extent the
agreement contains any unconscionable provisions, theyred by
refusing to sever them.

The Appellate Court finds that the agreement is permeated by
unconscionability given the multiple unconscionable provisions and
its overall one-sidedness.  As such, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by refusing to sever any portion of the agreement.
While the general rule does favor arbitration and states terms
should be interpreted liberally citation, when the agreement is
rife with unconscionability, the overriding policy requires that
the arbitration be rejected.

Similarly, the Defendants claim they informed the Plaintiff prior
to filing the motion that they would not enforce any of the
disputed provisions set forth.  Thus, they argue the arbitration
can and should proceed without these provisions.  This does not
affect the Court's analysis.  She holds that whether an employer is
willing, now that the employment relationship has ended to change a
provision of an arbitration agreement so it conforms to law does
not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is
unconscionable and contrary to public policy.  Such a willingness
can be seen, at most, as an offer to modify the contract; an offer
that was never accepted.  No existing rule of contract law permits
a party to resuscitate a legally defective contract merely by
offering to change it.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the order.
The Plaintiff is entitled to his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/2GwRFmq from Leagle.com.

Magarian & Dimercurio, Mark D. Magarian and Krista L. Dimercurio
for Defendants and Appellants.

James Hawkins, James R. Hawkins -- James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com --
Christina M. Lucio -- Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com -- and
Mitchell J. Murray for Plaintiff and Respondent.


VAXART INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired
Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VXRT) securities
between June 25, 2020 and July 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Vaxart investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/vaxart-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On June 26, 2020, Vaxart issued a news release announcing that it
had been selected for Operation Warp Speed ("OWS"), the federal
initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat the coronavirus.

On July 25, 2020, a New York Times article revealed that Vaxart's
vaccine candidate was included in a trial on primates that a
federal agency was organizing in conjunction with Operation Warp
Speed. However, the Company was not selected to receive significant
financial support from Operation Warp Speed.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Vaxart had exaggerated the prospects of its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or
involvement in OWS; (2) that Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate
had no reasonable prospect for mass production and marketing and
was not among the companies selected to receive significant
financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of millions of
vaccine doses; (3) that, in reality, the Company's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S.
government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS
partnership and support; and (4) that, at the time Defendants'
statements were made, those studies were ongoing, and no
determination had been made.

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


VAXART INC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Vaxart Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ:VXRT)

Investors Affected: June 25, 2020 - July 25, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Vaxart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its COVID-19
vaccine candidate, including its purported role or involvement in
Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which commits the federal
government to massive funding for the development of COVID-19
vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no reasonable
prospect for mass production and marketing and was not among the
companies chosen to receive significant financial support from OWS
to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's
COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to participate in
preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas
for possible OWS partnership and support.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/vaxart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9165&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


VESTAR INC: United Poly Sues in New York Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED POLY CORPORATION v. VESTAR INC. and JOHN R. MAGUIRE, and
JOHN OR JANE DOES 1-10 and others similarly situated, Case No.
716737/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of contract, account stated,
quantum meruit for goods and services supplied, sums due on a
personal guarantee, and diversion of trust funds.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff in accordance with the contract that they entered on
November 13, 2019, by which the Plaintiff agreed to supply certain
materials and goods used for the construction and improvements of
real property and public works construction projects and in
accordance with the personal guarantee by Defendant Maguire, a sum
of $64,185.42, plus interest as of the dates of the respective
deliveries, and/or invoice dates.

United Poly Corporation is a supplier of construction materials,
with its principal place of business located at 48 Lehigh Avenue,
in Paterson, New Jersey.

Vestar Inc. is an environmental contracting firm with its principal
place of business located at 43-11 19th Avenue, in Astoia, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
         KING & KING LLP
         The Sanborn Map building
         629 Fifth Avenue, Suite 301
         Pelham, NY 10803
         Telephone: (914) 380-5970
         E-mail: pkutil@king-king-law.com


WARREN DISTRIBUTING: Faces Juarez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR JUAREZ, an individual; J. MARGARITO ROSALES, an individual;
MARIO JUAREZ, an individual; SEBASTIAN CEVEDA, an individual;
ALEJANDRO OCAMPO, an individual; BERNARDINO CASTILLO, an individual
v. WARREN DISTRIBUTING, INC., a California Corporation; SCL TRANS
LOGISTICS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; STREET CITY
LOGISTICS, INC., a California Corporation; DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV35359 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 15, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, to seek
compensation for harm caused by the Defendants' illegal employment
practices.

