/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201008.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 202

                            Headlines

183 FOOD MARKET: Faces Hurtado Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
5TH AVENUE TREE: Matiano FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
99 CENTS: Class Certification Denial in Barriga Suit Flipped
ABM INDUSTRY: Canas Seeks Proper Wages for Parking Attendants
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rauls Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA

ALTERATION GROUP: Deal in Arnutovskaya Labor Suit Gets Final OK
ALTERYX INC: Faces Chau Class Suit Over 35% Drop in Share Price
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Compelled to Produce Excel Report in Mendell Suit
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Files Second Amended Class Complaint
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Partly Compelled to Discovery Responses in Nieves
BED BATH: Consolidated or Amended Complaint Due October 20
BENTLEY BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Sheth Says

BLOOMBERG LP: Adams Sues Over Unlawful OT Pay and Wage Statements
BONDZ INC: Mendez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA
BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Approved in Matute
BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Okayed in Henriquez
BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 26 Deadline

CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Gayle Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CANADA: Arguments to Certify MMIWG Class Suit to Start September
CASA TUA: Gomez Seeks Blind's Equal and Full Access to Mobile App
CENTRAL CLINICAL: Sanders Sues Over Violation of FLSA and BIPA

CHASE BANK: $245,000 Deal in Chen ECOA Suit Gets Final Approval
CLAIRE'S STORES: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Parker Alleges
CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Alleged Time-Shaving
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Suits in New York Consolidated

CONSUMER CELLULAR: Kane Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA
CORE CIVIC: Court Dismisses Bacon Prisoners Suit Without Prejudice
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Mai Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shop Cards
COTY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.

DANNY & JIMMY'S: Fails to Pay FLSA Mandatory Wages, Herrera Says
DDT CONCRETE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Sensing Suit Claims
DIAMOND PET FOODS: Faces Spivey Fraud Suit in C.D. California
DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ECKERT SEAMANS: Montgomery Sues Over Investment Scheme by LaForte

EMPIRE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Del Valle FLSA Suit Says
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PEABF Wants Subpoena in Pelletier Suit Quashed
EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims
FASTLY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Leaky Sunroof Class Action

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Faces Von Heppinstall Suit in Pennsylvania
FLOR DE MAYO: Faces Barragan Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
GILEAD SCIENCES: FWK Suit Alleges Monopoly in cART Drug Market
GOOGLE LLC: Peekya Sues Over Android App Monopoly

GREEN DAY: Faces McLanahan TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls & Texts
GRUMA CORP: Faces Govea Suit Over Misleading Labels of Products
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Defends Stockholder Class Suit in California
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Sues Over Excessive Premium
HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Russell HIPAA Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.

HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Suit Moved From M.D. Florida to N.D. Georgia
INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
INTEL CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
INTEL CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
JCF RESIDENCES: Atwood Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave & Retaliation

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Can't Compel Medical Records of Susan Chamlin
KNOX COUNTY, TN: Obtains Judgment on Pleadings in Hicks Suit
LDA DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Mendez Says
LEND LEASE: Mismanages Housing at MCB Camp Lejeune, Johnson Says
LME INC: Arnold WARN Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Minnesota

LOANCARE LLC: Faces Landers RESPA Suit Over Improper Escrow Fees
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: A. Pascale Named Sub. Plaintiff in Briggs
MARRIOTT INT'L: Servers File Class Action Over Unpaid Gratuities
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Continues to Defend ADI Merger Related Suits
MB DOWNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says

MDL 2972: Allen Seeks Transfer of 8 Blackbaud Breach Suits to S.C.
MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Ordered to Pay Cuppels' Counsel $28,000 Sanction
NANO-X IMAGING: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Dismisses Mestayer Suit Over ATES Ordinance

NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Nov. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Nov. 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Nov. 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action

NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals Ruling in CLRA Suit to Ninth Circuit
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
OHIO STATE: Court Lifts Seal in Amended Garrett & Snyder-Hill Suits
OKONITE COMPANY: Parrish Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California

OTELCO INC: Defends Plumley Putative Class Action
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Yaroni Sues Over 92% Drop in IPO Share Price
PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in Rossini Suit Gets Final Approval
ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jeganathan Retaliation Suit in N.J.

ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Faces Ingram Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Contreras Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
ROSETTA STONE: Curtis Suit Challenges $792-Mil. Sale to Cambium
SMITHTOWN NISSAN: McFadden Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
SPERIAN ENERGY: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Suit

SQUEAKY KLEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Suit Alleges
STARBUCKS CORP: Phayakapong Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Gift Cards
STARR RESTAURANT: Weiss Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending
UNITED STATES: Amended K.O. Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Cacciapalle Class Complaint
UNITED STATES: Prestige Sues Over Unlawful Denial of EIDL Loans
UNITED STATES: TRO/Class Certification Motions in Gomez Suit Denied
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Decision in Doe Suit
UNUM LIFE: Vasquez ERISA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

VARIAN MEDICAL: Agreement Reached in Siemens Merger Related Suits
VILLA CHARITIES: Faces $35MM COVID-19 Negligence Class Action
WELLSTAR HEALTH: Cole Sues Over Facility Fees Charged to Patients
WEST PENN: Faces Class Action Over Secret Recordings
WEST ROAD PIZZA: Calhoun Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses

WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit
WINS FINANCE: March 2021 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Consolidated Suit v. Comerica Bank Ongoing
WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE: Martinez Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid OT Wages
WPX ENERGY: Order of Dismissal Issued in Hudson Suit

XCEL CARE: Mogocha Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay for Caregivers
YAYYO INC: Faces Hamlin Suit Over 90% Drop in IPO Share Price

                            *********

183 FOOD MARKET: Faces Hurtado Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE HURTADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 183 FOOD MARKET CORP. d/b/a FOOD UNIVERSE and ROBERTO
ESPINAL, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-07988 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, who has worked with the Defendants as a stocker from
February 2, 2020, through July 15, 2020, alleges that the
Defendants willfully failed to compensate him at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of pay for the hours he worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the Defendants failed
to provide him with an accurate wage statement on each payday and a
wage notice upon his date of hire that accurately stated his
regular and overtime rates of pay.

183 Food Market Corp., d/b/a Food Universe, operates supermarkets.
Roberto Espinal is owner and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Tel: (212) 939-7229
          E-mail: info@stevensonmarino.com


5TH AVENUE TREE: Matiano FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AVIEL JUAREZ MATIANO, and other similarly
situated individuals v. 5th AVENUE TREE EXPERTS, INC. and SAMI
SLIM, individually, Case No. 20-016907-CA-01, was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 29, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61973 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of overtime
provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

5th Avenue Tree Experts, Inc., is a company that offers tree
services based in Coral Springs, Florida.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Adi Amit, Esq.
         ADI AMIT, P.A.
         101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-5922
         Facsimile: (954) 302-4963
         E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com


99 CENTS: Class Certification Denial in Barriga Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOFIA WILTON BARRIGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 99
CENTS ONLY STORES LLC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. E069288
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth
District, Division Two, reversed the trial court's orders denying
the Plaintiff's motion to strike 99 Cents' declarations and class
certification motion, and remanded the case for the trial court to
reconsider them.

Plaintiff Barriga filed the lawsuit against 99 Cents, on her own
behalf and on behalf of similarly situated current and former
non-exempt employees of 99 Cents hired before Oct. 1, 1999, and who
worked the graveyard shift after Jan. 1, 2012, until the conclusion
of her lawsuit, pleading various Labor Code violations and
violation of the unfair competition law.

The Plaintiff alleged 99 Cents has a zero-tolerance policy that
requires its stores to lock their doors at closing time, therefore,
forcing nonexempt, nonmanagerial employees, who work the graveyard
shift and clock out for their meal break or at the end of their
shift, to wait for as long as 15 minutes for a manager with a key
to let them out of the store.  According to her, 99 Cents does not
pay its employees for the time they have to wait be let out of the
store, and its zero-tolerance policy denies employees their full
half-hour meal break.  In addition, Plaintiff alleges 99 Cents does
not promptly pay employees the wages they are owed upon termination
or resignation and does not provide employees with accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff moved the trial court to certify two classes: (1)
"Off the Clock Class," consisting of employees who were locked in
the store and not paid for the time they waited, and (2) "Meal
Period Class," comprised of employees who were denied full meal
breaks because they were locked in.

Thereafter, 99 Cents opposed the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
proposed classes, contending there is no community of interests
among putative class members, and the lack of common issues among
putative class members will render a class action unmanageable. In
support of its opposition, 99 Cents submitted 174 declarations from
current and former nonexempt employees to establish, inter alia,
that its closed-door policy was often observed in the breach,
meaning graveyard shift employees could leave the store immediately
without waiting to be let out, and those employees who did have to
wait were let out promptly and paid for the time they waited.  

Only 53 of the declarants were members of the proposed classes.
All 174 declarations included an identical or nearly identical
paragraph stating the declarants knew their declarations could be
used by 99 Cents to defend itself against a class action lawsuit
about its wage policies and practices, and an identical or nearly
identical paragraph purporting to state the declarants had not been
coerced into signing their declaration and understood what they
were signing.

The Plaintiff deposed 12 of the employee declarants who were
members of the proposed classes.  Most of the deponents clearly
testified they understood what they were signing, and they did so
freely and without coercion or promise of promotion or a pay raise.
However, some of the deponents testified they had no idea what the
lawsuit was about or even why they had been called upon to testify.
And, most of the deponents testified they had been summoned,
during working hours, to an office, by a representative from human
resources, and presented with a declaration for their signature.

The Plaintiff moved to strike all 174 declarations on the grounds
the process by which they had been obtained was improper, and
because they were substantively inconsistent with the subsequent
deposition testimony of 12 of the declarants.  Concluding it lacked
the statutory authority to strike the declarations, the trial court
denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike.  In the alternative, the
court concluded there was no coercion to justify striking the
declarations from the putative class members, and it lacked the
authority to review for coercion let alone strike any of the
declarations from nonputative class members.  And, based on all 174
declarations, the court concluded the Plaintiff had not
demonstrated a community of interests or a commonality of issues
among putative class members.  Therefore, the trial court denied
the Plaintiff's class certification motion.  The Plaintiff appeals
those orders.

On appeal, the parties generally agree the trial court had the duty
and authority to exercise control over communications between the
parties and potential class members to prevent unfairness.  In
addition, they agree in principle the trial court had the power to
strike or discount the weight to be given to the declarations
submitted in opposition to the Plaintiff's certification motion if
the evidence demonstrated the declarations were obtained through
coercion or deception.  The parties part company, however, on the
question of the scrutiny to be given those declarations.

Adopting the standards articulated in Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
(1981) 452 U.S. 89 (Gulf Oil), California courts have recognized
the trial court has both the duty and the authority to exercise
control over precertification communications between the parties
and putative class members to ensure fairness in class actions.
Moreover, the lower federal courts have consistently held that an
ongoing business relationship between the class opponent and
putative class members -- especially a current employer-employee
relationship -- is rife for abuse and coercion.  Therefore, those
courts have cautioned that statements obtained by the class
opponent from its employees, to oppose a class certification
motion, must be carefully scrutinized for actual or threatened
abuse.

And, if the trial court concludes the statements were obtained
under coercive or potentially abusive circumstances, it has
discretion to either strike those statements entirely or discount
the evidentiary weight to be given to them.  In addition, some
lower federal courts have concluded the trial court's duty and
authority to protect the integrity and fairness of actions extends
to communications with a defendant's employees who are not
currently or potentially members of the class.

The Appellate Court opines that the record demonstrates the trial
court in the case was unaware of the need to scrutinize 99 Cents'
declarations carefully and was either unaware of or misunderstood
the scope of its discretion to either strike or discount the weight
to be given the 174 declarations, including the declarations of
employees who were not members of the putative classes, if it
concluded they were obtained under coercive or abusive
circumstances.

The Appellate Court concludes the record affirmatively demonstrates
the trial court misunderstood its duty to carefully scrutinize the
declarations submitted by 99 Cents in opposition to the class
certification motion for coercion and abuse, and misunderstood the
scope of its discretion to strike or discount the evidentiary
weight to be given to those declarations if it found evidence of
coercion and abuse.  

Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the orders denying the
Plaintiff's motions to strike 99 Cents' declarations and denying
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On remand, the
trial court will reconsider the Plaintiff's motions consistent with
the authorities discussed in the Opinion.  The Plaintiff will
recover her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/30HHXoF from Leagle.com.

Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher, Maria L. Weitz, Neil M. Larsen; Law
Offices of Sahag Majarian II and Sahag Majarian II for Plaintiff
and Appellant.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, Malcolm A. Heinicke --
Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com -- Katherine M. Forster --
Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- and Andrew C. Rubenstein --
Andrew.Rubenstein@mto.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


ABM INDUSTRY: Canas Seeks Proper Wages for Parking Attendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ERNESTO GIL CANAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case No.
20STCV37443 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
arising from the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages to parking
attendants.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants (1) collected unlawful
deductions from employees; (2) failed to provide wage statements
that supplied all of the information required by Labor Code Section
226(a); (3) failed to pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
minimum and overtime wages; (4) failed to timely pay the Plaintiff
all wages when due; (5) failed to provide a proper sick leave
policy for employees; and (6) failed to Make Security Deposits
pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Sections 403, 404, 405, 406 and IWC Wage
Order, Sec.9(c); (7) failed to Provide Employment Records; (8)
failed to provide records under Code Section 432; and (9) failed to
provide records under Code Section 1198.5.2.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a parking attendant
in various locations in Los Angeles County beginning on December
27, 2018, until November 15, 2019.

ABM Industry Groups, LLC touts itself as a leading provider of
integrated facility solutions. Among the services it provides, ABM
offers parking valet and transportation and janitorial contractor
services to clients across the United States, including throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          Lin Zhan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Ave., 17th Fl.
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com
                  lzhan@harrisandruble.com


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rauls Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RAULS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01157-KGB
(E.D. Ark., Sept. 29, 2020), is a collective action brought by
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff contends the Defendant failed to pay him overtime
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in each week. He seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's
violations.

The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Ouachita County.

The Defendant is a foreign, for-profit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALTERATION GROUP: Deal in Arnutovskaya Labor Suit Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRINA ARNUTOVSKAYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ALTERATION GROUP
OF NY, LLC, AND RELATED OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, JEREMY MILLER,
Defendants, Docket No. 161194/2017, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y.
Sup.), Judge Robert David Kalish of the New York County Supreme
Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, including the approval of settlement checks to
qualified class members, attorneys' fees and costs, claims
administration costs, and for a service award to the Named
Plaintiff.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the Named Plaintiff filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendants
violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") Articles 6 and 19 and 12
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCEE") Section 142 by not
compensating them for all the hours worked and by maintaining a
policy and practice of paying its tailors commissions at a rate
lower than the rate promised and further by unlawfully deducting
earned wages from Plaintiffs' last paychecks.  The Complaint
alleges four causes of action: (1) NYLL — minimum wage; (2) NYLL
— overtime compensation; (3) NYCEE - unpaid wages; and, (4)
breach of contract.  In addition to the class-wide claims, the
Named Plaintiff alleges the aforementioned individual claim for
breach of her employment contract.

On March 12, 2019, having heard oral argument, the Court issued an
order certifying a class consisting of tailors who worked for ASNY
since Dec. 19, 2011.

On Nov. 20, 2019, the parties presented to the Court a Proposed
Settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved.  The Court also
authorized publication of the Notice of Class Action Settlement,
Claim Form and Release, and the Opt-Out Form.

According to the affidavit of Settlement Claims Administrator
Tomasz Kulak of Martom Solutions, LLC ("MSLLC"), on Dec. 27, 2019,
the Notice Packet was distributed to the 64 Class Members via First
Class Mail.  Of the 64 Notice Packets distributed, only one Class
Member opted out of the Settlement.  No Class Members objected to
the Settlement.

The Fairness Hearing that was originally scheduled for March 25,
2020, was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  As per the
Notice Packet, all objections to the Settlement were to be
submitted by Feb. 25, 2020.  According to the moving papers, no
objections were filed.  Notwithstanding the prior notification, on
May 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, Virginia & Ambinder,
LLP, mailed a Supplemental Notice to the Class Members informing
them that the Court was going to evaluate the Settlement based on
written submissions and would schedule a Virtual Fairness Hearing
for the Class Members if so requested.  None of the Supplemental
Notices were returned as undeliverable.  No Class Member again
objected to the Settlement or requested to appear at a potential
Virtual Fairness Hearing.  Under the circumstances, the Court deems
the right to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing to be
satisfied and waived.

Upon final deliberation, Judge Kalish certified, for settlement
purposes, a Class consisting of all individuals who are presently
or were formerly employed as tailors by ASNY from Dec. 19, 2011, to
the date of the preliminary approval order, which is Nov. 20,
2019.

Judge Kalish granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, including: (a) $72,500 for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and costs -- $38,032.36 of which comes from the Gross
Settlement Amount and $34,467.64 of which makes up 33.33% or one
third of the Gross Payment; (b) $3,000 for the Service Award to the
Named Plaintiff from the Gross Settlement Amount; (c) $2,000 for
the settlement of the Named Plaintiff's individual Breach of
Contract claim from the Gross Settlement Amount; (d) $29,526.42 for
Settlement Checks from the Net Settlement Fund; and (e) $6,787.30
for Claims Administrator's costs from the Net Settlement Fund.

The Jdueg approved the appointment of MSLLC as the Settlement
Administrator and, upon completion of the payments, approved the
payment of $6,787.30 to be payable to MSLLC for the cost of
Settlement Administration as part of the second installment.

Upon the Effective Date, the Action will be dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety and all members of the Settlement Class
who have not excluded themselves from the settlement will be
conclusively deemed to have released and discharged Defendants
from, and will be permanently enjoined from, directly or
indirectly, pursuing and/or seeking to reopen, any and all claims
that have been released pursuant to the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Decision +
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3iCKzu1 from Leagle.com.


ALTERYX INC: Faces Chau Class Suit Over 35% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETER CHAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALTERYX, INC., DEAN A. STOECKER, and KEVIN RUBIN, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01886 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Alteryx's business, operations, and prospects
in order to attract investors to purchase or otherwise acquire
Alteryx securities between May 6, 2020, and August 6, 2020.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i)
that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter
and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (ii)
that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses
to attract new customers; (iii) that, as a result and because of
the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (iv) 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 Company announced its second quarter 2020 financial
results and disappointing growth projections for the third quarter
and full year 2020, the Company's share price fell $47.62 per
share, or over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on August 7,
2020. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading
session by $12.15 per share, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share
on August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77 per
share, or over 35%.