The Plaintiffs asserts claims for failure of the Defendants to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation, provide required meal and
rest periods, furnish accurate itemized wage statements, pay all
compensation due upon termination, and reimburse business expenses.
As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs allege
that they have suffered lost wages and employment benefits,
violation of their employment rights, and other damages.

The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees entitled to the
protections of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders,
California Code of Regulations and the California Labor Code.

Warren Distributing, Inc., operates as a distributor of automotive
and truck parts based in California. SCL Trans Logistics, LLC is a
California-based logistics service provider. Street City Logistics,
Inc., is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Smith, Esq.
          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          SMITH & BENOWITZ
          4515 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 302
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 839-7800
          Facsimile: (818) 839-9700
          E-mail: benjamin@smithbenowitz.com
                  louis@smithbenowitz.com

               - and -

          Maximilian Lee, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MAXIMILIAN LEE
          631 S. Olive St., Suite 820
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 769-6529
          Facsimile: (213) 760-6529
          E-mail: m.lee@maxleelaw.com


WELCH FOODS: Clevenger Injury Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Darren Clevenger, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Welch Foods, Inc. a Cooperative;
The Promotion In Motion Companies, Inc., Delaware corporation; Does
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-02020-01145532-CU-BT-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 24, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01859-CJC-JDE to
the proceeding.

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

Welch Foods Inc., commonly known as Welch's, is an American
company, headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. The Company also
manufactures and markets an array of other products, including
refrigerated juices, frozen and shelf-stable concentrates, organic
grape juice and dried fruit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L. Lanza, Esq.
          Ramin Todd Montakab, Esq.
          LANZA AND SMITH PLC
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614-8540
          Phone: (949) 221-0490
          Fax: (949) 221-0027
          Email: tony@lanzasmith.com

               - and -

          Anthony E. Di Vincenzo, Esq.
          Robert J. Stein, III, Esq.
          DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD STEIN
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (714) 881-7002
          Email: rob@dss.law

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq.
          Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 229-9900
          Fax: (310) 229-9901
          Email: dsilverman@venable.com
                 bjweintrop@venable.com


WHOLE FOODS: Fahey Sues Over Vanilla Almondmilk's Deceptive Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FAHEY, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-06737 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct and false and misleading
advertising in violation of California Business & Professions
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
misleading advertising and marketing of almondmilk beverages under
the Organic 365 brand. The Organic 365 Vanilla Almondmilk's front
label representation of "Vanilla" leads consumers, including the
Plaintiff, to believe that it is flavored with vanilla extract, or
another vanilla flavoring derived solely from vanilla beans. In
reality, the Product contains non-vanilla, artificial flavors, not
disclosed to consumers and has less vanilla than consumers expect.

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members paid a premium price for the Product. They would
not have purchased or paid more for the Product had they known that
much, if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant
sources, the Plaintiff contends.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. is an American multinational supermarket
chain headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Scott C. Borison, Esq.
         BORISON FIRM, LLC
         1900 S. Norfolk St., Ste. 350
         San Mateo, CA 94403
         Telephone: (301) 620-1016
         Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
         E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

               - and –

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


WINCO HOLDINGS: Garza Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as EVERARDO GARZA JR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a WINCO
FOODS and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-003604, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on September 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00725 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code,
including failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, rest
period violations, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.

Winco Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Winco Foods, is a holding company that
retails bulk food, meat, deli, seafood, and bakery products through
its subsidiaries, with its principal place of business located in
Boise, Idaho.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                  

         Michael Kopp, Esq.
         Sophia Kwan, Esq.
         Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Stanislaus, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: mkopp@seyfarth.com
                 skwan@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com

               - and –

         Alfred L. Sanderson Jr., Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: asanderson@seyfarth.com


WINCO HOLDINGS: Garza Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as EVERARDO GARZA JR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a WINCO
FOODS and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-003604, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on September 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01354-NONE-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code,
including failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, rest
period violations, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.

Winco Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Winco Foods, is a holding company that
retails bulk food, meat, deli, seafood, and bakery products through
its subsidiaries, with its principal place of business located in
Boise, Idaho.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                  

         Michael Kopp, Esq.
         Sophia Kwan, Esq.
         Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Stanislaus, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: mkopp@seyfarth.com
                 skwan@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com

               - and –

         Alfred L. Sanderson Jr., Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: asanderson@seyfarth.com


XEROX BUSINESS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Hill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Xerox Business Services, LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Tiffany Hill v.
Xerox Business Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00717-JCC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 6,
2020, Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the parties'
stipulated motion to approve their proposed class notice plan.

On Aug. 13, 2019, the Court certified the class. The parties moved
for approval of their class notice and notice plan. Judge
Coughenour finds that the parties' proposed notice form and notice
plan satisfy the elements of Rule 23. Accordingly, the Judge
granted the parties' motion for approval of the proposed class
notice plan.

The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Hill v. Xerox Business
Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-35838, 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 by October 26, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on November 24, 2020;

   -- Appellants Affiliated Computer Services Inc, Affiliated
      Computer Services LLC, LiveBridge Inc. and Xerox Business
      Services, LLC's opening brief is due on January 4, 2021;

   -- Appellee Tiffany Hill's answering brief is due on
      February 3, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Foster Johnson, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          E-mail: djohnson@bjtlegal.com         

               - and -

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; LIVEBRIDGE INC,
an Oregon Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES INC, a Delaware
Corporation; and AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, are represented by:

          Daniel P. Hurley, Esq.
          Patrick Michael Madden, Esq.
          Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
          Ryan D. Redekopp, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 370-8172
          E-mail: daniel.hurley@klgates.com
                  patrick.madden@klgates.com
                  todd.nunn@klgates.com
                  ryan.redekopp@klgates.com


YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC: YAYO) pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with YayYo's
November 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for YayYo investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority,
and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a
day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of
the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in
marketing YayYo's IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the
12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling
interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain
less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the
listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of
YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the
IPO - in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the
IPO - YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4)
defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of
YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former
President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time
of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality,
Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more
than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo
attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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


YOU GARDEN: Wang Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
FENG CAI WANG, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
v. YOU GARDEN DUMPLING INC & d/b/a Shanghai You Garden; YOU GARDEN
XIAO LONG BAO INC d/b/a Shanghai You Garden; GOLDEN ROAST, INC.
d/b/a Corner 28; and GAO AND YUEN 28 LLC; YUEN FAN, ALAN GAO,
SHUKWAN LI a/k/a Shu Kwan Li, XIAOYUN SHANG a/k/a Xiao Yun Shang,
and VICTORIA FAN-LI a/k/a Victoria Fan a/k/a Victoria Li, Case No.
1:20-cv-04588 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York
Labor Law arising from Defendants' willfully and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

From July 2017 to December 4, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants to work as a Pastry Worker.

Shanghai You operates restaurant in New York offering Shanghainese
food and soup dumplings.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class are:

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

YOUTUBE: Faces Class Action in U.K. Over Unlawful Use of Kids' Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch, reports that another class
action style lawsuit has been lodged against a tech giant in the
U.K. alleging violations of privacy and seeking major damages. The
latest representative action, filed against Google-owned YouTube,
accuses the platform of routinely breaking U.K. and European data
protection laws by unlawfully targeting up to five million
under-13-year-olds with addictive programming and harvesting their
data for advertisers.

U.K. and EU law contain specific protections for children's data,
limiting the age at which minors can legally consent to their data
being processed — in the case of the U.K.'s Data Protection Act
to age 13.

The suit is being brought by international law firm Hausfeld and
Foxglove, a tech justice nonprofit, which says they're seeking
damages from YouTube of more than GBP2.5 billion (about US$3.2
billion).

Per the firms, it's the first such representative litigation
brought against a tech giant on behalf of children and among the
largest such cases to date. (In August a similar class action style
suit was filed against Oracle in the U.K. alleging breaches of
Europe's General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] related to
cookie tracking.)