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 says he and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Alteryx, Inc., is a data analytics company that offers a
subscription-based platform, with its principal executive offices
located in Irvine, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Compelled to Produce Excel Report in Mendell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MENDELL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19cv1227-BAS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion for
Determination of Discovery Dispute.

In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the
Defendant to produce a single document in Excel format that is
believed to be responsive to the Plaintiff's Document Request No.
1.  The Excel report was created by the Defendant during the
litigation at the direction of the counsel.  The Plaintiff claims
to have first learned of the existence of the report in a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition on May 28, 2020.  

The Defendant has not produced the Excel report, because it
believes as follows: (1) the report is not responsive to the
Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1; (2) the report qualifies for
work product protection; and (3) the Plaintiff waited too long to
raise the parties' dispute with the Court.

The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") alleges
that the Defendant is a medical transport provider who provided
services to the Plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2018.  When the Plaintiff was
unable to pay the resulting debt, the Defendant began making
collection calls to the Plaintiff.  The basis for the action is
that the Defendant allegedly recorded its collection calls with the
Plaintiff and other Debtors without a warning or consent in
violation of California law.

The parties were originally scheduled to complete class discovery
on March 20, 2020.  In this regard, the original Scheduling Order
states that fact and class discovery are not bifurcated but all
class discovery will be completed by all parties on or before March
20, 2020.  Thereafter, the deadline for completing class discovery
was extended twice.  The deadline was first extended to March 24,
2020 for the sole purpose of taking the Plaintiff's deposition.
The deadline was again extended to April 2, 2020 solely to complete
the depositions of Plaintiff Credence, and Dr. Patil because of
logistical and scheduling challenges caused by the COVID-19 virus.

The Plaintiff represents that the existence of the Excel report was
not known until May 28, 2020, when the Plaintiff took a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendant's representative, Dr. Bhaskar
Patil.  The Defendant does not dispute its representation in this
regard, and there is nothing before the Court indicating that the
Plaintiff could have known about the existence of the Excel report
before Dr. Patil's deposition.  Based on the Plaintiff's
representations, Magistrate Judge Crawford finds that the Plaintiff
did not wait too long to raise this matter with the Court.  Under
the circumstances presented, the event giving rise to the dispute
is the Plaintiff's discovery of the subject report during Dr.
Patil's deposition on May 28, 2020.

The Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1 sought production of
documents which in any way reference him, the events alleged in the
operative pleading, and/or any allegations or defenses asserted in
the action.  The Plaintiff also served the Defendant with Document
Request No. 9, which sought production of all recordings of the
Defendant's outbound calls to California cell phone numbers from
one year prior to the filing of the action to the present.

The Magistrate Judge holds that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff
seeks disclosure of the Excel report to be able to contact
potential class members by telephone prior to class certification.
The Plaintiff does not argue in the Joint Motion that there is a
need to contact potential class members prior to class
certification to obtain information necessary to meet the burden of
proof on any class certification issues.

In this regard, the Magistrate notes that the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification has already been filed and is currently
pending before the District Court.  Therefore, without more, the
Magistrate Judge finds that the individuals identified in the Excel
report are entitled to a limited right to privacy in their
telephone numbers.  Accordingly, there is good cause to enter a
protective order precluding plaintiff from using the telephone
numbers in the Excel report to contact the putative class members
unless the District Court certifies a class that encompasses the
individuals identified in the Excel report.  In addition, the Excel
report must be produced to the Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the
terms of the Protective Order that is already in place to govern
the exchange of confidential documents and information between the
parties.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Crawford granted the
Plaintiff's request for an order compelling the Defendant to
produce the subject Excel report.  The Defendant must produce the
Excel report to the Plaintiff's counsel no later than 10 days after
the Order is entered.  To protect the limited privacy interests of
the putative class, the telephone numbers listed in Excel report
may not be used to contact the potential class members unless the
District Court certifies a class that includes the individuals
identified in the Excel report.  In addition, the Excel report must
be produced to the Plaintiff's counsel subject to the terms of the
Protective Order that was previously entered in the case to govern
the exchange of confidential information between the parties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/30IJDOF from Leagle.com.


ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Files Second Amended Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bouvy filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2020 in
the case, MICHAEL BOUVY, Plaintiff, v. ANALOG DEVICES, INC., a
Massachusetts company, as successor to LINEAR TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware company; LINEAR
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-881 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal.).

Bouvy filed the SAC after Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Bouvy's
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in a June 23, 2020 Order available
at https://bit.ly/33A2eyc from Leagle.com.

The case arises out of the Plaintiff's putative class action
against Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI"), Linear Technology Corp.
("LTC"), Linear Technology, LLC ("LT LLC"), and Linear Technology
Administrative Committee for alleged violations of fiduciary duties
imposed by the Employment Retirement Investment Savings Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA").  The Plaintiff filed the complaint on
May 10, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC)
on Sept. 24, 2019.

The Defendants manage the Linear Technology 401(k) Plan, an
individual-account, defined-contribution retirement plan.  Bouvy is
a former employee of LTC and a Plan "participant," as defined by 29
U.S.C. Section 1002(7).  LTC provided retirement benefits to
eligible employees between May 6, 2013, and May 6, 2019.

On March 10, 2017, ADI, a Massachusetts Corporation, purchased LTC
through a cash and stock transaction, and on or around that time
the assets and operations of LTC merged with ADI.  LT LLC was
formed as a Delaware corporation on May 2, 2017.  ADI continues to
sell LTC's power-management products.  After the merger between LTC
and ADI, LTC's past fiduciary liabilities as "Plan Sponsor" and
"Plan Administrator" were assigned by the Plan's governing
documents to Linear Technology LLC.  LTC was the "Plan Sponsor"
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(16)(B), as reported on the Plan's Form
5500 for 2016, and Linear Technology LLC was listed as the "Plan
Sponsor" on the form in 2017.

The Plaintiff and proposed class members are participants in the
Plan.  Most participants in 401(k) plans expect that their 401(k)
accounts will be their principal source of income after retirement.
The Plan is a defined contribution plan, and thus limits employees
to investment options selected by the plan's fiduciaries, otherwise
known as "designated investment alternatives."  Because plan
participants can only invest in pre-selected options, the
participants bear the risk of poor investment selection choices,
whether due to poor performance, high fees, or both.

The Plan administrators charge two types of fees for the
maintenance and management of investment products: investment
management expenses and administrative expenses.  Administrative
fees account for costs associated with administering the Plan,
including recordkeeping, trustee and custodial services, and
accounting costs.  The cost of recordkeeping services depends on
the number of participants in the Plan, rather than the amount of
money in each participant's account.

At all times referenced in the FAC, the Defendants contracted with
third-party administrator Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC to
serve as the Plan's recordkeeper.  Before June 1, 2015, the Plan
compensated Transamerica through revenue sharing.  Effective June
1, 2015, the Plan began to charge an annual fee of $125 per
participant, assessed quarterly.  In 2017, the Plan paid
Transamerica $542,867 in direct payments for recordkeeping --
approximately $229 per participant.

At the end of 2017, the Plan had approximately $616 million in
assets and 2,369 participants with active account balances.  On
average, for plans with 2,000 participants and $200 million in
assets, the average recordkeeping fee per participant was $5.  In
addition to these direct payments, the Plan paid Transamerica over
$1 million annually in revenue sharing from mutual funds.
Transamerica distributes the funds the Plan invests, and also
manages the Plan's investments in the Transamerica funds.
Transamerica was also compensated from the investment fees for its
proprietary products offered as investment options through the
Plan.

Throughout the Class Period, the Plan's investment options included
twenty mutual funds and two fixed annuity contracts issued by
Transamerica Life Insurance Co.  At the same time, the Plan's
investment expenses were higher than industry averages: at least 18
of the 20 mutual funds offered in 2016 had above-average expenses.
Many of these funds held a share class that was between 25 and 116
percent more expensive than readily available, identical mutual
fund products.

The Plaintiff contends the Plan's participants lost millions of
dollars of retirement savings and anticipated retirement income
because of the Defendants' failure to rein in the Plan's costs and
failure to remove and replace underperforming funds.  Based on
these alleged facts, the Plaintiff filed a FAC alleging that the
Defendants violated ERISA by: (1) breaching their duties of
prudence and loyalty by selecting investment options with excessive
fees when identical, lower-cost options were available and
retaining expensive funds with poor performance histories; (2)
breaching their duties of prudence and loyalty by compensating
Transamerica with excessive recordkeeping fees; (3) failing to
provide disclosures to participants regarding investment and
administrative fees; (4) engaging in prohibited transactions with a
party in interest; and (5) failing to monitor fiduciaries.

In its June 23 Order, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's disloyalty claims under Count I and II,
Plaintiff's claims under Count III related to investment fee
disclosures, and Plaintiff's claims under Count IV.  The balance of
the motion is denied.

The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to identify a separate
breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty under Counts I and II.  The
Court also held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Count
IV for prohibited transactions.


APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled RYAN TURIZO v. APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, Case No. CACE-20-012335, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the State of Florida, County of Broward, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 3,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61803-WPD to the proceeding.

Apartment Investment & Management Company is a self-administered
and self-managed real estate investment trust. The trust owns a
geographically diversified portfolio of multifamily apartment
properties in the United States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. Apartment Investment also provides property management
and asset management services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by

         Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq.
         BURR & FORMAN LLP
         201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200
         Tampa, FL 36601
         Telephone: (813) 221-2626
         Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
         E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com
                 dmorales@burr.com;
                 anolting@burr.com

              - and -

          Zachary D. Miller, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 724-3216
          Facsimile: (615) 724-3316
          E-mail: zmiller@burr.com
                  agosnell@burr.com


BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu") (NASDAQ: BIDU) between April 8,
2016 and August 13, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more
information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9415&wire=5

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) 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.

If you suffered a loss in Baidu you have until October 19, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Partly Compelled to Discovery Responses in Nieves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL NIEVES, Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., and BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 18-2748-JTF (W.D. Tenn.), Chief Magistrate
Judge Tu M. Pham of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel certain discovery
responses from the Defendants.

The case is both a class action contract case and an individual
suit alleging a violation of federal anti-discrimination law.  Dr.
Nieves alleges that Baptist discriminated against him in various
ways -- withholding his pay, cutting his health insurance, and
ultimately ending his employment agreement -- because of his
service in the Army Reserve.  Dr. Nieves claims that violated the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.  He also
claims that Baptist systematically underpays its doctors for the
procedures they perform in violation of their employment contracts.
He brings a variety of state law claims on a class-wide basis
regarding this alleged underpayment.  Baptist denies all of these
allegations.

The parties disagree about various discovery issues.  The most
significant discovery issue in dispute is the appropriate scope of
Baptist's ESI search.  The Court has ordered the parties to confer
in good faith to explore various possible compromises that may
resolve this dispute.  That process is ongoing and the Court does
not decide any issues directly related to it today.

Various concessions made in briefing have mooted other issues
raised in the motion.  The remaining issues in dispute are: (1)
whether Baptist must produce unredacted versions of certain
documents that were not listed in its privilege log; (2) whether
Baptist has appropriately claimed attorney client privilege over
other documents that were listed in its privilege log; and (3)
whether Baptist should be required to produce billing records and
certain additional documents in response to Request for Production
24.

The parties dispute whether five documents Baptist produced to Dr.
Nieves were properly redacted.  The five documents at issue were
not listed in Baptist's initial privilege log.  According to a
sworn declaration by Dr. Nieves' counsel, he reached out to
Baptist's counsel five separate times between Dec. 12, 2019, and
the filing of the motion of Feb. 10, 2020, to discuss the omission
of these documents from Baptist's privilege log.  The declaration
claims that Baptist did not substantively respond to those
inquiries.  Dr. Nieves then filed this motion.

In its briefing in response to the motion, Baptist states that the
five documents at issue were properly redacted because they contain
confidential and irrelevant information that bears no relation to
the claims and defenses of this matter.  Although Baptist
repeatedly asserts these documents are confidential, Baptist has
not identified any legal basis for the claim.  Baptist spends most
of its briefing discussing why the redacted portions of these
documents are not relevant.  Baptist also states that it has
updated its privilege log to include these document.

Magistrate Judge Pham holds that this is not the kind of
exceptional case in which unilateral redaction is allowed.  There
is a protective order shielding sensitive business information in
the case from improper disclosure.  Baptist has not identified any
reason why that order is insufficient to protect its interests.
That alone makes relevance redactions improper.  Furthermore, the
redactions Baptist has made for relevance are not small and do not
allow a reader to understand what information has been redacted.
This portion of the motion to compel is granted.  Baptist will
produce unredacted versions of every responsive document they have
redacted for relevance, including the five documents identified by
Dr. Nieves in his motion.

The parties next dispute whether the attorney-client privilege
covers certain documents that were listed in Baptist's privilege
log.  As before, a sworn declaration by Dr. Nieves' counsel attests
that he attempted to resolve these privilege issues with Baptist
many times over a period of months before filing this motion.
After the motion was filed, Baptist conceded several of its claims
of privilege were in error and produced unredacted documents.  The
parties still dispute whether five documents are covered by the
privilege.

The Judge notes that it would be justified in ordering the
production of all of the documents under dispute here because of
Baptist's failure to meet its burden.  However, in recognition of
the importance of the rights at issue, he opts for a more limited
remedy.  He orders that Baptist will re-review the documents that
Dr. Nieves claims are not privileged and evaluate in good faith
whether these documents are, in fact, privileged.  After this
review, for those documents Baptist intends to maintain a privilege
claim over, it will provide an updated privilege log that describes
in detail why Baptist maintains a claim of privilege over those
documents in spite of the specific concerns identified by Dr.
Nieves.  If Dr. Nieves believes Baptist's remaining claims of
privilege are improper, the parties will meet and confer in good
faith to resolve the dispute.  Unless the parties mutually agree
otherwise, the meet and confer will occur no later than one week
after Dr. Nieves informs Baptist of his continued objection.
Should a dispute remain after this meet and confer, Dr. Nieves may
file a renewed motion to compel.

Finally, the parties disagree about whether Baptist has adequately
responded to Request for Production 24.  That request calls for all
documents related to the Plaintiff's compensation by Baptist during
the relevant time period, including dcuments sufficient to Identify
the amount of compensation the Plaintiff received for his
Personally Performed Professional Services in each quarter of the
relevant time period.  Baptist objected to the request on a number
of grounds, including that it did not describe the documents it
sought with reasonable particularity.

However, without waiving its objections, Baptist produced a variety
of documents related to Dr. Nieves' compensation as well as medical
records from all procedures Dr. Nieves performed while at Baptist.
Dr. Nieves argues it is not enough and that Baptist should have to
also produce: (1) its billing records showing what it charged
third-party payors for the procedures Dr. Nieves performed and (2)
documents describing how Defendants allocated a particular measure
of work performed for various procedures to nurses and other
caregivers when the Plaintiff was involved in a procedure, in some
fashion.

The Judge finds that the request does not meet the reasonable
particularity test.  Any number of documents may relate to Dr.
Nieves' compensation in some way.  Request for Production 24 offers
no guidance on how Baptist can determine whether a particular
document or even a particular category of documents falls within
its scope.  As applied to the particular categories of documents
Dr. Nieves now seeks, the request did not put Baptist on reasonable
notice that it needed to produce those documents.  This portion of
the motion of compel is denied.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pham granted in part and denied
in part the motion to compel.  Unless otherwise specified in the
Order, Baptist will provide discovery responses under the Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3d4BokO from Leagle.com.


BED BATH: Consolidated or Amended Complaint Due October 20
----------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended August 29, 2020, that lead plaintiff
Kavin Bakhda is scheduled to file an amended or consolidated
complaint by October 20, 2020.

A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey federal
court").  

The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under §§
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11,
2020.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.

A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020.

That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Lead plaintiff is scheduled to file an amended or consolidated
complaint by October 20, 2020.

Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was
founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global
1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey.


BENTLEY BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BENTLEY BRANDS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-08039-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.brianthepekingese.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. The
Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff, a resident of the Bronx, New York. is a blind,
visually-impaired handicapped person.

Bentley sells natural products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017

BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Sheth Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABHI SHETH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01381-JCC (W.D. Wash., Sept.
18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent conduct as the
customers' private information that the Defendant collected and
maintained have been compromised during the occurrence of
ransomware attack and data breach in May 2020.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated users, in order to, (1) address the Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information,
which the Defendant managed, maintained, and secured; (2) assert
claims for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the
Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been
subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third-party; (3)
assert claims for failing to identify all information that was
accessed; and (4) assert claims for failing to provide the
Plaintiff and Class Members with any redress for the data breach.

As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members, at their own cost,
must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts
to guard against identity theft, the suit says.

Blackbaud, Inc., manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for
the data obtained by its clients who are, inter alia, schools and
non-profit companies, including YMCA of Greater Seattle and
KidsQuest Children's Museum, which maintained the Plaintiff's
private information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 904 15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6783
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com


BLOOMBERG LP: Adams Sues Over Unlawful OT Pay and Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEENA ADAMS, both individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Case No.
1:20-cv-07724 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and provide accurate wage
statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the class members for all overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant also failed to
pay the Plaintiff for their badge time from 2014 to 2018 because it
deducted meal breaks from the time reflected in the badge data,
which resulted in unpaid hours of work, including overtime hours.
Since 2014, the wage statements that the Defendant provided to the
Plaintiff and the class members do not list the regular hours
worked or the rate paid for such hours, nor did they list the
accurate number of overtime hours that the Plaintiff and the class
members worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a global technical
support representative in New York from approximately 2012 to
October 2019.

Based in New York City, Bloomberg L.P. is a multinational mass
media corporation that provides financial software tools, such as
analytics and equity trading platforms, data services, and news to
financial companies and organizations around the world through the
"Bloomberg Terminal."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Artemio Guerra, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
          260 Fair St.
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: aguerra@getmansweeney.com


BONDZ INC: Mendez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BONDZ, INC.; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-7486 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 9,
2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as truck driver.

Bondz, Inc., is engaged in the trucking business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Driver, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203

               - and -

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291


BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Approved in Matute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted Matute's Opposed Motion to
Continue in the case, FREDY MATUTE, v. BP EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION, INC. et al., SECTION: "G" (1), Civil Action No. 19-595
(E.D. La.).