If the case succeeds, they say millions of British households whose
kids watch YouTube may be owed "hundreds of pounds" in damages.

Duncan McCann, a researcher on the digital economy and father of
three children all under 13 who watch YouTube and have their data
collected and ads targeted at them by Google, is serving as
representative claimant in the case.

Commenting in a statement, McCann said: "My kids love YouTube, and
I want them to be able to use it. But it isn't 'free' — we're
paying for it with our private lives and our kids' mental health. I
try to be relatively conscious of what's happening with my kids'
data online but even so it's just impossible to combat Google's
lure and influence, which comes from its surveillance power.
There's a massive power imbalance between us and them, and it needs
to be fixed."

"The [YouTube] website has no user practical age requirements and
makes no adequate attempt to limit usage by youngsters," notes
Hausfeld in a press release about the lawsuit.

While a Foxglove release about the suit points to YouTube pitch
materials intended for toy makers Mattel and Hasbro (and made
public via an earlier FTC suit against Google) -- in which it says
the platform described itself as "the new Saturday morning
cartoons," "the number one website visited regularly by kids,"
"today's leader in reaching children age 6-11 against top TV
channels" and "unanimously voted as the favorite website of kids
2-12."

Reached for comment, a YouTube spokesperson sent us this statement:
"We don't comment on pending litigation. YouTube is not for
children under the age of 13. We launched the YouTube Kids app as a
dedicated destination for kids and are always working to better
protect kids and families on YouTube."

The tech giant maintains that YouTube is not for under 13s —
pointing to the existence of YouTube Kids, a dedicated kids' app it
launched in 2015 to offer what it called a "safer and easier" space
for children to discover "family-focused content," to back up the
claim.

Although, the company has never claimed that no children under 13
use YouTube. And last year the FTC agreed to a $170 million
settlement with Google to end an investigation by the regulator and
the New York Attorney General into alleged collection of children's
personal information by YouTube without the consent of their
parents.

The rise in class action style lawsuits being filed in the U.K.
seeking damages for breaches of data protection law follow a
notable appeals court decision, just under a year ago, also against
Google.

In that case the appeals court unblocked a class action style
lawsuit against the tech giant related to bypassing iOS privacy
settings to track iPhone users.

In the U.S., Google paid $22.5 million to the FTC back in 2012 to
settle the same charge, and later paid a smaller sum to settle a
number of U.S. class action lawsuits. The U.K. case, meanwhile,
continues.

While Europe has historically strong data protection laws, there
has been — and still is -- a lack of robust regulatory
enforcement which is leaving a gap that litigation funders are
increasingly willing to plug.

In the U.K. the challenge for those seeking damages for large-scale
violations is there's no direct equivalent to a U.S. class action.
But last year's appeals court ruling in the Safari bypass case has
opened the door to representative actions.

The court also said damages could be sought for a breach of the law
without needing to prove pecuniary loss or distress, establishing a
route to redress for consumers that's now being tested by several
cases. [GN]


[*] 1st Cir. Holds FAA Doesn't Drive Independent Contractors Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
National Review reports that recently, and for the first time in
more than 20 years, the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit ruled on the transportation worker exemption
contained in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020), the
court of appeals upheld a district court's decision not to compel
Amazon "AmFlex" delivery drivers (who are independent contractors)
to arbitrate their wage claims. The decision is significant for
companies that require their delivery drivers to sign arbitration
agreements.

         The FAA and Its Transportation Worker Exemption

The Federal Arbitration Act sets forth a procedural framework that
requires courts to treat arbitration agreements as "valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." While the FAA
applies broadly, Section 1 of the statute renders its provisions
inapplicable to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad
employees, and other transportation workers engaged in interstate
commerce. In Waithaka, the First Circuit addressed the question
whether AmFlex drivers who do not cross state lines themselves, but
who deliver goods that have crossed state lines, qualify as
transportation workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"
who are exempt from the FAA under Section 1.

                     The Court's FAA Analysis

The court of appeals began its FAA analysis by observing that the
plaintiff, Bernard Waithaka, and his fellow class members were not
excluded from the transportation worker exemption because they were
independent contractors rather than employees. As the court noted,
the Supreme Court of the United States recently held (in New Prime,
Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 544 (2019)) that the FAA's
transportation worker exemption applies to "‘agreements to
perform work'" and therefore applies with the same force to
independent contractors that it does to employees.

The court then addressed Amazon's argument that Waithaka and the
other AmFlex delivery drivers in his putative class were not
engaged in interstate commerce, and thus were not covered by the
transportation worker exemption, because they operated entirely
within Massachusetts and did not themselves carry goods across
state lines. The court rejected Amazon's "cramped construction" of
the transportation worker exemption, reasoning that "regardless of
whether the workers themselves physically cross state lines[,] . .
. .  [b]y virtue of their work transporting goods or people
‘within the flow of interstate commerce,' . . . .  Waithaka and
other AmFlex workers are ‘a class of workers engaged in . . . .
interstate commerce.'" As such, the court held, Waithaka and his
fellow AmFlex drivers were covered by the FAA's exemption for
transportation workers, and the FAA provided no basis for
compelling arbitration of their claims against Amazon.

Massachusetts Public Policy Precludes Class Waiver When the FAA
Does Not Apply

Finding the FAA inapplicable, the court next looked to see whether
the agreement's arbitration clause might still be enforceable under
state law. Answering that question required the court to determine
whether the arbitration agreement was governed by the law of
Washington-which was the law chosen in the agreement's
choice-of-law provision-or of Massachusetts, where Waithaka and his
fellow putative class members had performed their work under the
agreement. The court held that Massachusetts law applied, despite
the arbitration agreement's choice of Washington law, because the
agreement contained a class action waiver and thus was contrary to
the Commonwealth's "fundamental public policy" precluding the
contractual waiver of an employee's right to assert claims for
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Massachusetts
Independent Contractor Law, and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law
on a class basis. Therefore, the court of appeals held, because the
arbitration agreement contained a class waiver, it was
unenforceable under Massachusetts law and the district court's
refusal to compel arbitration was correct.

              Considerations for Employers

This decision is significant for employers with workers in
Massachusetts, primarily for two reasons. First, the Waithaka court
confirmed (1) that contract provisions purporting to bar workers
from bringing class actions for violation of Massachusetts's wage
and independent contractor laws are contrary to a fundamental
public policy of the Commonwealth and (2) that public policy is
sufficient to overcome the contract's choice of another state's
law. Second, companies that employ or engage delivery drivers in
the Commonwealth may want to keep in mind that, in light of the
Waithaka decision, the FAA may not apply to those drivers if they
deliver goods within Massachusetts that originate outside the
Commonwealth, or that originate in Massachusetts and subsequently
are transported outside of it. Accordingly, to the extent employers
wish to enter into arbitration agreements with those workers, they
may want to ensure that such agreements conform to Massachusetts's
requirements for arbitration agreements, including that they do not
include a waiver of the workers' right to bring class action claims
under the Commonwealth's wage and independent contractor laws.
[GN]


[*] Captive Insurance Arbitration Clause Foils Class Action Attempt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that microcaptive owners who alleged
they were duped into breaching U.S. tax laws when they formed their
captives can't bring a class action lawsuit against their captive
manager but must instead arbitrate their disputes individually with
the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. unit, a federal appeals court ruled.

Affirming a lower court ruling in Dimitri Shivkov v. Artex Risk
Solutions Inc., the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle
held that the arbitration agreements in the contracts were
enforceable despite the captive owners' allegation that the clauses
in the "less than 10-page agreements" had not been fully explained
to them.

In the original suit filed in December 2018, a group of
Arizona-based individuals and their related businesses said they
had to pay back taxes, penalties and interest to IRS investigations
over their use of so-called 831(b) captives.

The plaintiffs alleged that Artex knew or should have known that
the captive insurance strategies it promoted were abusive tax
shelters.

In compelling arbitration, the appeals court ruling states that
although the captive owners assert the captive manager "breached a
fiduciary duty to point out and fully explain an arbitration
clause, they identify no state law authority recognizing such a
duty."

In addition, the arbitration agreement in the contracts is
enforceable after the termination of the contracts, the court
ruled.