The case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that
occurred on April 20, 2010.  On Jan. 11, 2013, Judge Carl J.
Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA").  The
MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that allows
certain class members, including clean-up workers who follow
certain procedures set forth in the MSA, to sue BP for
later-manifested physical conditions.

On Jan. 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a BELO Complaint in the
Court.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill exposed him to oil, dispersants, and other
harmful chemicals while he performed duties as a "Clean-up Worker."
That exposure allegedly caused him to suffer permanent injuries,
including chronic conjunctivitis, chronic pharyngitis, and chronic
rhinosinusitis.

On Aug. 22, 2019, the case was transferred from Judge Barbier to
Chief Judge Brown.  On Sept. 25, 2019, the Court issued a
scheduling order setting the case for trial on Nov. 16, 2020.  On
May 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting a
new scheduling order continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines.
On June 8, 2020, BP filed an opposition to the instant motion.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court issues a new scheduling order
-- continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines -- for the following
reasons.  First, Plaintiff states that his counsel's law firm
required employees to follow countermeasures to prohibit the spread
of COVID-19 that have caused an "unprecedented upheaval" in his
counsel's workplace.  Second, Plaintiff states that his expert
toxicologist has a familial issue involving COVID-19, which has
delayed her expert report for the case.  Third, Plaintiff states
that the COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented challenges in
preparing the case.  Finally, Plaintiff states that BP will not
suffer undue prejudice if the Court issues a new scheduling order
continuing pretrial and trial deadlines.

BP contends that they are sympathetic to the challenges imposed by
the COVID-19 pandemic.  Yet BP states that requests for
continuances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  BP
argues that the Plaintiff fails to show the required "good cause"
for a continuance.

First, Magistrate Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently
explains why he cannot meet the deadlines in the current scheduling
order.  Second, the importance of the continuance is apparent.
Third, despite BP opposing the Plaintiff's continuance request
during the COVID-19 pandemic, BP fails to explain a single
prejudicial effect that a continuance would affect upon them.
Lastly, a continuance of all deadlines will be granted to cure any
potential prejudice caused by the delay in the Plaintiff's ability
to produce his expert report.  Considering these factors and each
party's arguments, the Plaintiff has demonstrated the required good
cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

Considering the foregoing reasons, Judge Brown granted Matute's
Opposed Motion to Continue.  The parties were directed to contact
the Court's case manager to conduct a scheduling conference to set
a new trial date and new pretrial deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2020 Order & Reasons is
available at https://bit.ly/3d3HRfY from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Okayed in Henriquez
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted Arias-Henriquez's Motion for
a Continuance in the case, JOSE ARIAS-HENRIQUEZ, v. BP EXPLORATION
AND PRODUCTION, INC. et al., SECTION: (G)(5), Civil Action No.
19-9497 (E.D. La.).

The case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that
occurred on April 20, 2010.  On Jan. 11, 2013, Judge Carl J.
Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA").  The
MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that allows
certain class members, including clean-up workers who follow
certain procedures set forth in the MSA, to sue BP for
later-manifested physical conditions.

On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a BELO Complaint in the
Court.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill exposed him to oil, dispersants, and other
harmful chemicals while he performed duties as a Clean-up Worker.
That exposure allegedly caused the Plaintiff to suffer permanent
injuries, including Esophageal Reflux.

On Aug. 21, 2019, the case was transferred from Judge Barbier to
Chief Judge Brown.  On Sept. 25, 2019, the Court issued a
scheduling order setting the case for trial on Sept. 21, 2020.  On
June 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting a
new scheduling order continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines.
On June 10, 2020, BP filed an opposition to the instant motion.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a new scheduling order
-- continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines -- for the following
reasons.  First, Plaintiff states that his counsel's law firm
required employees to follow countermeasures to prohibit the spread
of COVID-19 that have caused an "unprecedented upheaval" in his
counsel's workplace.  Second, Plaintiff states that his expert
toxicologist has a familial issue involving COVID-19, which delayed
her expert report for the case.  Third, Plaintiff states that the
delay in preparing the case is not his fault, contending the
COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented challenges.  Finally,
Plaintiff states that BP will not suffer undue prejudice if the
Court issues a new scheduling order continuing pretrial and trial
deadlines.

BP contends that they are sympathetic to the challenges imposed by
the COVID-19 pandemic.  Yet BP states that requests for
continuances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  BP
argues that the Plaintiff fails to show the required "good cause"
for a continuance.

First, Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently explains
why he cannot meet the deadlines in the current scheduling order.
Second, the importance of the continuance is apparent.  Third,
despite BP opposing the Plaintiff's continuance request during the
COVID-19 pandemic, BP fails to explain a single prejudicial effect
that a continuance would affect upon them.  Lastly, a continuance
of all deadlines will be granted to cure any potential prejudice
caused by the delay in the Plaintiff's ability to produce his
expert report.  Considering these factors and each party's
arguments, the Plaintiff has demonstrated the required good cause
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

Considering the foregoing reasons, the Court granted
Arias-Henriquez's Motion for a Continuance.  The parties were
directed to contact the Court's case manager to conduct a
scheduling conference to set a new trial date and new pretrial
deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2020 Order & Reasons is
available at https://bit.ly/36HoDf0 from Leagle.com.


BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 26 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 Braskem
S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAK) between May 6, 2016
and July 8, 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 Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Braskem 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)
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

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
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion [i.e.,
6.7 billion reais] 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 Macei."

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.

Finally, on July 9, 2020, during pre-market hours, 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.

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. 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 Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/braskemsa-bak-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-296/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.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

          Matthew E. Guarnero
          Bernstein Liebhard LLP
          Tel No: (877) 779-1414
          E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com[GN]

CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Gayle Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marlon Gayle filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated August 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Lobbe v. Cablevision System Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-2207, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

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

The appellate case is captioned as Lobbe v. Cablevision System
Corporation, Case No. 20-3210, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marlon Gayle is represented by:

          Angel Antonio Castro, III, Esq.
          A.A. CASTRO C.L.A.N. PLLC
          60 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 234-3177

Defendants-Appellees Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cablevision
Systems New York City Corporation, CSC Holdings LLC, Altice USA,
and Altice Technical Services USA are represented by:

          Allan Scott Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Howard Mark Wexler, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-3332
          E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com


CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending the deadline in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/    


If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                         About

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
-including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

CANADA: Arguments to Certify MMIWG Class Suit to Start September
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Martens, writing for APTN, reports that arguments to
certify a class-action lawsuit that alleges the federal government
is responsible for finding ways to end the epidemic of violence
against missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG) and
compensating families who suffered losses were scheduled to start
in late September.

The action -- Bigeagle vs Her Majesty The Queen, which is seeking
$600 million in damages -- was scheduled to be heard in Federal
Court in Regina starting Sept. 21.

Saskatchewan lawyer Tony Merchant said he can't believe the federal
government is fighting the certification.

"The Government of Canada has not taken any steps to implement the
important recommendations of the Murdered and Missing Inquiry,"
Merchant said in a news release.

"And, making that worse, take the amazing position before the
Federal Court of Canada that the case should not be certified and
that Canada is not responsible for these wrongs."

His plaintiff is Dianne Bigeagle, from Ocean Man First Nation in
Sask., whose daughter Danita Faith Bigeagle went missing in Regina
on Feb. 11, 2007.

Merchant and three lawyers from his firm were set to face off
against a team of four lawyers from the Department of Justice.

The federal government did not file a statement of defence, the
court file shows, and the departments of Indigenous Services and
Crown-Indigenous Relations referred APTN New's request for comment
on Sept. 15 to Public Safety.

From there a spokesperson emailed a statement to APTN attributed to
Minister Bill Blair, who is responsible for the RCMP and policing
in Canada.

"Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately impacted by all
forms of violence. This is unacceptable and needs to change," the
statement said.

"Our government has made the safety and security of First Nations,
Inuit and Metis women and girls, LGBTQ+ and Two-Spirit people a
priority, and we are working to strengthen existing policies and
programs and support future actions to increase their safety."

Bigeagle's missing daughter is one of more than 1,200 MMIWG cases
-- according to RCMP figures – and as many as 4,000 -- according
to activists and families.

Even the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls, which was created and funded by Blair's government
from 2016-18, said a lack of hard data made it impossible to
identify a firm number.

In his statement, Blair said all governments -- Indigenous,
federal, provincial, territorial and municipal -- must work
together to address the issues highlighted by the inquiry.

But the government is opposing the class-action certification "for
legal reasons that are specific to this case," he added.

"As it is unprecedented in its breadth, is inconsistent with
previous rulings surrounding private duty of care, and contains
cases where the RCMP is not the police of jurisdiction."

Blair said taking this position "in no way" lessens the findings of
the national inquiry "nor our commitment to ending this national
tragedy."

Canada has been chastised for missing a deadline to respond to the
national inquiry's calls for justice.

APTN first reported the government would miss the deadline to issue
a final report action plan.

Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett confirmed on
May 26 that a national action plan to make life safer for
Indigenous women and girls was not going to be ready and blamed the
pandemic for the delay despite having a year to plan it.

Merchant said the class-action is the only way to hold the
government -- and its national RCMP force -- to account for the
lack of investigations and prosecutions.

The statement of claim, originally filed in June 2018, alleges
"systemic negligence" on the part of the RCMP in investigating
cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

It further alleges family members suffered mental anguish because
of a "negligent" and "lackadaisical" approach to the
investigations.

The suit is seeking $500 million in damages and $100 million in
punitive damages. [GN]


CASA TUA: Gomez Seeks Blind's Equal and Full Access to Mobile App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ v. CASA TUA HOTEL & RESTAURANT COMPANY L.L.C., Case
No. 1:20-cv-23958-MGC (S.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought under
the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that the Defendant's
mobile application contains digital barriers, which limit the
ability of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind
and visually impaired consumers to access and enjoy its products
and services like sighted individuals.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design and develop
its mobile application (app) to be equally and fully accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The
app's access barriers include: (a) text equivalent for every
non-text element is not provided; (b) information about the meaning
and structure of the app's content is not conveyed by more than the
visual presentation of content; (c) when the sequence in which
content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading
sequence cannot be programmatically determined; (d) app pages do
not have titles that describe topic or purpose; (e) images on the
application are not explained to the user with use of a screen
reader program; and (f) there is no Accessibility Statement
regarding a company policy to assist disabled users found anywhere
in the app.

As a result of the Defendant's access barriers, the Plaintiff has
been denied information that would allow him to access a physical
brick and mortar location, according to the complaint.

Casa Tua Hotel & Restaurant Company L.L.C. is a company that owns
and operates brick and mortar retail stores in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alberto R. Leal, Esq.
         THE LEAL LAW FIRM, P.A.
         8927 Hypoluxo Rd., #157
         Lake Worth, FL 33463
         Telephone: (561) 237-2740
         Facsimile: (561) 237-2741
         E-mail: al@thelealfirm.com


CENTRAL CLINICAL: Sanders Sues Over Violation of FLSA and BIPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE SANDERS and ZAYNA BARAKAT, on behalf of herself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated v. CENTRAL CLINICAL LABS, INC. and
IMTIAZ AHMAD, an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-05718 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants within the past three
years, allege that the Defendants misclassified them as salaried
overtime-exempt employees. As a result, the Defendants deprived
them of their lawfully earned overtime wages by failing to pay them
the proper overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a work week.

According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to inform
the Plaintiffs and other workers of the limited purposes or length
of time for which the Defendants collected, stored, or used
fingerprints, and still continued to collect, store, and use
employees' biometric data despite no consent from the Plaintiffs
allowing the Defendants to collect or store their fingerprint data,
thereby, disregarding their statutorily protected privacy rights,
as well as continuously exposing them to the risks and harmful
conditions.

Central Clinical Labs, Inc. provides mobile phlebotomy and mobile
Lab services. Imtiaz Ahmad is the President of Central Clinical
Labs, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Tel: (630) 355-7590
          Fax: (630) 778-0400


CHASE BANK: $245,000 Deal in Chen ECOA Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY CHEN, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01082-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement,
and motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

Jeffrey Chen commenced the class action against Chase Bank in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of Alameda on Jan.
28, 2019, alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA") under 15 U.S.C. Section 1691 et seq., and seeking punitive
damages under the ECOA, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and
costs.  

The Plaintiff applied for a credit card issued by Chase.  On Sept.
19, 2018, Chase sent the Plaintiff a letter denying his credit
application stating that Chase can't approve his request at that
time because of previous unsatisfactory relationship with the bank.
The Plaintiff alleges that Chase's denial of his credit
application constitutes an "adverse action" for which a statement
of specific reasons for the action taken or a disclosure of the
applicant's right to a statement of specific reasons is required
within 30 days of receiving the Plaintiff's credit application.
The Plaintiff insists that the letter he received fails to meet the
"specific reason" requirement under the ECOA and does not disclose
the specific reasons for which his application was denied.

Chase removed the action to federal court, the California District
Court, because the action arises under ECOA, a federal law.  It
then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of statutory standing
and failure to state a claim.  The Court denied the motion to
dismiss, and two months later, the parties participated in a
mediation with retired Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil.  While the
parties did not settle, they made substantial progress and
continued to negotiate over the following weeks.

On Aug. 9, 2019, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
After two months of extensive negotiations concerning the final
terms of the Settlement, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in November
2019. At the preliminary approval hearing, the Court raised
concerns regarding the settlement agreement, in particular the
costs of settlement administration and the notice.  The parties
thereafter filed a revised class action settlement agreement and
release, and supporting declaration to address the Court's
concerns.  The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
in January 2020.

The settlement class consists of all natural persons to whom Chase
Bank sent a letter giving either previous unsatisfactory
relationship with the bank or previous unsatisfactory relationship
with the bank or one of the bank's affiliates as the only reason
for taking adverse action in connection with a credit card account
during the period beginning Jan. 28, 2014 and ending on Nov. 22,
2019.  As of June 18, 2020, about 2,982 individuals have submitted
valid claim forms, 10 individuals requested exclusion from the
settlement, and no objections have been filed.

Chase agrees to pay $244,659 for: (1) payments to the Settlement
Class, (2) a Class Representative Incentive Award of up to $5,000,
and (3) Notice and Settlement Administration Costs.  The Settlement
Class Consideration is "non-reversionary."  The settlement
administration costs were estimated at $50,102, but ended up
totaling $59,242.46.  The costs were higher than anticipated
because the 16 percent claims rate is substantially higher than the
7% claims rate predicted, 1,357 individuals who are not class
members filed claim forms, and notice packets were mailed to twice
as many individuals as predicted.  Given this, the Net Settlement
Class Consideration is estimated to be $180,416.54, which yields a
payment of $60.89 for each claiming class member.

In addition to the Settlement Class Consideration, the Settlement
Agreement provides that the Plaintiff's counsel may move for
attorneys' fees and costs of up to $185,000, to be paid by Chase.
The Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs
seeking $176,473.93 in fees and $8,526.07 in costs.  He contends
that the counsels' actual attorneys' fees total $263,957.50.

Finally, the Settlement Agreement also provides that the Court will
enjoin Chase, for five years from the date of final approval, from
using the phrases "previous unsatisfactory relationship with the
bank" and "previous unsatisfactory relationship with us or one of
our affiliates" in adverse action notices as the sole reason for
denying credit card applications or otherwise taking an adverse
action in connection with a Chase credit card account.

The Plaintiff and the class members agree to release Chase from the
Released Claims.  In addition, they waive any and all rights under
California Civil Code Section 1542 as to the Released Claims;
Section 1542 excludes from release those claims which are unknown
at the time of the release.

Upon further review, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of the parties' class action settlement.  In
addition, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys'
fees and costs; specifically, the Court awarded the following:
$176,473.93 in attorneys' fees; $8,526.07 in litigation costs; and
$5,000 as incentive award to the Plaintiff.

In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, within 21 days after the distribution of
the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees, the Class
Counsel will file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides
the following: The total settlement fund, the total number of class
members, the total number of class members to whom notice was sent
and not returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of
claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the
number and percentage of objections, the average and median
recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to
class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment
to class members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the
amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative
costs, the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms
of percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.

The Class Counsel will summarize the information in an easy-to-read
chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases, and post
the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read chart,
on the settlement website --
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3iBa9zC from Leagle.com.


CLAIRE'S STORES: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Parker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DELILAH PARKER and KELVIN HOLMES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.; CLAIRE'S
BOUTIQUES, INC. and CBI DISTRIBUTING CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-05574
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to
protect the personally identifiable information of customers,
including the Plaintiffs, in connection with the occurrence of a
widespread data breach from at least April 7, 2020, through June
12, 2020.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of the Defendants' failure to: (i)
adequately protect its users' PII, (ii) warn users of its
inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively
monitor the Defendants' websites and ecommerce platforms for
security vulnerabilities and incidents.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered injury as a result of
the Defendants' conduct. These injuries may include: (i) lost or
diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated
with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft,
tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost
time, (iv) deprivation of rights they possess under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Illinois
Personal Information Protection Act; (v) deprivation of rights they
possess under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; (vi) the
continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII, which (a)
may remain available on the dark web for individuals to access and
abuse, and (b) remains in the Defendants' possession and is subject
to further unauthorized disclosures so long as the Defendants fail
to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII.

Claire's Stores Inc. specializes in selling low-price jewelry and
accessories to young women and girls. Claire's Boutiques, Inc. and
CBI Distributing Corp. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Claire's
Stores, Inc. that operate the Claire's ecommerce Web sites.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  lguillon@justice4you.com


CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS, LLC and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-at-00937 (E.D. Cal.,
Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received unsolicited
calls to his cellular telephone number ending in -6443 beginning
April 1, 2019 from the Defendants' telephone numbers (571)
441-3048, (192) 573-2316, (912) 208-5050, (864) 920-0417, and (918)
451-3245. The Defendants allegedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" to place its calls in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons to purchase the
Defendants' services without obtaining their prior express
consent.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the
unsolicited calls of the Defendants causing them to incur certain
charges and invading their privacy, according to the complaint.

Clarity Diagnostics, LLC, is a manufacturer and market leader of
rapid diagnostic tests, diagnostic equipment, and over-the-counter
rapid diagnostic tests that are targeted toward the Continuum of
Care, Alternate Care, Acute Care, Laboratory, and OTC markets.[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
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Alleged Time-Shaving
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOE GALVEZ RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and Class Members, v. COLUMBUS RESTAURANT FUND IV, LLC,
d/b/a PORTER HOUSE NEW YORK, and MICHAEL LOMONACO, Case No.
1:20-cv-08053 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
wages due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to New York City Human
Rights Law, he is entitled to recover from Defendants for
discrimination based on his disability.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as dishwasher from August
2, 2018 to the present.