An attorney for the captive owners could not immediately be reached
for comment. [GN]


[*] Class Action Against Auto Insurers Headed to Court of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab at Law Times News reports that a jurisdictional
dispute that arose out of a class action against 15 insurance
companies is headed to the Court of Appeal.

In 2018, car accident victims filed 15 class actions against
auto-insurance companies in Ontario, saying they were fleeced out
of a portion of their statutory accident benefits. The suits
alleged the insurance companies were subtracting the Harmonized
Sales Tax from the benefits awarded to claimants, rather than
bearing the cost of the tax themselves as the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario had directed. The next year, the Ontario
government passed a regulation to clarify that HST "is required to
be paid by insurers in addition to the maximum accident benefit
amount limits specified in the Statutory Accident Benefits
Schedule."

Two insurers settled. The others - and the FSCO, which was also a
defendant - argued the court lacked jurisdiction, as disputes about
statutory accident benefits amounts are supposed to be handled by
the License Appeal Tribunal. The defendants argued that s. 280 of
the Insurance Act and the 2019 Court of Appeal decision in Stegenga
v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company support their position.

In Dorman v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, Justice Edward
Belobaba said of the dispute, "In principle, class actions were
designed for this very purpose." But Belobaba agreed, the Insurance
Act states disputes concerning statutory accident benefits amounts
belong in the LAT, and that Stegenga "made clear" the LAT's
jurisdiction is "wide-ranging and "'exclusive.'"

Belobaba added that "the vast majority" of the class members'
claims were worth less than the LAT filing fee of $100 and thus
"individual claims will not be pursued and the impugned insurers
will arguably be enriched in the millions of dollars."

"Such is the consequence of the jurisdiction design decision,"
Belobaba said.

If the appeals court confirms Belobaba's ruling, counsel for the
plaintiffs, Paul Harte and Ronald Bohm, say a "regulatory gap" will
result, leaving accident victims vulnerable to abuse.

"If the Court of Appeal ultimately says that that door is shut,
that may require legislative amendment. . . .  But surely it can't
stand," says Harte.

Harte is principle lawyer at Harte Law and Bohm is senior
litigation partner at Blackburn Lawyers. Both are based in in
Richmond Hill, Ont.

In the appeal, Harte and Bohm will argue their proposed framework
is aligned with the legislative intent of the Insurance Act: to
create a fair, efficient and accessible system and to avoid fraud.
They will suggest that when facts vary, individuals should go to
the LAT. But for representative actions, whether dealing with
thousands or tens of thousands of plaintiffs - the magnitude of the
class actions in Dorman - the disputes will be handled in the
court, as a class proceeding in court is more efficient than ten
thousand individual actions at the LAT.

"The LAT would then be inundated and would literally be brought to
a standstill if people actually litigated every one of those," says
Harte.

Allowing for class proceedings concerning statutory accident
benefits to be heard in court will be more efficient for both
sides, say Harte and Bohm.

"Because part of the problem is that one of the things defendants
have done is when they go to the LAT and they lose, they don't
appeal. It's not economically viable and so there's no binding
authority," says Harte.

"Unlike a court, in the LAT, adjudicators are not looking at
another decision with another adjudicator on the same facts. . . .
There is no such requirement in the LAT, and so insurance companies
can basically do the same thing, make the same argument, again and
again and again," says Bohm. "They could do it 100 times make the
same argument, even if they lost the previous 99." [GN]


[*] New Bill to Allow Private Antitrust Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Annie McDonough, writing for City & State New York, reports that
the old American tradition of trust busting is having something of
a renaissance. In late July, Congress summoned the chief executives
of Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook for a historic hearing on the
tech giants' allegedly anti-competitive behavior. As soon as
September, state and federal prosecutors plan to bring an antitrust
lawsuit against Google. And now, the New York state Legislature is
about to consider a new bill that one expert said would put New
York at the forefront of antitrust enforcement in the nation.