The Defendants own and operate two locations at 10 Columbus Circle:
Porter House New York, and Center Bar. These locations are operated
as a single enterprise (Restaurant).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the
Class, are:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180

CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Suits in New York Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the investors
suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have been consolidated.

On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and
United
States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action
initiated by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Lucas Class
Action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.

The Lucas Class Action complaint alleges that, beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the
Lucas Class Action failed to disclose to investors in USO certain
extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused
the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19
global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.

Plaintiff alleges that USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the
Lucas Class Action possessed inside knowledge about the
consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not
sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after
USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its
investment strategy.

The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

On August 18, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, motions were filed
seeking to consolidate the Lucas Class Action with (i) a purported
stockholder class action initiated on June 31, 2020 by Moshe
Ephrati, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06010 and
in which the same defendants named in the Lucas Class Action were
also named as defendants (the "Ephrati Class Action"), and (iii) a
purported stockholder class action initiated on August 13, 2020 by
Danny Palacios, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06442
and also named the same defendants as in the Lucas Class Action and
the Ephrati Class Action (the "Palacios Class Action" and, together
with the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action, the
"Class Actions").

Each of the complainants in the Ephrati Class Action and the
Palacios Class Action seeks to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

The claims made in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class
Action are substantively identical to the Lucas Class Action,
except that the putative class period in each of the Ephrati Class
Action and Lucas Class Action begins on March 19, 2020, whereas the
putative class period in the Palacios Class Action begins on
February 25, 2020. The Class Actions have been designated as
related, and have been assigned to the same Judge and consolidated
into a single case.

USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Class Actions intend to
vigorously contest the claims made therein and move for their
dismissal.

Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly owned operating
subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing,
selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video
recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting,
playback and security features as conceptualized to provide
historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile
incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California.


CONSUMER CELLULAR: Kane Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KANE; and MARY BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. CONSUMER CELLULAR, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-01558-IM (D. Ore., Sept. 9, 2020), seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as call center
agents.

Consumer Cellular Inc. provides cellular phones and services. The
Company offers different phone plans, cell phones, and accessories.
Consumer Cellular serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jane Paulson, Esq.
          PAULSON COLETTI TRIAL ATTORNEYS, PC
          1022 NW Marshall St., Ste. 450
          Portland, OR 97209-2989
          Telephone: (503) 226-6361
          E-mail: jane@paulsoncoletti.com


CORE CIVIC: Court Dismisses Bacon Prisoners Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada dismissed without prejudice the case, MICHAEL A.
BACON, et al., Petitioners v. CORE CIVIC, et al., Respondents, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01008-JAD-BNW (D. Nev.).

Petitioners Bacon and Shannon K. Kane have submitted what they have
styled as a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. Section 2241.  They state that they are in custody at
Southern Nevada Detention Center, a private prison, serving time
for federal sentences or probation violations.  However, Judge
Dorsey finds that neither Petitioner has submitted an application
to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee.  As a result,
the matter has not been properly commenced and is dismissed without
prejudice.

Even if the action were not being dismissed as improperly
commenced, the Judge holds that it would likely be dismissed as the
result of several other defects.  First, the petition seeks class
certification, but Bacon has been advised in other federal actions
that neither he nor Kane may act as an attorney on behalf of any
class by filing pleadings or otherwise litigating on behalf of a
class.  

Moreover, the Petitioners' main claims are that their conditions of
confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic violate their Fourteenth
Amendment equal-protection rights and Eighth Amendment right to be
free from deliberate indifference to their health and safety.  But
those are civil-rights violations, not challenges to the validity
of their convictions or sentences for which habeas relief might be
available.

The Petitioners also argue that they are entitled to relief under
the CARES Act.  However, the CARES Act does not give any inmate the
right to release to home confinement, and it is the Bureau of
Prisons, not the courts, who have the authority to transfer inmates
to home confinement.  And, again, the issue of home confinement is
not a challenge to the validity of a sentence or conviction and
does not fall within federal habeas corpus review.  Thus, it does
not appear that the petition states a claim for which habeas relief
may be granted.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Dorsey dismissed without prejudice
the action.  The Judge denied the certificate of appealability
because jurists of reason would not find the Court's dismissal of
the improperly commenced action without prejudice to be debatable
or incorrect.  The Judge denied as moot the Petitioners' two
motions for expedited review.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/30FIs2p from Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Mai Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shop Cards
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MAI and ALLAN MAI, individually and on behalf of the general
public and all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01161013-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange
Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' conduct of
marketing shop cards in a deceptive and illegal manner in violation
of the California Code of Civil Procedure and the California
Business & Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants had engaged in unlawful
practices of marketing, selling, and issuing Costco Shop Cards by
forcing its customers, like the Plaintiffs, to either forfeit their
shop card balances or spend more money than they would otherwise
spend, thus, unfairly increasing Costco revenues at their
customers' expense. The Plaintiffs contend that the conduct of the
Defendants constitutes a flagrant violation of the law that was
intended and designed to protect consumers from the very practice
that the Defendants had been engaged in and continue to engage in.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Arielle M. Canepa, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com


COTY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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.

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

Investors Affected : October 3, 2016 - May 28, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Coty Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) 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) as a result, Coty
had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie
Cosmetics; (3) 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) 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; and (5) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coty-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&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]

CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPI Aerostructures, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit
initiated by Mark A. Rodriguez and Russell Garret.

On February 24, 2020, Mark A. Rodriguez, a purported stockholder,
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Douglas
McCrosson, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Vincent
Palazzolo, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


On February 25, 2020, Russell Garret, a purported stockholder,
filed a second putative class action lawsuit against the Company
and Messrs. McCrosson and Palazzolo, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Each plaintiff sought to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from May
15, 2018 to February 14, 2020.

On May 5, 2020, the court consolidated these two lawsuits. The
court also appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel. On May 20, 2020, the court ordered the
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days
of the Company's issuance of its restated financials. The
restatement was issued on August 25, 2020.

On September 24, 2020, the consolidated amended complaint ("Amended
Complaint") was filed by the lead plaintiff on behalf of two
plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company's common stock
issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's offering
conducted on or about October 16, 2018 (the "Offering") (the
"Securities Act Class"); and (ii) purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020,
inclusive (the "Exchange Act Class").

The Amended Complaint retains the Company, Mr. McCrosson, and Mr.
Palazzolo as defendants; it adds as defendants Canaccord Genuity
LLC and B. Riley FBR, which provided services in connection with
the Company's October 16, 2018 offering of its common stock.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently
permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the
registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in
connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The
Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements
in the Company's periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018
through February 14, 2020, inclusive.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages;
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees and expert fees.

Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is a sub-assembly
manufacturer servicing the commercial and military sector of the
aircraft industry. The company is based in Edgewood, New York.


DANNY & JIMMY'S: Fails to Pay FLSA Mandatory Wages, Herrera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA HERRERA, aka VERONICA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DANNY & JIMMY'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
A/K/A PANDORA MEN'S CLUB; and BRANDON CROSBY, Case No.
3:20-cv-02804-C (N.D. Tex., Sept. 9, 2020), seeks to recover from
the Defendants the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

Danny & Jimmy's Entertainment, LLC, a/k/a Pandora Men's Club,
operates as a strip club featuring female exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


DDT CONCRETE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Sensing Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN SENSING, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees v. DDT CONCRETE,
INC. a Tennessee Corporation, and MICHAEL WALLACE, individually,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00811 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants erroneously classified
him and the putative class as "independent contractors" exempt from
the overtime provisions, thus, denied them of being paid at one and
a half times their base rate for all compensable time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
construction worker during the previous three years.

DDT Concrete, Incorporated, is a company based in Tennessee, which
offers concrete construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, 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
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


DIAMOND PET FOODS: Faces Spivey Fraud Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. The
case is styled as Mark Spivey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Diamond Pet Foods, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01788-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna. A scheduling
conference is set for December 14, 2020, before Judge Selna.

Diamond Pet Foods, Inc., operates as a pet food company based in
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 552-0049
          E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  will@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Encino, CA 91436-1020
          Telephone: (917) 471-1894
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com


DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LEONARD LEON, MELISSA MARLENE SANABRIA
RODRIGUEZ AND RAMON SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ TORRES, AND MATTHEW PAUL
SCHWERI AND DURIA R. RODRIGUEZ SCHWERI, JAMIE HEINDL and JEANNETTE
ROTH, as individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
DISNEY DESTINATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2020-CA-009543-O, was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in
and for Orange County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:20-cv-01780 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act including placing
unauthorized holds on the Plaintiffs' bank accounts for varying
amounts, intentionally prioritizing non-annual passholders for
access to its parks and limiting annual passholders' access, and
creating barriers that hindered many Class members from cancelling
their passes.

Disney Destinations, LLC, is a company that conceives, builds, and
manages theme parks and vacation resorts, with its principal place
of business in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
         HILL WARD HENDERSON
         101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 221-3900
         Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
         E-mail: dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com
                 julie.mcdaniel@hwhlaw.com

                - and –

         Christopher A. Cole, Esq.
         Andrew Pruitt, Esq.
         Julia Milewski, Esq.
         CROWELL & MORING LLP
         1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20004-2595
         Telephone: (202) 624-2701
         E-mail: ccole@crowell.com
                 apruitt@crowell.com
                 jmilewski@crowell.com


ECKERT SEAMANS: Montgomery Sues Over Investment Scheme by LaForte
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MONTGOMERY; LYNNE LAPIDUS; HENRY BARTH; LAURIE HAIRE; GLENN
FRIEDMAN; ROSALYE FRIEDMAN; BETTI JANE CUOMO; ANTHONY CUOMO; MARK
HERON; and RAYMOND JANNELLI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC;
JOHN W. PAUCIULO; MICHAEL C. FURMAN; JOHN GISSAS; and DEAN
VAGNOZZI, Case No. 1:20-cv-23750-DPG (S.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their role in an investment
scheme orchestrated by convicted felon Joseph LaForte through his
company, Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par
Funding.

According to the complaint, Par Funding provided merchant cash
advances to small businesses, including hundreds of businesses in
Florida. Par Funding funded those advances with investor money that
flowed through numerous investment funds set up by brokers,
advisers and others who recruited those investors. Defendants
Vagnozzi, Furman and Gissas are three of those individuals, who set
up funds through which the Plaintiffs' and class members' money was
invested into Par Funding.

The promissory note investments offered to and purchased by the
Plaintiffs and class members were unlawful, unregistered
securities. As a result, the Plaintiffs and class members believed
their investments were relatively safe. Had they known about these
misrepresentations and omissions, or the other misrepresentations
and omissions, they would not have invested, according to the
complaint. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs' and
class members' investments are worthless and they have stopped
receiving any proceeds from those investments.

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC is a law firm. The Firm's
practice areas include labor and employment, environmental, energy,
construction, tax, real estate, and intellectual property law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
          Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
          SCHNEIDER GROSSMAN LLP
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami Center, 22nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          Facsimile: (305) 403-8789

               - and -

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


EMPIRE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Del Valle FLSA Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA DEL VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMPIRE HOME HEALTH CARE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04335
(E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 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 Del Valle was employed by the Defendant as home health
worker.

Empire Home Health Care Inc. owns and operates a business that
provides home health services to clients in and around
Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PEABF Wants Subpoena in Pelletier Suit Quashed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees'
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago moves the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois for an order quashing the
Defendants' subpoena directed to Northern Trust Corporation in the
shareholder securities class action captioned as ALEXANDRE
PELLETIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHCHIE
DE SILVA, SUKETU P. UPADHYAY, AND PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, Case No.
2:17-cv-05114-MMB (E.D. Pa.).

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Endo International PLC provides specialty healthcare solutions. The
Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo International
offers its products to the medical and healthcare industries around
the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor E. Muzzy, Esq.
          JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ LLP
          150 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 327-3450
          E-mail: tmuzzy@jbosh.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          Evan A. Kubota, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Burry, Esq.
          Thayne Stoddard, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1340
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
          E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com
                  jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
                  ekubota@bfalaw.com
                  bburry@bfalaw.com
                  tstoddard@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Kehoe, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19012
          Telephone: (215) 792-6676
          E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com


EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, individually and on behalf all all others similarly
situated v. EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07191-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.mountainhighoutfitters.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.

Extreme Consciousness, Inc., was founded in 1999. The Company's
line of business includes the retail sale of sporting goods,
sporting equipment, bicycles, and bicycle parts and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FASTLY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fastly, Inc. 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.

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

FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Leaky Sunroof Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that the
ongoing class action lawsuit between David Cox and Chrysler has
been settled. According to U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni's order, Fiat Chrysler automobiles (FCA) has agreed to
pay attorney's fees, costs and an incentive reward separately from
the class member's injunctive relief.

According to Judge Bongiovanni, the class members (plaintiffs) will
be awarded $350,000 for attorneys' fees and $128,873.79 for costs.
The Court also approved the $4,000 incentive award that will be
paid by FCA and given to Cox.

The lawsuit against Chrysler, was filed in 2014 by Cox, who alleged
the manufacturer was negligent in disclosing to owners that regular
maintenance is needed on the sunroof drain tubes of affected
vehicles. The Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep
Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and
Country and Chrysler 300, from model years 2009 to present were
named in the class action complaint.

Both parties came close to a settlement in November 2019. However
there were additional motion hearings prior to the final settlement
being ordered. FCA previously stated it has no objections to the
financial relief the plaintiffs sought after.

Background

In his class action complaint, Cox stated that he had owned a 2010
Jeep Patriot for less than a year before the sunroof began leaking,
which damaged the interior.

"Cox brought his vehicle in to the Chrysler dealer's service
department to service the sunroof leak immediately. The Chrysler
dealer replaced the radio and cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes,"
a portion of his complaint reads.

According to court documents, Cox's sunroof continued to leak after
the dealer cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes. In June 2013 Cox
brought his vehicle into the Chrysler service department again.
This time Chrysler allegedly refused to repair the sunroof leak
under the warranty. It stated that clogged drain tubes is a
maintenance problem and does not fall under its warranty.

According to the class action complaint, Cox claims he was never
told by Chrysler that the vehicle's sunroof drain tubes would need
routine maintenance. Chrysler responded by denying most of the
allegations that were made against the company. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending the deadline in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/    


If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                              About

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
-including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Faces Von Heppinstall Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC VON HEPPINSTALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-04324 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2020),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

FirstStates Financial Services Corp. is a financial services
company that specializes in medical billing and receivables
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


FLOR DE MAYO: Faces Barragan Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL BARRAGAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. FLOR DE MAYO, INC. (D/B/A FLOR DE MAYO),
PHILIP CHU, NELSON CHU, and JOSE CHU, Case No. 1:20-cv-08068
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for all
hours worked; to maintain accurate record keeping of the hours
worked; to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages; and to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a merchandise stocker and delivery
dispatcher at the restaurant located at 2651 Broadway, in New York
City from approximately 2006 until April 2020.

Flor de Mayo, Inc., is a company that owns and operates a
Chinese-Latino restaurant under the name Flor de Mayo, located 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


GILEAD SCIENCES: FWK Suit Alleges Monopoly in cART Drug Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
FWK HOLDINGS, LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC;
GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC; BRISTOL-MYERS
SQUIBB COMPANY; and E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, L.L.C., Case No.
3:20-cv-06793 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated accusing the Defendants
of violating the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to acquire and maintain a monopoly in the
market for combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimen drugs
since December 2004. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, and
wrongfully attempted to acquire and/or maintain monopoly power by:
(a) entering into and abiding by the illegal No-Generics
Restraints; (b) entering into and abiding by the illegal
post-patent-expiration royalty provisions; (c) delaying the
improvement of Stribild and artificially raising its price in order
to drive patients to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-based fixed dose
combination drugs that it had shielded from competition; d.
Delaying the improvement of standalone TAF, also in furtherance of
the scheme to drive patients to the protected fixed dose
combination drugs that it had shielded from competition; (e)
abusing the regulatory process, by withholding an HIV indication
from standalone TAF, in order to raise rivals' costs and delay
their entry into the market; (f) causing delayed entry of generic
versions of Viread, Truvada, and Atripla; and (g) obtaining a
patent-term extension on the '791 Patent, despite having
intentionally delayed the development and approval of TAF as part
of the anticompetitive scheme.

As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members paid more for cART regimen drugs than
they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges
for their cART regimen drugs requirements.

FWK Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a research-based biopharmaceutical
company, with a principal place of business at 333 Lakeside Drive,
in Foster City, California. Gilead Holdings, LLC is a
biopharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business in
Foster City, California. Gilead Sciences, LLC is a
biopharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business in
Foster City, California. Gilead Sciences Ireland UC is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of is a biopharmaceutical company Gilead
Sciences, Inc., with a principal place of business in County Cork,
Ireland.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is an American pharmaceutical company,
with a principal place of business located in New York City. E. R.
Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, with a
principal place of business in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
         Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
         3708 Clay Street
         San Francisco, CA 94118
         Telephone: (415) 751-4193
         Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
         E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
                 pbc@scarpullalaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
         NASTLAW LLC
         1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
         Philadelphia, PA 1910
         Telephone: (215) 923-9300
         Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
         E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Peekya Sues Over Android App Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------
PEEKYA SERVICES, INC., on behalf of itself and the proposed class,
v. GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; AND
GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED, Case No. 3:20-cv-06772 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by Google's
unlawful anticompetitive conduct and an order enjoining its
unlawful practices.

The Plaintiff contends that although Google touts its role in
creating a marketplace for software developers, those developers in
fact have no choice. Google has a monopoly in the market for
Android app stores, which it has unlawfully maintained through
anticompetitive conduct. As a result of its monopoly power and the
anticompetitive restraints it has imposed on device manufacturers,
app developers and consumers, Google has been able to extract from
developers a supracompetitive 30% tax on paid apps downloaded from
the Play Store as well as in-app purchases for products and
services.

Just 12 years after its launch, the Google Play Store -- Google's
applications store for mobile phones and tablets using the Android
operating system -- is now home to 2.96 million apps, making it the
biggest app store in the world. While Google developed some of
those apps itself, the vast majority were created by independent
app developers.

The Plaintiff Peekya is a Florida corporation that is a party to
and has complied with the Google-developer contracts. Peekya
developed and maintains an app called "Peekya" that has been and
currently is distributed through the Play Store.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff Peekya Services, Inc. and the Proposed
Class are:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Samantha J. Stein, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                  sstein@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          Katie R. Beran, Esq.
          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          Irving Sche, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7144
          E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
                  kberan@hausfeld.com
                  smartin@hausfeld.com
                  ischer@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael Lewis, Esq.
          THE LEWIS FIRM PLLC
          1300 I Street NW, Suite 400E
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 355-8895
          Facsimile: (888) 430-6695
          E-mail: mlewis@lewis-firm.com

GREEN DAY: Faces McLanahan TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls & Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCLANAHAN and CAMERON MCLANAHAN, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. GREEN
DAY POWER, Case No. 2:20-at-00941 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited
telephone calls and sending unsolicited automated text messages to
consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant begun contacting them on
June 3, 2019, shortly thereafter Plaintiff Cameron called the
Defendant to inform the company that he rejected its bid for the
installation of solar panels at his home, and lasting through
January 9, 2020. Many of the Defendant's calls were automated,
artificial, or prerecorded. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff
Cameron requested the Defendant to stop contacting him, the
Defendant however continued texting Plaintiff Cameron an
advertisements.

The Plaintiffs contend that they never requested, desired,
permitted, or otherwise provided their prior express written
consent to the Defendant to call and transmit texts to his cellular
telephone. Because of the Defendant's numerous unsolicited calls
and texts, the Plaintiffs incurred expenses to their cellular
wireless service, wasted data storage capacity, as well as suffered
the nuisance, waste of time, aggravation, invasion of privacy, and
intrusion upon their seclusion, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael McLanahan is the primary subscriber to the
cellular service family plan that received all of the Defendant's
calls and texts. Plaintiff Cameron McLanahan is Michael's brother
and uses the same cellular telephone number.

Green Day Power provides solar solutions for homeowners in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          268 Bush St., #4500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Tel: (415) 901-0500
          Fax: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

                - and –

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


GRUMA CORP: Faces Govea Suit Over Misleading Labels of Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS GOVEA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. GRUMA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-08585-MWF-JC (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's misleading
business practices with respect to the sale of Guerrero products
that contain Mexican representations in violation of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False
Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed and sold the
Guerrero products with labeling, packaging, and advertising that
make references to Mexico, and by using Spanish words. The
products' labeling, packaging, and marketing led the Plaintiff and
other consumers to reasonably believe that they were purchasing
tortillas and other products that are made in Mexico, when in
reality the products are not made in the said country.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant's conduct is
intentional to target consumers, who are interested in purchasing
tortillas and other products from Mexico, and to serve its
profit-maximizing interests.

Based in Irving, Texas, Gruma Corporation manufactures and
distributes corn flour, corn tortillas, and related products such
as wraps and corn chips through roughly 25 production plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Defends Stockholder Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guidewire Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020, that the company is
defending against a putative securities class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
initiated by its stockholder.

On July 24, 2020, one of the Company's stockholders filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against the
Company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants' time to respond has been extended by agreement of the
parties until the court has appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiff and an operative complaint has been identified. The
deadline for filing a request to be appointed lead counsel is
September 23, 2020.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Guidewire Software, Inc. delivers the platform Property and
Casualty ("P&C") insurers trust to engage, innovate, and grow
efficiently. Guidewire’s platform combines core operations,
digital engagement, analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI)
applications delivered as a cloud service or self-managed software.
The company is based in San Mateo, California.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Sues Over Excessive Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability
company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut
corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06789 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2020),
seeks to remedy the Defendants' unfair business practice of
unjustly profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic by collecting and/or
retaining excessive, unfair premiums in violation of California’s
inherent public policy limiting insurers to a fair rate of return.

The Plaintiff contends Hartford has continued to collect excessive
premiums and failed to issue appropriate refunds. While many
industries and companies have been decimated by the COVID-19
pandemic, commercial property and casualty insurers like Hartford
and its wholly-owned subsidiary Sentinel Insurance have experienced
a windfall. Hartford's premiums are calculated based on the risks
associated with type, volume, and location of certain business
operations. As a result of the substantial reduction or elimination
of business operations beginning in March 2020, the premiums
charged by The Hartford are well in excess of a fair rate of
return.

Beginning in March 2020, California health authorities began to
enforce strict social distancing measures in an effort to slow the
spread of COVID-19, including the closing of nonessential
businesses and strict shelter-in-place orders that prevented most
people from leaving their homes for extended periods of time.

Rejoice! conducted business at certain insured commercial premises,
including roasting coffee beans for retail and wholesale and
operating coffee shops, prior to the shelter in place orders.

Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance company.
The Hartford is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in its namesake
city of Hartford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq.
          Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq.
          BERDING & WEIL LLP
          2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: 925 838-2090
          Facsimile: 925 820-5592
          E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com
                  fhagen@berdingweil.com

               - and -

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          Robert S. Robinson, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          178 E. Prospect Avenue
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
                  rob@robrobinsonlaw.com

               - and -

          John D. Green, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com

HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Russell HIPAA Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHERRY RUSSELL, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL
BROADWAY CAMPUS and CIOX HEALTH, LLC, Case No. EF2020-2203, was
removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of Ulster, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on
September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01204-GLS-ATB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of federal
law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act (HITECH), by overcharging the Plaintiff and
Class members for electronic copies of medical records.

Healthalliance Hospital Broadway Campus is a medical center with a
principal place of business in Ulster County, New York. Ciox
Health, LLC is a healthcare information management company with
headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
         Gilad Bendheim, Esq.
         KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
         601 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 446-4800
         Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
         E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                 gilad.bendheim@kirkland.com


HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Suit Moved From M.D. Florida to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRAVIS MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01561, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-04027-ELR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended
by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA), by failing to provide the Plaintiff and the putative Class
members with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their
right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a
qualifying event as defined by the statute.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

         Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
         E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) between
February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 21, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Insperity investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Insperity class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Insperity had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with
its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately
disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2)
Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (3) as a mitigating measure, Insperity would be forced to
increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted
customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results. 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 September
21, 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-1902.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.

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.

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]

INTEL CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminded investors of the upcoming
September 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) securities
between October 25, 2019 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Intel investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the
Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.81, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.

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 Intel had identified a defect mode in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that,
as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its
production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was
reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for
manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to
its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and
(5) 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 Intel securities, you may
move the Court no later than September 28, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. 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 these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.  [GN]

INTEL CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company")(NASDAQ:INTC)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
indexed under 20-cv-05549, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise, acquired Intel securities between April 23, 2020, and
July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intel securities during the
class period, you have until September 28, 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.

Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking,
data storage, and communication solutions worldwide. It operates
through Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile
Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, Client
Computing Group, and All Other segments.

According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next
generation following Intel's 10-nanometer technology. Intel claims
that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area efficiency of
10-nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per
watt. In May 2019, Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer
products in 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Intel had identified a
defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield
degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company would experience a
six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer
products; (iii) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on
third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products;
(iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably
likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already
selling 7-nanometer products; and (v) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed
production delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company
had "identified a defect mode in [its] seven-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, Intel's share price fell $9.81 per share, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

JCF RESIDENCES: Atwood Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANI ATWOOD v. JCF RESIDENCES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, JCF
RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN FITZMAURICE, Case No.
1:20-cv-00056 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks relief on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for the damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, as amended by the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Defendants' breach
of contract and promissory estoppel.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, who worked for the
Defendants, lost her childcare for one of her two children due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and, as a result, was forced first to
telecommute some days and ultimately to request leave provided
under the FFCRA, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave
Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. The Plaintiff
says she was denied the leave she requested and the Defendants even
terminated her employment shortly after she made the request.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants to handle home design
development from February 2018 until June 4, 2020, when the
Defendants informed her via email of the termination of her
employment.

JCF Residences Management Company, LLC, is a Spring Hill,
Tennessee-based company that is part of the multi-family real
estate industry.[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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Can't Compel Medical Records of Susan Chamlin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW CHAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19cv3852 (AJN) (DF)
(S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants'
motion to compel production of Susan Chamlin's medical records.

The putative class action, alleging that the Defendants engaged in
false and misleading labeling of a food product, in violation of
New York law, has been referred to the New York District Court by
the Hon. Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J., for general pretrial
supervision.  Currently before the Court is a motion by the
Defendants to compel compliance with a subpoena served on
non-party, Ms. Chamlin, the wife of Plaintiff Chamlin.

In particular, the Defendants seek production of certain of Ms.
Chamlin's medical records, on the grounds that those medical
records are non-privileged and relevant to the claims asserted by
Plaintiff in the action.  Ms. Chamlin, for her part, objects to
production of her medical records, based on her assertion that
those records are protected by the doctor-patient privilege.  The
Court held telephone conferences on the Defendants' motion on June
3 and June 4, 2020.

In support of their motion, the Defendants argue that (1) although
Ms. Chamlin would otherwise be entitled to assert the New York
doctor-patient privilege over communications with her doctor, the
medical records sought should not be found to be privileged in this
instance because the Plaintiff -- Ms. Chamlin's husband -- attended
Ms. Chamlin's relevant medical appointments with her, thereby
vitiating the privilege; and (2) even if Ms. Chamlin's medical
records retain privileged status, the privilege has been waived by
the Plaintiff's deposition testimony that he purchased the
Defendants' product for the first time only hours after receiving a
recommendation for the product from Ms. Chamlin's doctor --
testimony that, according to Defendants, has placed those
communications "at-issue" in the case.

As to the Defendants' first argument, that the presence of
Plaintiff at Ms. Chamlin's appointments renders the communications
with her physician non-privileged, Magistrate Judge Freeman notes
that the presence of a third party is not necessarily fatal to the
applicability of the doctor-patient privilege under New York law.
She concludes that the presence of a spouse at a doctor's
appointment is consistent with an intention to keep such
communications confidential, and that Ms. Chamlin's communications
with her physician in the presence of her husband are therefore
privileged.  Although the Defendants further contend that the
Plaintiff's willingness to testify at his deposition about the
appointment demonstrates that Ms. Chamlin did not intend to keep
the conversation confidential, the Magistrate Judge is not
persuaded that conduct by the Plaintiff (who is not the holder of
the privilege) is compelling evidence of Ms. Chamlin's own
intentions.

As to the Defendants' second argument, that Plaintiff has put the
privileged communications "at issue" in the case, the Magistrate
Judge is equally unpersuaded.  Essentially, the Defendants are
making a relevance argument, contending that the communications
would tend to undermine the Plaintiff's claim that, in his decision
to purchase the Defendants' product, he relied on the information
contained on the product's packaging, and, relatedly, that the
labeling was material to his purchase decision.  That is
insufficient to give rise to an "at-issue" waiver.  

For all of the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Freeman denied
the Defendants' motion to compel production of Ms. Chamlin's
medical records.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/34ssqKk from Leagle.com.


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Obtains Judgment on Pleadings in Hicks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN HICKS, Plaintiff, v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-538-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Thomas
A. Varlan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The case is a counsel-filed proposed prisoner class action lawsuit
for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  On March 18, 2020, the
Court entered an order screening the complaint, finding that only
Plaintiff Hicks' claim for injunctive relief arising out of his
allegation that Defendant Knox County's video visitation policy
violates his constitutional rights would proceed herein, and
denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Now before the Court is Defendant Knox County's motion for judgment
on the pleadings in which it asserts that the Court should dismiss
the action due to the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies and/or as moot.  The Plaintiff did not file
a response to the motion and his time for doing so has passed.  As
such, the Plaintiff waived any opposition thereto.  

In support of its motion, Defendant Knox County filed an affidavit
from Brian Bivens, the Assistant Chief of the Knox County Sheriff's
Department, in which he testifies that the Plaintiff, whom he names
as John Kevin Hicks, went into the custody of the Tennessee
Department of Correction ("TDOC") on Feb. 27, 2020.  Mr. Bivens
also testifies that TDOC's felony offender database,
https://apps.tn.gov/foil-app/results.jsp, states that John Kevin
Hicks is currently incarcerated in the Bledsoe County Correctional
Complex, which the Court has confirmed.

Judge Varlan holds that prisoner claims for injunctive and/or
declaratory relief regarding issues in a prison facility are moot
when inmate is no longer incarcerated at that facility.  Moreover,
if a case in federal court loses its character as an actual, live
controversy at any point during its pendency, it is said to be
moot.  Should that occur, the case is no longer within the
jurisdiction of the federal courts, and therefore must be
dismissed.

Accordingly, Judge Varlan granted the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings to the extent that the action will be
dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/33BTgjL from Leagle.com.


LDA DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Mendez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LDA DESIGNS, INC. and ANTHONY CALAMUSA, as an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-04555 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2002 until
February 2020 to perform primary duties, such as laying bricks and
pouring cement.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 57
or more hours per week for the Defendants without being compensated
of his lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times of his
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll records and post notices
of the minimum wage and overtime wages requirements.

LDA Designs, Inc., provides building remodeling services. The
company is owned and operated by Anthony Calamusa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEND LEASE: Mismanages Housing at MCB Camp Lejeune, Johnson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
1ST SGT SCOTT JOHNSON, LINDSEY JOHNSON, SSGT GARRETT BURN, KALIE
BURN, CPL WILLIAM LEWIS, LAKIN LEWIS, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC
PARTNERSHIPS LLC, LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS HOLDINGS LLC,
AMCC MANAGING MEMBER LLC, ATLANTIC MARINE CORPS COMMUNITIES LLC,
AMCC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, ATLANTIC MARINE CORPS COMMUNITIES
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, and WR SOUTH
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00174-D (E.D.N.C., Sept. 18, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' engagement in unfair and deceptive trade
practices in marketing and leasing homes to the Plaintiffs and
proposed class members at MCB Camp Lejeune.

The Defendants, consisting of Lend Lease and Winn entities, own and
manage the housing units at the MCB Camp Lejeune under the terms of
a 50-year ground lease with the United States Department of the
Navy. The Plaintiffs note that the government placed its trust in
these private companies, who promised both the Navy and the
military families that they would provide excellent quality
housing, which is necessary so that servicemembers, including the
Plaintiffs, can maintain morale and focus on protecting the
nation.

According to the complaint, after being given sole responsibility,
the Defendants placed profits over tenants as the rental housing
has been plagued by problems consistent with "slumlord" property
management, including water intrusion, mold, mildew, filth, insect
pests, broken and unreliable HVAC and appliances, and other issues.
The military housing property management has allegedly became a
profit center for the Defendants, as they took the full Basic
Allowance for Housing ("BAH") for each servicemember tenant each
month. The Plaintiff class representatives exemplify the negative
effects that the unfair and deceptive residential leasing business
model has caused, and that the Defendants' failure to abide by
their promises to tenants and to the government has caused.

The Defendants consist of entities associated with the Lend Lease
construction and property development multinational based in
Australia, and the Winn property management company headquartered
in Boston, Massachusetts. The Lend Lease and Winn organizations
formed a joint venture to build, own and manage the privatized
military housing at MCB Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
          Janet R. Coleman, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  jrc@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          John J. Drudi, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM PLC
          10476 Armstrong Street
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                  Jdrudi@wiselaw.pro

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Kenya Reddy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  KReddy@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
          John Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 N. Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244
          E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
                  jhughes@wallacegraham.com


LME INC: Arnold WARN Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN ARNOLD, ROBERT BECK, BOBBY BROCKHOUSE,
WILLIAM "KEITH" CALICOTT, LHOUCINE CHAL, CHRISTOPHER CURTIS,
SHEYENNE CURTIS, CHRISTIAN DAWSON, INES GARZA, DANIEL GREGORY,
BONNIE GUSTASON, RONALD GUSTASON, TIMOTHY HOLT, DAVID MESSBARGER,
KIRK RAYMOND, ANDREW RICHARDSON, JULIE SNEAD, GIOVANNI VARGAS,
DARIAN WALLER, and JAMES WEST, on their own behalves and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. LME, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00555, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-02082-JRT-ECW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing
to give its employees notice of its closures more than 60 days in
advance as mandated by law.

LME, Inc., is a less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking company with its
principal place of business located at 500 W. County Road D., in
New Brighton, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
         Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq.
         CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
         8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 225
         Kansas City, MO 64151
         Telephone: (816) 581-4040
         Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
         E-mail: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
                 j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com


LOANCARE LLC: Faces Landers RESPA Suit Over Improper Escrow Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD LANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOANCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00284 (E.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 30, 2020), is brought under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act arising from the Defendant's charging of improper
escrow fees.

The Defendant is the servicer of a Promissory Note and Deed of
Trust secured by the Plaintiff's real property, located at 4612
Malinta Lane, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on behalf of Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC. As part of its servicing duties for all loans
relevant to the complaint, the Defendant collects and remits fees
relative to the escrow account established pursuant to the Deed of
Trust.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all putative class
members live in municipalities within the State of Tennessee that
charge water quality fees. These water quality fees have been found
to be a user fee and not a tax. Despite these edicts by various
governmental entities in the State of Tennessee, the Defendant has
been systematically paying these water quality fees as a portion of
the escrow amounts for the loan and the loans of each putative
Class member, imposing these fees as an escrow requirement, and
improperly inflating the amount of money that the Plaintiff and
Class members' must place in their escrow account for years,
collecting interest on the excess funds and converting funds that
should be in the hands of borrowers whose loans are serviced by
LoanCare.

The Plaintiff has a private right of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1640(a)(2)(C) for the claimed breaches and such action provides for
remedies, including actual damages, costs, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees, the suit says.

LoanCare, LLC, is a mortgage servicing company with headquarters in
Virginia Beach, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: A. Pascale Named Sub. Plaintiff in Briggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Deshawn Briggs, et al., Plaintiffs, v. County of
Maricopa, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM (D.
Ariz.), Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona granted Antonio Pascale's Motion
to Substitute Plaintiff.

A. Pascale is the son of named Plaintiff Mark Pascale (the
"Decedent"), who recently passed away.  A. Pascale is the
Court-appointed personal representative of the Decedent's estate
and asks the Court to substitute him for the Decedent as a named
Plaintiff in the suit.

In September 2017, the Decedent was charged with marijuana
possession.  The prosecutor in the Decedent's case offered that if
he consented to participate in the Marijuana Deferred Prosecution
Program ("MDPP") for 90 days and completed all program
requirements, criminal proceedings would be suspended.  The
Decedent agreed to the prosecutor's offer and entered MDPP on Nov.
17, 2017.