On Sept. 14, the state Senate was set to hold a hearing on a bill
introduced earlier this summer by state Sen. Michael Gianaris that
would expand the state's ability to sue companies -- including tech
giants -- for anti-competitive behavior. While antitrust
enforcement tends to be thought of as something happening at the
federal level -- the Department of Justice's impending lawsuit
against Google, for example -- the passage of this legislation
could allow New York to take more aggressive action against
companies allegedly engaging in anti-competitive behavior than it's
currently able to under federal antitrust laws. "This bill in one
stroke would transform New York state into a pioneer, a center of
antitrust enforcement," said Tim Wu, a former advisor in the state
attorney general's office, and author of the book, "The Curse of
Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age."

The 21st Century Antitrust Act introduced by Gianaris would amend
New York's current antitrust law -- known as the Donnelly Act -- in
a few key ways. First, it would allow private class action
antitrust lawsuits, increase the maximum prison sentence for
antitrust crimes to 15 years and increase the maximum penalty to
$100 million. Second, it would allow the state to sue a single
company for engaging in creating or attempting to create a
monopoly. Currently, the law only allows the state to bring a
lawsuit against two or more companies conspiring to conduct
anti-competitive behavior. That standard is outdated, Gianaris
said. "When the laws were first written, 100-plus years ago, what
they were really trying to get at were bid rigging or price fixing
among players in the industry, where two or more players would team
up to influence the market," he told City & State. "And since that
time, what we've seen is that unilateral behavior is a problem as
well." Gianaris offered examples of that kind of behavior,
including big companies undercutting their competition on prices --
even to their own temporary losses -- or a search engine directing
traffic to its own products. (Google has been accused of doing the
latter, but has denied the claim.)

While antitrust lawsuits against unilateral action can be brought
in federal court, Wu said they're typically harder cases to win
there. "The federal judiciary has been loaded up for eight years --
maybe 20 years -- with antitrust skeptics, particularly in the
Republican party," he said. "So you have a federal judiciary that's
pretty hostile to the antitrust laws." Under Gianaris' legislation,
these types of cases could now be brought in state court too, where
judges may be less hostile to ruling against companies engaging in
anti-competitive practices.

But the most notable, and likely to be most controversial, aspect
of the legislation is language that changes the standard of illegal
behavior to include a company in a dominant position -- but not
technically a monopoly -- abusing that position. That standard goes
beyond what's defined as illegal in existing U.S. antitrust law,
but it is used in other parts of the world, including in the
European Union.

Proving that a company is a monopoly is a bit like threading the
eye of a needle, Wu said, noting that companies such as Amazon can
argue that they're not monopolies even as it's accused of pushing
smaller companies out of the market or using data from its
third-party sellers for its own benefit. But legislation making it
illegal for a company in a dominant position to abuse that position
could make it easier to target some of those Big Tech companies.
"That actually covers a lot more companies than monopoly, because
there are a lot of powerful companies who are dominant but not (a)
monopoly," Wu said of the dominance standard.

Already, however, critics have said that this standard is too vague
-- and may even be unconstitutional. The state legislation does not
explicitly define a "dominant position" and it's not clear what
constitutes an abuse of market dominance, though Gianaris said that
part of the purpose of the Sept. 14 hearing is to refine the
proposal.

New York Attorney General Letitia James -- an antitrust crusader in
her own right -- has already backed the proposal, and Gianaris said
they are working "hand-in-hand" with her office on the legislation.
But while the congressional hearings on antitrust issues earlier
this summer put Big Tech's unchecked powers in the spotlight,
pushback on this legislation from big companies and industry groups
will likely be fierce.

Ahead of the Sept. 14 hearing, several groups had submitted written
testimony against the legislation, including tech industry groups
Tech:NYC and TechNet. "As S.8700's bill memo states, Big Tech is
the target of this bill," written testimony from Tech:NYC reads.
"But the chance to work and partner with Big Tech is partly what
drives smaller tech companies and startups to New York. To make any
businesses think twice about locating or expanding in New York
right now is not something we as a New York-focused organization
can support."

While the full list of witnesses at the Sept. 14 hearing was not
immediately available on the state Senate's website, Gianaris said
that not all business groups will line up against the legislation.
"This is a pro-business proposal in the sense that small and medium
sized businesses that have been getting pounded by the big players
will benefit greatly from this," he said. "And we're gonna have
some people testifying exactly about that." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***