After 90 days in MDPP, the Decedent had complied with all program
requirements except for the payment of required program fees.  As a
result, his required participation in the program was extended
pending payment.  The Decedent was required to pay for drug and
alcohol testing three times per week while he remained enrolled in
MDPP.  He satisfied all payments and finally graduated from MDPP on
June 9, 2018, almost seven months after he first enrolled in the
program.  On Sept. 5, 2018, the court dismissed all criminal
charges against him.

On Aug. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their initial class action
complaint with the Court alleging multiple causes of action under
Section 1983 for wealth-based discrimination in violation of their
Fourteenth Amendment rights, and unreasonable search and seizure in
violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The
case is now proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed by
the Plaintiffs on Sept. 23, 2019.  They are seeking compensatory
damages, punitive damages, damages for pain and suffering, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Oct. 27, 2019, the Decedent unexpectedly died of causes
unrelated to the present suit.  A. Pascale, his son, was
subsequently appointed as the personal representative of the
Decedent for probate purposes.  On Nov. 7, 2019, the surviving
Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the Decedent's death.  On
Jan. 28, 2020, TASC filed a Notice of Death with the Court pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(a)(1).

A. Pascale filed his Motion for Substitution on April 27, 2020.
The Defendants filed their responses in opposition to the motion on
May 11, 2020.  A. Pascale filed his reply on May 18, 2020.

A. Pascale argues that the Court should grant his Motion for
Substitution because: (1) the motion is timely filed; (2) he is the
proper party for substitution; and (3) the Decedent's
constitutional claims and claims for damages survive his death and
pass to his personal representative.

The Defendants oppose the Motion for Substitution arguing that: (1)
under Arizona law, a decedent's Section 1983 claim alleging
violation of his or her Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure does not survive the decedent's
death; and (2) Arizona law precludes a decedent's personal
representative from recovering the decedent's pre-death pain and
suffering damages where the decedent's death was not causally
related to the defendant's challenged conduct.

Judge Markovich finds that A. Pascale's Motion for Substitution
should be granted because the Decedent's substantive claims and
claim for damages have not been extinguished by Arizona's survival
statute.

A. Pascale is pursuing a Section 1983 claim against the Defendants
for violation of the Decedent's Fourth Amendment right to be free
of unreasonable search and seizure.  Because Arizona's survival
statute allows the survival of most causes of action after a
decedent plaintiff's death, because the Decedent's tort claim is
not included among those enumerated in the survival statute as
necessarily extinguished upon his death, and because the Court has
specifically held that Fourth Amendment causes of action survive,
the Judge finds that Decedent's claim survives his death.  

Although the Defendants argue that the Court's decision in
Fernandez v. Virgillo, requires that the Court finds the Decedent's
claim to be extinguished, the Court in Erickson v. Camarillo
rejected Fernandez for its failure to consider the inconsistency
between A.R.S. Section 14-3110 and the underlying policy goals of
Section 1983.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that the state survival
statute is not controlling and the Court will allow A. Pascale to
pursue the Decedent's Fourth Amendment cause of action as the
Decedent's personal representative.

And, although Arizona's survival statute explicitly precludes a
substituted plaintiff from recovering a decedent's pre-death
damages for pain and suffering, the Judge finds that, pursuant to
Erickson and the other decisions, to apply A.R.S. Section 14-3110
to deny recovery in the case would be inconsistent with the twin
policy goals of compensation and deterrence underlying Section
1983.  Further, the Arizona survival statute is inconsistent with
Section 1983 regardless of whether the Defendants' actions
precipitated Decedent's death or not.  Therefore, the Judge finds
that A.R.S. Section 14-3110 does not extinguish the Decedent's
damages claim for pre-death pain and suffering, and the Judge will
grant A. Pascale's Motion for Substitution.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Markovich granted A.
Pascale's Motion to Substitute.  A. Pascale, in his role as the
personal representative of Mark Pascale's estate, is substituted
for the Decedent Plaintiff.  The case caption of the action be
amended to replace "MARK PASCALE" with "ANTONIO PASCALE, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Pascale."

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3lmNMQc from Leagle.com.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Servers File Class Action Over Unpaid Gratuities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Reilly, writing for WKBW-TV, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed in U.S. District Court naming Marriott
International, Inc and NFNY Hotel Management LLC as defendants.

NFNY Hotel Management operates the Sheraton Niagara Falls hotel on
Third Street in the Cataract City.

The lawsuit alleges that the Sheraton Niagara Falls routinely added
a service charge of 1% to 3% onto food and beverage bills, but the
money was not paid to servers.

The out-of-state attorneys, who filed the lawsuit, said in their
court filing that customers thought the "hidden" service charge was
a gratuity for the servers.

However, the lawsuit claims those service charges were not paid to
servers, beverage servers, banquet servers, in-room dining servers,
or other employees doing similar jobs during a period between 2012
and September 2019.

Servers claim the hotel did not pay them their gratuities

The court filing claims more than 100 current and former employees
will be part of the class-action lawsuit with more than $5 million
in dispute.

In an email from Sheraton Niagara Falls legal counsel, Stephen
Sharkey, the attorney said Marriott and NFNY dispute the claims and
"intend to zealously defend against the claims asserted against
them in the lawsuit."

The attorney said the case was just recently transferred to the
Western District as a result of a motion that was filed (The
lawsuit was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York).

Sharkey also said, "we have already succeeded in obtaining
plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of four of the seven claims that
have been asserted against Marriott and NFNY in the action."

The lawsuit was originally filed with U.S. Federal Court in early
April. [GN]


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Continues to Defend ADI Merger Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend several suits including
two putative securities class suit, related to its merger with
Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI).

On August 17, 2020, Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI") filed a
registration statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-248092) (as
amended, the "Form S-4") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") in connection with ADI's proposed
acquisition of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (the "Company" or
"Maxim") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
July 12, 2020 (as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among ADI, Magneto Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of ADI ("Acquisition Sub") and the Company.

On September 4, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its definitive
joint proxy statement on Schedule 14A relating to the special
meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on
October 8, 2020 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") to, among other
things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.

Since the initial filing of the Form S-4, six complaints
(collectively, the "Maxim Stockholder Complaints"), including two
putative securities class action lawsuits, have been filed in
federal courts in California, Delaware and New York by purported
Maxim stockholders against Maxim and the members of the Maxim board
of directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement: Shiva Stein v. Maxim Integrated Products,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05830 (N.D. Cal., filed August 18,
2020); Joseph Post v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-mc-09999 (D. Del., filed August 24, 2020) (the “Post
Action”); Waseem Khan v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03982 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 26, 2020); Joseph
Burns v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-07168
(S.D.N.Y., filed September 2, 2020); John Husselman v. Maxim
Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07525
(S.D.N.Y., filed September 14, 2020); and Joseph Schaffer v. Maxim
Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06816
(N.D.Cal., filed September 30, 2020). The Post Action also names
ADI and Acquisition Sub as defendants.

In addition, one complaint, Coe Living Trust v. Analog Devices,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11682 (D. Mass., filed September 11,
2020), has been filed by a purported ADI shareholder in federal
court in Massachusetts against ADI and the members of the ADI board
of directors and one derivative lawsuit has been filed against the
members of the ADI board of directors in state court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass. Sup. Ct., Norfolk Cnty., Case
No. 20-0864, filed September 11, 2020).

Each of the Federal Stockholder Complaints alleges, among other
things, that the Form S-4 omits material information concerning the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the
Exchange Act. The ADI State Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty
claims against ADI's directors in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the directors
fraudulently concealed information based on allegations that the
Form S-4 misrepresents or omits material information concerning the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Stockholder Complaints and the ADI
State Action, among other things, seek to enjoin the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement (and in two cases, to enjoin
the shareholder vote) or, in the alternative, rescission of the
merger or rescissionary damages, and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures,
and markets linear and mixed-signal integrated circuits. The
Company offers switching regulators, battery management,
amplifiers, data converters, filters, opticals, and memory
products. Maxim Integrated Products serves customers globally. The
company is based in San Jose, California.


MB DOWNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. MB DOWNEY RESTAURANTS, LLC; DENNY'S, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV37178 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act, including
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other employees mandated
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

The Defendants also failed to timely pay the employees, to provide
required meal and rest periods or provide premiums in lieu thereof,
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to timely pay
wages following termination or resignation of employment, according
to the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt server in
California from approximately 2014 through December 2019.

MB Downey Restaurants, LLC, is a company that owns and operates
restaurants in California. Denny's Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
         Dayna C. Carter, Esq.
         PETRONELLI LAW GROUP, PC
         295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201
         Long Beach, CA 90803
         Telephone: (888) 855-3670
         Facsimile: (888) 449-9675
         E-mail: christian@petronellilaw.com
                 dayna@petronellilaw.com


MDL 2972: Allen Seeks Transfer of 8 Blackbaud Breach Suits to S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Allen v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C.), seeks approval from the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 18,
2020, to transfer related actions to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina under MDL No. 2972, IN RE:
Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The actions include:

   -- Mamie Estes et al. v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-08275 (C.D. Cal);

   -- Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-08356
      (C.D. Cal.);

   -- Arthur et al v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-14319
      (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Graifman v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07600
      (S.D.N.Y.);

   -- Zielinski v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07714
      (S.D.N.Y.);

   -- Allen v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C.);

   -- Johnson v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03181
      (D.S.C.); and

   -- Martin v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03286 (D.S.C.).

The briefing schedule in the motion to transfer is set as follows:

   -- Responses are due on or before October 13, 2020; and

   -- Reply, if any, is due on or before October 20, 2020.

Blackbaud, Inc. is a cloud computing provider that serves the
social good community including nonprofits, foundations,
corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations,
religious organizations, and individual change agents. Its products
focus on fundraising, website management, CRM, analytics, financial
management, ticketing, and education administration.[BN]


MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN and ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS,
LLC d/b/a GLOBAL BUSINESS LENDING, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-at-00938 (E.D. Cal.,
Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent and willful
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant contacted them on their
cellular telephone numbers by using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit them to purchase its
services despite not obtaining their "prior express consent to
receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice
on their cellular telephones.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were harmed by the
Defendant's unsolicited calls that include causing them to incur
certain charges, as well as invading their privacy.

Millenial Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Global Business Lending, offers
loan to small businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MOUNTAIRE CORP: Ordered to Pay Cuppels' Counsel $28,000 Sanction
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE
CORPORATION, an Arkansas corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, C. A. No. S18C-06-009 CAK (Del.
Super.), Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of the Superior Court of Delaware
ordered the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs' counsel $28,320.25
without delay.

Plaintiffs Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels, in their individual
capacity and on behalf of similarly-situated individuals, filed the
lawsuit in June 2018 against Defendants Mountaire Corp. ("MC"),
Mountaire Farms, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.
related to the operation of a chicken processing facility in Sussex
County, Delaware.  The Defendants separately moved to dismiss the
Complaint in July 2018.  Two weeks later, on Oct. 26, 2018, they
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2019, the Court entered an order with respect to the
Motions to Dismiss, in which it concluded that limited discovery
should be allowed for the limited purpose of (a) determining
whether the Plaintiffs can maintain the action as a class action
and (b) deciding whether MC has sufficient contact with Delaware to
permit the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.  The
Feb. 22 Order further provided that the parties may conduct
discovery, limited to (i) the elements of class certification as
outlined by Rule 23(b), and (ii) MC's contacts with Delaware.

On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs propounded a set of
Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for
Admissions directed to the Defendants.  On April 10, 2019, the
Defendants served their Responses to Interrogatories and Requests
for Production.  Two days later, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to
the Court, in which the counsel represented that the parties'
positions on the scope of discovery are polarized and the Court's
intervention is necessary.

The Court held an office conference on April 30, 2019, and one day
later, the parties sought clarification of the Feb. 22 Order.  On
May 14, 2019, the Court appointed David A. White, Esquire as
Special Discovery Master.  Two weeks later, the Court provided
further clarity regarding the scope of the Defendants' discovery
obligations, in which it authorized the Plaintiffs to seek
discovery limited to theories of specific jurisdiction under 10
DEL. C. Section 3104(c), civil conspiracy, and agency.

On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to compel the Defendants'
supplemental response to the Jurisdictional Discovery Requests.
Briefing on the Jurisdictional Motion to Compel concluded, and the
Special Master issued a thirty-seven page letter decision and
opinion granting the Plaintiffs' request for relief in part.  

The Special Master granted similar relief with respect to the
Jurisdictional Discovery Request for Production Directed to MFODI.
The Defendants took exception to the June 2019 Decision, which the
Court denied in large part.  The Court described the June 2019
Decision as "robust" and "comprehensive."  Other than a limitation
imposed on Defendants' obligation to respond to a single
interrogatory, the Court adopted the June 2019 Decision in toto.

Following the issuance of the August 2019 Order, the Court stayed
the action to provide the parties with an opportunity to pursue
mediation.  The parties' efforts to mediate ultimately failed and
the stay expired.  While the Defendants' subsequent efforts to
comply with the Jurisdiction Discovery Order are unclear, as of the
Court's Office Conference on Dec. 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs insisted
that the Defendants had not satisfied their obligations.

In January 2020, the Defendants supplemented their response to the
Jurisdictional Discovery Requests.  Shortly thereafter, the
Plaintiffs complained of 'extensive redactions' undertaken by the
Defendants in their document production and requested a privilege
log for all withheld documents and an appropriately detailed
redaction log.  The Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs'
complaints.

On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs formally sought to compel the
Defendants' production of unredacted copies of the documents
identified on the Redaction Logs.  That same day, the Plaintiffs
sought the entry of an order compelling the production of
unredacted copies of minutes from the Defendants' meeting of
shareholders and board of directors, respectively.  The Redaction
Motion to Compel and the Meeting Minutes Motion to Compel presented
an area of overlap concerning the Defendants' decision to redact
portions of meeting minutes.  The Defendants redacted the meeting
minutes on the basis of responsiveness, in which they interpreted
the June 2019 Order to permit the redaction of those sentences,
paragraphs, or pages from meeting minutes that did not touch on the
aforementioned subjects.

The Special Master issued a letter decision and opinion concerning
the Redaction Motion to Compel and the Meeting Minutes Motion to
Compel on April 30, 2019.  The April 30 Decision compelled the
Defendants to produce unredacted copies of numerous documents,
including meeting minutes.  The Special Master rejected the
Defendants' efforts to redact portions of responsive documents, in
which the April 30 Decision cited to four cases from the district
courts sitting in the Third Circuit in the previous four-year
period which were adverse to the Defendants' redaction position.

Further, the Special Master characterized the Defendants'
interpretation of the June 2019 Decision as incorrect and without a
basis of support, in which he found that the June 2019 Decision
excused the Defendants from having to produce any meeting minutes,
i.e., documents, which did not include information relevant to the
subject areas.  To the extent that any portion of the minutes from
any meeting discussed one of the subject areas listed in the June
2019 Decision, the document is responsive and it should be produced
in its entirety (subject to the proper assertion of privilege).
Finally, the Special Master rejected the Defendants'
confidentiality concerns based on the confidentiality order
negotiated by the parties approximately one year prior to the April
30 Decision, in which the confidentiality order included strict
provisions limiting the Plaintiffs' use of discovery materials.

The Defendants did not take an exception to the April 30 Decision.
Pursuant to it, they produced unredacted meeting minutes among
other documents.  The Plaintiffs' review of the unredacted
documents prompted the filing of the Second Sanctions Motion.

The Court is asked to examine if one party has gone beyond the
bounds of what is acceptable.

Judge Karsnitz addressed the Plaintiffs' first motion several weeks
ago and denied it in an oral ruling.  In that ruling, the Judge
expressed deep concern about the Defendants' tactics and conduct.
While he believed at that time Defendants' conduct supported
sanctions, the Judge exercised his discretion and gave them another
chance.  Among other things, in reviewing the first motion, the
Judge was flabbergasted that the Defendants had filed a motion to
compel responses to Rule 302 interrogatory answers almost two years
after they had been filed.  The Judge has also at, he believes,
every conference, hearing or argument he has conducted to date,
warned the parties of the lack of civility which permeated the
case.

It is the Defendants' third strike.  The Judge has tried to control
the litigation not only through discovery rulings, but also by
importuning all parties to act civilly, to operate within Court
rules and to take positions supportable by precedent.

In his opinion, the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show both
violation of rulings the Court or the Special Master White have
made, and the Defendants wrongfully refused to disclose the
contents of documents which are obviously relevant.  The documents
inappropriately redacted bear directly upon one of the many
contested issues: whether the Court has jurisdiction of the
Defendant MC.  The battle over jurisdiction has lasted almost two
years, and, of course, significantly delayed the case.  While the
old saw "justice delayed is justice denied" can only be taken so
far, the Judge gives it more than due consideration.  The Judge's
urging to civility has fallen on deaf ears and he is entering an
order sanctioning all the Defendants.

Both case law and common sense dictate that before sanctioning a
party, the Judge must determine a violation of a court order
occurred.  The violation cannot be merely technical, but must be a
failure to obey the court in a meaningful way.  Courts have
authorized the sanction of dismissal or default judgment for
discovery violations.  In a least one case, the Court has
recognized the sanctions of deeming personal jurisdiction to be
admitted.

Five separate orders required the Defendants to produce the
documents requested.  In the Judge's view, the only way to move the
case fairly and to demonstrate his commitment to civility and
appropriate conduct is to order sanctions against the Defendants.


Judge Karsnitz will implement the least severe sanctions
appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.  The
Plaintiffs provide him three alternatives -- finding liability
against all the Defendants, deferring as a sanction that MC is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and money sanctions.

The Judge is left with the sanction of imposing fees and costs on
the Defendants as a sanction.  The Plaintiffs have requested fees
in the amount of $33,753 which were incurred as a result of the
fight over documents in the larger jurisdictional fight.  They also
requested that he assesses against the Defendants the sum of
$10,320.25 which represents their share of billings from Mr. White
for work he did addressing the document issues.

The Judge has reviewed Mr. White's billings.  What Mr. White has
billed is fair and reasonable, and was billed for time spent
addressing the document issues.  The Judge assesses it against all
the Defendants.

Imposing attorney's fees always has an element of arbitrariness.
The Plaintiffs ask for $33,750.  The Judge has no doubt the amount
requested represents a reasonable value of the professional service
and effort the Plaintiffs expended in responding to the document
issues.  However, the Judge is exercising his discretion in
awarding the lesser amount of $18,000.

Judge Karsnitz contemplated assessing the sanctions only against
MC.  The Judge is not, but rather is entering an order which holds
all the Defendants responsible, jointly and severally, for the
money sanctions.  The Judge does so because all the Defendants are
represented by the same counsel and their strategy has been joint.
In his view, they should be jointly responsible.

The Judge takes the actions he outlines with great hesitation.  The
Defendants are represented by competent, professional counsel.  The
Judge does not know where the breakdown in civility and tactics
occurred, and it matters not.  The Judge hopes that he will not
again in the case be presented with issues of sanctions for
inappropriate conduct.

Accordingly, Judge Karsnitz orders the Defendants to pay to the
Plaintiffs' counsel without delay $28,320.25, which represents
$18,000 in fees and $10,320.25 in costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/34vKFys from
Leagle.com.

Chase T. Brockstedt, Esquire -- chase@bmbde.com -- Stephen A.
Spence, Esquire, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, 1413 Savannah Road,
Ste. 1, Lewes, Delaware 19958, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Philip C. Federico, Esquire, Brent Ceryes, Esquire, Schochor,
Federico and Staton, P.A., 1211 Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21202, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

F. Michael Parkowski, Esquire -- mparkowski@pgslegal.com -- Michael
W. Teichman, Esquire, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., 1105 North
Market Street, 19th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys
for Defendants.

Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esquire -- lcm@pgmhlaw.com -- Todd L. Goodman,
Esquire, John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, Phillips, Goldman,
McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., 1200 North Broom Street, Wilmington, DE
19806, Attorneys for Defendants.

James R. Wedeking, Esquire -- JWEDEKING@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin, LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Attorney for
Defendants.


NANO-X IMAGING: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during the
period from August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were
fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nano-X
System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing
its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
admitted the Nano-X System was not original; and (4) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

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

         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         Admitted CA and NY Bar
         Tel No: 310-692-8883
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Dismisses Mestayer Suit Over ATES Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUES MESTAYER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, SECTION: "E" (3), Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-14432
(E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
12(b)(1), and 9(b).

The action is brought by Plaintiffs Mestayer and Theodore Wong, who
paid fines and penalties as mandated by notices of traffic
violations issued on behalf of the City of New Orleans Photo Safety
Program, after Nov. 4, 2010.  On Feb. 22, 2007, the City Council
enacted the Automated Traffic Enforcement System Ordinance ("ATES
Ordinance"), codified in Chapter 154 of the Code of the City of New
Orleans, Sections 154-2, and 154-1701-1704.

On Nov. 20, 2017, Plaintiff Mestayer received in the mail a Notice
of Violation alleging a violation of driving in excess of the speed
limit on Nov. 9, 2017.  He requested an Administrative Adjudication
Hearing before the City, which was held on May 15, 2018.  A Notice
of Determination was rendered by the City denying his appeal and
demanding payment in the amount of $110.  Mestayer appealed the
decision and, by judgment dated Aug. 20, 2018, the Municipal and
Traffic Court for the City of New Orleans court found Mestayer
liable for the violation as set forth in the Notice of Violation.


Mestayer appealed the judgment to the First City Court for the
Parish of Orleans and, by judgment dated May 7, 2019, that court
reversed the Aug. 20, 2018 judgment.  Because the City did not
appeal, the First City Court's judgment became final on May 7,
2019.  

Plaintiff Wong received two Notices of Violations, dated April 9,
2014 and Aug. 29, 2018, which he paid and did not contest.  

On Dec. 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal
court, bringing causes of action under the federal mail and wire
fraud criminal statutes, as well as Louisiana state laws
prohibiting fraud and unjust enrichment.  In their complaint, they
expressly allege the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act and supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367.

On Feb. 21, 2020, the City filed its first Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing the Court lacked diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to the CAFA.  On Feb. 27, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing
that, because they alleged the City violated the federal mail and
wire fraud criminal statutes, the Court has federal question
jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

During a telephone status conference on April 16, 2020, the
Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court the Plaintiffs concede the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter
under the CAFA or federal question jurisdiction based on violations
of the federal mail and wire fraud criminal statutes.  On April 17,
2020, the Court issued an Order and Reasons denying the City's
first Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,
and granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint.

On April 30, 2020, the City filed its second Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim should be dismissed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because
their Complaint on its face does not identify a constitutional
violation.  The City alternatively argues that, to the extent the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint could be read to allege a
constitutional violation, it does not clearly state whether the
Plaintiffs allege a procedural due process claim or substantive due
process claim.  

The City next argues the Plaintiffs' claim for relief under the
federal mail and wire fraud statutes, should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) because those federal criminal statutes do not
provide a private right of action.  Finally, the City argues the
Plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed because, upon
dismissal of their federal claims in their Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs will have stated no viable federal claim
against the City and with no federal question remaining, the Court
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, and dismiss the Plaintiffs'
state law claims.

Judge Morgan holds that the Fifth Circuit has clearly held there is
no private right of action under the federal mail fraud statute.
Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has clearly held there is no private
right of action under the federal wire fraud statute.  Because the
federal mail and wire fraud statutes do not operate to create a
private cause of action for damages against the Defendants who have
allegedly violated the statutes, the motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the federal mail and fraud
statutes is granted.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims, in the
Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, they assert they
bring both a procedural due process claim as well as a substantive
due process claim.  Interestingly, in their sur-reply, the
Plaintiffs address only their procedural due process claim.  To the
extent their Second Amended Complaint may be construed as alleging
both a procedural due process claim and a substantive due process
claim, both claims fail to meet the pleading requirements under
Twombly and, as a result, both claims are dismissed.

The Plaintiffs have also failed to set forth facts that, taken as
true, would establish a procedural due process violation.  The only
remaining issue is whether they should be granted leave to amend
the allegations supporting their procedural due process claim.  The
Plaintiffs already have been given an opportunity to amend their
complaint to add allegations regarding their Section 1983 claims,
and have established no reason why they should be accorded a second
opportunity.  The Judge finds that allowing the Plaintiffs to
replead their procedural due process claim would be futile.  It is
clear to her that adequate procedural due process protections
already are in place.  The Plaintiffs are not granted leave to
amend and the City's motion to dismiss their procedural due process
claim is granted.

In considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it is
appropriate for the Court to consider judicial economy,
convenience, and fairness.  Further, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3)
states that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.  Such is the case in the matter, as all
federal law claims have been dismissed at an early stage of the
litigation.  Accordingly, the Judge grants the City's motion and
dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' state law unjust
enrichment and fraud claims.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Morgan granted the City's Motion
to Dismiss.  The Judge dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
federal mail and wire fraud claims and procedural and substantive
due process claims under Section 1983 against the City. The Judge
dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' state law unjust
enrichment and fraud claims against the City.  The City's request
for oral argument on the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://bit.ly/2GAYmEh from Leagle.com.


NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Nov. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of investors that purchased Nikola Corporation (
NKLA) securities between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%,
to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants 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.

If you purchased Nikola securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion
Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

                      About Bragar Eagel

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

NIKOLA CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Nov. 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (
NKLA, NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. ( VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Nikola
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.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VectoIQ did not
engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola;
(ii) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and
testing capabilities; (iii) Nikola overstated its hydrogen
production capabilities; (iv) as a result, Nikola overstated its
ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (v) Nikola founder and
Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test"
video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (vi) the work experience
and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had
been overstated and obfuscated; (vii) Nikola did not have five Tre
trucks completed; and (viii) 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Nikola
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
November 16, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Nov. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nikola Corporation  ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
NKLA) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-04354, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Nikola securities between June 4, 2020, and September 9,
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 Nikola 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.

Nikola purports to operate as an integrated zero-emissions
transportation systems provider. The Company purports to design and
manufacture battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The Company
also purports to develop electric vehicle solutions for military
and outdoor recreational applications. Nikola was founded in 2015
by Defendant Trevor Milton ("Milton"), and in June 2020, the
Company's securities began trading publicly after the execution of
a reverse merger with VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.

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) Defendant Milton had repeatedly
misrepresented and/or exaggerated Nikola's financial,
technological, and operational profile; (ii) the foregoing
misrepresentations were intended to, and did, present a materially
false image of the Company's growth and success, thereby
artificially inflating the Company's stock price; (iii) the
foregoing misrepresentations were foreseeably likely to subject the
Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement, along
with reputational harm when the truth came to light; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a
Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg
Report" or the "Report"). Asserting that it had gathered "extensive
evidence-including recorded phone calls, text messages, private
emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs," Hindenburg represented
that it had identified "dozens of false statements by" Milton,
which had led Hindenburg to conclude that Nikola "is an intricate
fraud built on dozen of lies over the course of . . . Milton's
career." Defendant Milton made these misrepresentations, the Report
asserted, to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships
with top auto companies.

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

Then, on September 14, 2020, after the market had closed, Bloomberg
reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was
investigating Nikola to assess the merits of the Hindenburg
Report.

Finally, on September 15, 2020, during intra-day trading, the Wall
Street Journal reported that the United States Department of
Justice had joined the SEC's investigation of Nikola.

On this news, Nikola's stock fell an additional $0.17 per share
during intra-day trading, to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020,
an 8.27% decline from its previous close on September 14, 2020.

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

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

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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.

Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)

Investors Affected : March 3, 2020 - September 15, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. The filed
complaint alleges that defendants made materially 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&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]

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nikola
Corporation ("Nikola" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:NKLA) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 4,
2020 and September 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 16, 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. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton,
materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business.
The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively
overstated. 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 Nikola, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals Ruling in CLRA Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Huu Nguyen filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case
No. 5:16-cv-05591-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Milan D.
Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

When Plaintiff Nguyen purchased a new 2012 Nissan 370Z as a college
graduation present for his son, he was unaware of what he alleges
was a potentially catastrophic design defect hidden in the
vehicle's hydraulic clutch system. After the clutch purportedly
malfunctioned--and the Plaintiff spent more than $700 replacing
it--he filed a putative class action against Defendant Nissan,
asserting causes of action under state and federal warranty laws.

The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged five causes of
action against Nissan: (1) violations of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) breach of implied warranty pursuant to
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (4) breach of implied
warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (5) unjust
enrichment. The district court granted in part Nissan's motion to
dismiss, removing the Plaintiff's UCL and unjust enrichment claims,
and his request for injunctive relief under the CLRA.

The Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (or, in the alternative, under
Rule 23(c)(4) for liability only), seeking to certify (1) a class
of all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from an
authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped with a
FS6R31A manual transmission; and (2) a CLRA subclass of all members
of the Class who are 'consumers' within the meaning of California
Civil Code Section 1761(d).

Although Nissan opposed class certification for various
reasons--including that the Plaintiff was not an adequate class
representative, that individual issues predominated due to the
varying types of automobiles included in the Class Vehicles, and
that Nissan's purported knowledge of the defect changed over the
course of the class period--major point of dispute, and the issue
on which the district court's eventual order hinged,
concerned the Plaintiff's damages model.

According to the Plaintiff, his "damages model is based on the
economic principle of benefit-of-the-bargain and is consistent with
[his] theory of liability."  Assuming that the class members would
have either paid less than sticker price or not purchased a
defective vehicle at all had the nature of the clutch system been
divulged by Nissan, the Plaintiff seeks "to recover the difference
in value between the non-defective vehicles Nissan promised and the
defective vehicles that were delivered based on the cost to replace
the composite CSC with one that is solid cast-aluminum." Nissan
challenges this proposed damages model, citing the report of an
expert who, in its words, rejected the notion that
average-cost-of-repair represented the amount that informed
consumers would discount the price of the Class Vehicles.

The district court agreed with Nissan and denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification. It concluded that the Plaintiff
failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3),
based on what the court viewed as a "problematic" damages model.

The appellate case is captioned as Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North
America, Inc., Case No. 20-80138, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          John Ely Stobart, Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: john.stobart@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Respondent NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Adler, Esq.
          Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          E-mail: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com
                  paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com  

               - and -

          Edwin Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          Sherman Vance Wittie, Esq.
          FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, L.L.P.
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 357-2500
          E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com
                  vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Thurston, Esq.
          Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 203-4000
          E-mail: adam.thurston@faegredrinker.com
                  zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

Investors Affected : December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally
administered chemotherapy agent, 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&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]

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.  ("Odonate" or the "Company")
(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.  [GN]

OHIO STATE: Court Lifts Seal in Amended Garrett & Snyder-Hill Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, BRIAN GARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY, Defendant. STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, No.
2:18-cv-736 (S.D. Ohio), Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, directed the Clerk of Court to
file the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in Case No.
2:18-cv-692, and the Second Amended Complaint in Case No.
2:18-cv-736 on the public record.

In accordance with the Court's Order issued on May 20, 2020, the
Plaintiffs in both of the cases filed Amended Complaints on May 27,
2020 under seal.  The Defendant filed a Response on June 10, 2020,
stating that it had reviewed both Complaints for confidentiality
concerns as directed.  The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs responded to the
Defendant's confidentiality concerns on June 12, 2020.

The Defendant indicates that it does not believe the pleading in
Garrett contains confidential information.  Magistrate Judge
Deavers agrees.  Accordingly, the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint will be filed on the public record without redaction.

With respect to the Snyder-Hill pleading, the Defendant identifies
three paragraphs -- 237, 238, and 247 -- that it believes are
arguably protected from disclosure by Ohio Rev. Code Section
4731.22.(F)(5).  In considering whether information ought to be
sealed, the Sixth Circuit's decision in Shane Group requires a
district court to balance, among other things, the nature of the
public's interest in the litigation's subject matter; whether the
information sought to be sealed is required by statute to be
maintained in confidence; and the privacy interests of innocent
third parties.

The Magistrate Judge concludes that despite Ohio's strong statutory
confidentiality provision, the public interest requires that the
Second Amended Complaint be filed on the public record in its
entirety without redaction.  Secrecy may have been fine at earlier
stages of the case, but different considerations apply at the
adjudication stage.  The line between these stages is crossed once
information is placed on the Court record.  

As noted, the public has significant interest in not only the
outcome but in the conduct giving rise to the case.  Undoubtedly,
the allegations are of the type where the secrecy concerns noted in
Shane Group are particularly heightened.  These concerns strongly
outweigh the Defendant's suggestion that these three paragraphs may
require protection from public disclosure.

For the reasons stated, the Magistrate Judge lifted the seal and
directed the Clerk to file the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
and the Second Amended Complaint on the public record in their
entirety.  The responsive pleadings and replies will be filed
within rule thereafter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/34woCaV from Leagle.com.


OKONITE COMPANY: Parrish Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as WALTER PARRISH, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the public similarly situated and the State of
California v. THE OKONITE COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV02753, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on September
30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09000 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay wages at termination, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

The Okonite Company, Inc., is an American manufacturer of insulated
wire and cable, with its principal place of business located in
Ramsey, New Jersey.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Rachael Lavi, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: rlavi@littler.com

                - and –

         Lyndsey M. Marcelino, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         1300 IDS Center
         80 S. 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 630-1000
         E-mail: lmarcelino@littler.com


OTELCO INC: Defends Plumley Putative Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Otelco Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020, that the company
is defending against a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
entitled, Patrick Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No.
1:20-cv-01165-UNA

On July 27, 2020, Otelco Inc. filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Future Fiber FinCo, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 26, 2020 (as may be amended from time
to time, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Parent
and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On August 20, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its preliminary
proxy statement on Schedule 14A, and on September 9, 2020, the
Company filed with the SEC its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A, in each case relating to the special meeting of
stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on October 9, 2020
to, among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement.

On September 1, 2020, a purported stockholder of Otelco filed a
putative stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Patrick
Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of all public stockholders of Otelco against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors (the "PLUMLEY Action").

Thereafter, on September 21, 2020, another purported stockholder of
Otelco filed a separate individual lawsuit, captioned Jacob
Scheiner IRA v. Otelco Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-07756-AJN, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The Actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement
or the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain material
information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
further that the members of the Company's Board of Directors are
liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The relief sought in the Actions includes a preliminary and
permanent injunction to prevent the completion of the Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed, costs
and attorneys' fees.

While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and Definitive Proxy Statement comply
fully with applicable law, to resolve the alleged stockholders’
claims and moot the disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential
expense, and delay and to provide additional information to Otelco
stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement
the Definitive Proxy Statement. Nothing in the supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosures set
forth herein or in the Definitive Proxy Statement. To the contrary,
the Company denies all allegations that any additional disclosure
was, or is, required.

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

Otelco Inc. operates 11 rural local exchange carriers (RLECs)
serving subscribers in north central Alabama, central and southern
Maine, western Massachusetts, central Missouri, western Vermont,
and southern West Virginia. The Oneonta, Alabama-based Company is
the sole wireline telephone services provides for three of the
rural communities it serves.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Morlok, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled William Morlok, et al. v.
City of Philadelphia, Case No. 2-17-cv-04213, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 16,
2020, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying and
maintaining the case as a class action on behalf of the following
class:

   "all persons who applied for and were granted a reserved and
    designated electric vehicle parking space within the City of
    Philadelphia pursuant to Philadelphia City Ordinance Section
    12-1131, before it was amended effective April 20, 2017."

The lawsuit arises out of the City's wrongful conduct with respect
to the retroactive elimination of the Plaintiffs' designated and
exclusively reserved electric vehicle parking places.

The appellate case is captioned as William Morlok, et al. v. City
of Philadelphia, Case No. 20-2973, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM MORLOK, ADAM NOVICK, and THEODORE
LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
are represented by:

          Stephan Matanovic, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD
          2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 660-7600
       
               - and -

          Sean Whalen, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (484) 416-3207

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF PHILADELPHIA is represented by:

          Eleanor N. Ewing, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Field, Esq.
          Amy M. Kirby, Esq.
          City of Philadelphia
          1515 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 683-5012
          E-mail: Eleanor.Ewing@phila.gov
                  Benjamin.Field@phila.gov
                  Amy.Kirby@phila.gov


PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Yaroni Sues Over 92% Drop in IPO Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLON YARONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PINTEC TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, WEI WEI, STEVEN
YUAN NING SIM, JUN DONG, JING ZHOU, XIAOMEI PENG, CHAO ZHOU, FENG
HONG, JIACHENG LIU, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-08062 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and
misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with Pintec Technology's October
2018 initial public offering (IPO). Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Pintec erroneously
recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net
basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material
weaknesses in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting
related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to
Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing
transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal
2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about Pintec's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged about Pintec's financial condition, Pintec
stock declined to as low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline
from the $11.88 per share IPO price.

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

Pintec Technology Holdings Limited is an operator of an online
lending platform with its principal executive offices located in
Beijing, China.

Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is a wealth management company based in
New York, New York. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a company that
offers investment advisory services based in New York City.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a company that provides banking
and financial services based in New York City.[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
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and –

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


PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in Rossini Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN ROSSINI and MATTHEW KANE, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-1370 (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for final approval of the
parties' class-action settlement agreement, and for approval of the
Plaintiffs' counsel's requested award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

The case is a class-action lawsuit alleging that Defendants PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and Pennsylvania Criminal History
Record Information Act ("CHRIA").  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
contend that PNC violated the FCRA and CHRIA by failing to comply
with certain statutory disclosure and notice requirements during
its hiring and background check processes.  

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. GD-18-011610, on Sept. 6, 2018.  Plaintiffs
generally allege that PNC violated the FCRA and CHRIA by obtaining
job applicants' criminal history reports or drug test results and,
in some cases, rescinding job offers based on those reports.  With
respect to their FCRA claims, the Plaintiffs contend that PNC's
actions violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2), which they refer to
as the "Stand-Alone Disclosure" requirement, and 15 U.S.C. Section
1682b(b)(3), which they refer to as the "Pre-Adverse Action
Disclosure" requirement.

PNC disputes the Plaintiffs' contentions on several grounds.  In
its answer, PNC asserts that it is not liable because, according to
PNC: (1) the criminal history reports obtained on the purported
class members do not constitute "consumer reports" under the FCRA
(and thus the FCRA does not apply); (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are
not subject to class certification; (3) PNC's disclosure forms
complied with the law; (4) PNC's pre-adverse action procedures
complied with the law, and; (5) PNC did not act "willfully."

The parties attended mediation with Rodney Max in April 2019.  By
May, they reached a settlement-in-principle to resolve the
complaint.

The parties' settlement agreement provides members of four proposed
settlement classes the opportunity to receive payments from a
$626,960 settlement fund as follows:

   a. FCRA "Rescinded" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA
"Rescinded" class includes all individuals who applied for
employment with PNC during the relevant time period and received
offers of employment that PNC then rescinded based on the
applicants' criminal history reports or drug test results.  The
proposed settlement would allocate $189,760 to members of the
class, which will be paid automatically, by check, on a pro rata
basis to all class members who do not opt out.  The parties believe
that there are 1733 individuals in the class who will each receive
a payment of at least $109.49.

   b. FCRA "Decisional" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA
"Decisional" class includes all individuals who applied for
employment with PNC during the relevant time period whose criminal
history reports were coded "Decisional" by First Advantage, but
whose job offers PNC did not rescind as a result.  The proposed
settlement allocates $217,200 to members of the class, which will
be paid automatically, by check, on a pro rata basis to all class
members who do not opt out.  The parties believe that there are
3742 individuals in the class, who will each receive a payment of
at least $58.04.

   c. FCRA "Claims Made" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA
"Claims Made" class is divided into two sub-groups.  The FCRA
"Disclosure" sub-group consists of all individuals who applied for
employment with PNC during the relevant time period and received an
FCRA authorization and disclosure form only in PNC's online
employment application.  The FCRA "Drug Test" sub-group consists of
all individuals who applied for employment with PNC and "had a drug
test that was initially marked anything other than 'Negative' or
'Negative Dilute,' but who did not have an offer of employment
rescinded.  The proposed settlement allocates $170,000 to members
of this class, which will be paid on a pro rata basis to all class
members who (1) do not opt out and (2) timely submit a claim form.
The parties believe that there are 23,450 individuals in the class,
who will each receive at least $7.25.

   d. The CHRIA Settlement Class: The proposed class includes all
individuals residing in Pennsylvania who applied for employment
with PNC during the relevant period and received offers of
employment that PNC then rescinded based on a criminal history
report that did not reflect a conviction, such as reports
reflecting arrests, dropped charges, or pretrial diversion. The
proposed settlement allocates $30,000 to members of the class,
which will be paid on a pro rata basis to all class members who (1)
do not opt out and also (2) timely submit a claim form.  The
parties believe that there are 394 individuals in the class, who
will each receive a payment of at least $76.14.

PNC agreed to pay $10,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs as an
incentive award.  It agreed to pay all notice and administration
expenses.  The designated settlement administrator, Rust
Consulting, Inc., is responsible for (1) providing notice to class
members by U.S. Mail; (2) establishing and maintaining the internet
website containing information about the settlement; (3)
establishing and staffing a toll-free telephone number to answer
questions from settlement class members; (4) handling opt-out
requests from members of all settlement classes; (5) handling
claims submitted by members of the FCRA "Disclosure" and CHRIA
settlement classes; and (6) making payments to settlement class
members.

PNC agreed to not oppose the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys'
fees and costs, not to exceed $300,000.  Both parties agreed that
the payment of attorneys' fees would not diminish the fund
available to class members, and that the settlement would not
depend on the Court's approval of any fee award.

The Court conditionally certified the proposed settlement classes,
granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and approved the
proposed notice to class members on Jan. 9, 2019.

On Nov. 8, 2019, the settlement administrator mailed the notice
required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 to the United
States Attorney General, the regional and national offices of the
Office of the Comptroller of Currency, and the Federal Reserve Bank
of Cleveland.

On Feb. 10, 2020, the settlement administrator mailed 29,318 copies
of the notice and claims forms approved by the Court to all
settlement class members.  Only 696 settlement class members --
approximately 2% of the total class -- did not receive notice.

On the same day, initial notice was mailed, Feb. 10, 2020, the
settlement administrator also launched a website,
informationreportingsettlement.com, where information and documents
relevant to the settlement can be accessed.  

The Plaintiffs filed unopposed motions seeking final approval of
the parties' settlement agreement and approval of attorneys' fees
and costs in April 2020.  They also filed declarations regarding
the completion of class notice, and in support of their motions for
settlement approval.  The Court held a final fairness hearing.  No
class member objected to the settlement either before, during, or
after the fairness hearing.

Judge Ranjan certified the proposed settlement classes, and granted
the Plaintiffs' motions.  Specifically, the Judge finds that the
settlement classes satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3), that the parties' settlement agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and that the requested award of
attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable based on a
percentage-of-recovery analysis.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/2FeTuEo from Leagle.com.


ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jeganathan Retaliation Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC JEGANATHAN v. ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED; RAMJI
KRISHNAN; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. MID-L-006667-20
(N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other individuals similarly situated
arising from the Defendants' violation of the Conscientious
Employee Protection Act due to illegal retaliatory discharge.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully terminated
the Plaintiff on May 22, 2020, after he engaged in CEPA
protected-conduct. The CEPA protected-conduct emerged when Mr.
Jeganathan brought up issues related to employees' unsafe working
conditions, including the dangerous workstation that was lower than
the neighboring standing desk, the Company's receipt of warehouse
and laboratory equipment despite the lack of certificate of
building occupancy and lack of elevator certification, the presence
of oily film on some of the refrigerators and freezers, the
installation of forklift stations without appropriate ventilation,
and the lack of forklift training to the Defendant's director of
engineering.

The Defendant then terminated the Plaintiff's employment, claiming
that numerous colleagues had complained about his behavior. Despite
the fact that the Plaintiff's termination was not for "Cause," but
instead was in retaliation for his CEPA-protected activity, the
Defendants' Human Resources Director, Stacey Verdino, sent the
Plaintiff an email and an invoice demanding sign-on bonus repayment
of $30,000 by July 21, 2020, causing him further financial harm,
the suit says.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a director of
supply chains from June 24, 2019, until his unlawful termination on
May 22, 2020.

Rocket Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is a Middlesex County, New
Jersey-based pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Silverman, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Faces Ingram Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON INRAM and STEVEN DUNLAP, individually and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. ROCORE KNOXVILLE, LLC, ROCORE THERMAL SYSTEMS, LLC and
KELVION INC. a/k/a KELVION COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00423 (E.D.
Tenn., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid
employees. The Plaintiffs allege that although they were required
to perform job duties, as well as not fully relieved of their job
duties during their 30 minutes meal periods, the Defendants have
been automatically deducting 30 minutes meal period during each of
their work shift. As a result, the Defendants denied them of
overtime compensations at one and one-half times of their regular
rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40.

Additionally, the Defendants have employed a "rounding"
policy/practice, whereby the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees were cheated of 15 minutes increments of
overtime pay throughout workweeks in the statutory period.

The Defendants manufacture engine driven and remote mounted
radiators for stationary engines.[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
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Contreras Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jose Barragan Contreras, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order and Judgment dated August 18, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Barragan Contreras v. Rosann
Landscape Corp., Case No. 17-cv-6453, in the U.S. District for the
Southern District of New York (White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the overtime provisions of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, and minimum wage and overtime provisions of
New York Labor Law. The lawsuit seeks redress for unjust
enrichment, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and interest as well as declaratory relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Barragan Contreras v. Rosann
Landscape Corp., Case No. 20-3229, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jose Barragan Contreras, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives;
Juan Alonzo Orellana, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated as Class Representatives; and Jorge Yepez,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as
Class Representatives, are represented by:

          David A. Tykulsker, Esq.
          DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
          161 Walnut Street
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 509-9292
          Email: david@dtesq.com

Defendants-Appellees Rosann Landscape Corp., Ana Maria Birlescu,
and A.F.A. Management Corp. are represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Bernbach, Esq.
          BERNBACH LAW FIRM PLLC
          245 Main Street
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 428-9100
          E-mail: bernbachlawfirm@verizon.net


ROSETTA STONE: Curtis Suit Challenges $792-Mil. Sale to Cambium
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROSETTA STONE INC., JOHN HASS, LAURENCE FRANKLIN,
PATRICK W. GROSS, AEDHMAR HYNES, GEORGE A. LOGUE, DAVID NIERENBERG,
KATE EBERLE WALKER, JESSIE WOOLLEY-WILSON, STEVEN P. YANKOVICH,
CAMBIUM HOLDING CORP., and EMPOWER MERGER SUB INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01288-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 24, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed merger and acquisition of
Rosetta Stone by Cambium Holding and Empower Merger Sub.

The Plaintiff owns Rosetta Stone common stock.

On August 29, 2020, the Board of Directors of Rosetta Stone caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan merger with Cambium
Holding Corp. and Empower Merger Sub Inc. in an all cash
transaction for $30 per share, representing an equity value of
approximately $792 million. The Board of Directors of Rosetta Stone
unanimously approved the transaction with one director not
participating due to a potential interest in the transaction.

According to the complaint, the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement filed by the Defendants with the U.S. SEC on September
15, 2020 in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material
information, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose the
Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, and whether the Company entered into
any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or
"don't ask, don't waive" provisions, which are important to the
shareholders in deciding whether to tender their shares in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

Rosetta Stone, Inc. provides technology-based learning solutions.
John Hass is Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
the Company, while the rest of the individual Defendants are
directors of the Company. Cambium Learning Group provides digital
education solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 295-5310
          Fax: (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
          Tel: (484) 324-6800
          Fax: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


SMITHTOWN NISSAN: McFadden Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA MCFADDEN, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. SMITHTOWN NISSAN INC., JOSEPH RUBIO, and JOE URSO,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04661 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising
from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
federal and state laws. She also seeks to recover from the
Defendants for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy that
constituted a retaliatory termination, including back pay, front
pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an internet sales
coordinator from June 2017 until her termination on June 12, 2019.

Smithtown Nissan Inc. is a Nissan car dealer based in St. James,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180


SPERIAN ENERGY: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN CORSALE; DAVID TAYLOR, Individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SPERIAN ENERGY
CORPORATION, Case No. 19-3567 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting
Sperian's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Corsale and Taylor brought the putative class action alleging that
Sperian breached its electricity supply contracts by setting retail
prices that did not track prices in the local wholesale market.

When Pennsylvania deregulated its electricity markets in the 1990s,
a number of electric generation suppliers ("EGSs") entered the
market.  EGSs act as middlemen, buying electricity from generators
and selling it to consumers.  Policymakers hoped that EGSs would
use innovative purchasing strategies -- such as buying electricity
in advance -- to compete with local utility monopolies on retail
prices.

Angling for lower prices, the Plaintiffs contracted with Sperian,
an EGS based in Texas.  But they allege that their anticipated
savings never materialized: Sperian's variable rate electricity
prices were consistently -- and often substantially -- higher than
those charged by the Plaintiffs' local utility companies.

When the Plaintiffs first contracted with Sperian, they agreed to
Sperian's Initial Terms and Conditions.  The Initial Terms provided
for a three-month teaser period during which Sperian charged a low,
fixed monthly rate.  The Plaintiffs were free to cancel at any time
after these three months; but, if they chose not to, then after the
teaser period ended, they would be automatically enrolled in a
variable rate plan.  The Initial Terms included the provision
describing the variable rate plan.

Prior to the end of the three-month teaser period, Sperian sent the
Plaintiffs the Updated Terms and Conditions governing their
post-teaser period services.  The Plaintiffs did not cancel at the
end of the teaser period, so they were automatically enrolled in
the variable rate plan.  The Updated Terms included the variabe
product provision.  Under the variable rate plan, the Plaintiffs
consistently paid higher prices than those charged by their local
utility companies.

Disgruntled, the Plaintiffs sued Sperian for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.  Sperian filed a motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and, rather than contest the
motion, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added an
alleged violation of a state consumer protection law but did not
meaningfully alter the breach of contract claim.

Sperian filed another motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and
the District Court granted it.  The District Court held that the
Updated Terms constituted the operative contract, but, regardless,
neither the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms included language
that imposed a duty on Sperian to set its prices based on local
wholesale market prices.  The District Court dismissed the breach
of contract claim with prejudice, concluding that allowing the
Plaintiffs to amend the claim would be futile.

The Plaintiffs argue that Sperian's contracts obligated it to base
its variable rate on market conditions and fluctuations, including
local wholesale electricity prices and that Sperian breached this
duty by failing to do so.  At the very least, the Plaintiffs assert
that the contract language is ambiguous, and so their claim should
not be decided on a motion to dismiss.  Theys also argue that the
District Court should not have dismissed their claim with prejudice
because they never had an opportunity to amend based on the
District Court's holding that the Updated Terms constitute the
operative contract.

Sperian responds that the Updated Terms expressly state that prices
"may change" in response to market fluctuations and conditions at
the discretion of Sperian -- language which does not impose a duty
on Sperian to set its prices based on local wholesale prices.
Sperian also asserts that the District Court properly dismissed the
breach of contact claim with prejudice because the Plaintiffs did
not ask for leave to amend and the District Court reasonably
concluded that amendment would be futile.

Judge Chagares agrees with the District Court that neither the
Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms imposed a duty on Sperian to
set its prices based on local wholesale prices.  Both the Initial
Terms and the Updated Terms include permissive, rather than
mandatory, language regarding price setting.  Both the Initial
Terms and the Updated Terms provide that Sperian's prices may be
higher or lower than the local utility company's prices in any
given month.  And the Updated Terms provide that prices may change
in response to market conditions "at Sperian's discretion."  This
language does not obligate Sperian to base its prices on prices in
the local wholesale market, and therefore, its failure to do so
cannot constitute a breach of contract.

Finally, in ordinary civil litigation, a district court may enter
final judgment after granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
when the plaintiff has not properly requested leave to amend its
complaint.  The Plaintiffs did not properly request leave to amend,
and so the District Court did not abuse its discretion in not
granting leave to amend sua sponte.  Furthermore, because neither
the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms imposed a duty on Sperian
to set retail prices based on local wholesale prices, allowing the
Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert the same breach of
contract claim based on the Updated Terms would be futile.

For these reasons, Judge Chagares affirmed the District Court's
judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/34qEN9y from Leagle.com.


SQUEAKY KLEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SQUEAKY KLEAN SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00224-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sept. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.

Squeaky Klean Services, Inc., owned and operated a cleaning service
in the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Phayakapong Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN PHAYAKAPONG, individually and on behalf of the general public
and all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01161061-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Sept. 18,
2020), arises from the Defendants' marketing of gift cards in a
deceptive and illegal manner in violation of the California Code of
Civil Procedure and the California Business & Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had engaged in unlawful
practices of marketing, selling, and issuing Starbucks Gift Cards
by forcing its customers, like the Plaintiffs, to either forfeit
their shop card balances or spend more money than they would
otherwise spend, thus, unfairly increasing Starbucks' revenues at
their customers' expense.

The Plaintiff contends that the conduct of the Defendants
constitutes a flagrant violation of the law that was intended and
designed to protect consumers from the very practice that the
Defendants had been engaged in and continue to engage in.

Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of
coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. As the world's largest coffeehouse chain, Starbucks is
seen to be the main representation of the United States' second
wave of coffee culture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Arielle M. Canepa, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com


STARR RESTAURANT: Weiss Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as GREGORY WEISS, on behalf of himself and the
Class v. STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, LP d/b/a STARR RESTAURANTS,
BUDDAKAN NY, L.P. d/b/a BUDDAKAN, HAVATEQUILA RESTAURANT PARTNERS,
LLC d/b/a EL VEZ, ERY NORTH TOWER RHC TENANT LLC d/b/a ELECTRIC
LEMON, DR. HOWARD DR. FINE, LLC a.k.a. HOWARD FINE LLC d/b/a LA
MERCERIE, MOE LARRY CHEESE, LLC d/b/a LE COUCOU, MORIMOTO NY
VENTURE, L.P. d/b/a MORIMOTO, TRAIN DESIGN, LLC d/b/a PASTIS, SUR
ORGANIZATION, LLC d/b/a THE CLOCKTOWER, 26TH STREET RESTAURANT, LLC
d/b/a UPLAND, SRHG WEST, LLC d/b/a VERONIKA, STEPHEN STARR, ALLAN
DOMB, DAVID ROBKIN, and JENNIFER ROBKIN, Case No. 156909/2020, was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-08090 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees minimum wages
due to an invalid tip credit deduction, overtime pay due to
time-shaving, and spread-of-hours premium.

Starr Restaurant Organization, LP, d/b/a Starr Restaurants, is a
company that operates a restaurant based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Buddakan NY, L.P., d/b/a Buddakan, is a company that
operates an Asian fusion restaurant based in New York City.

Havatequila Restaurant Partners, LLC, d/b/a El Vez, is a company
that operates a restaurant based in New York City. Ery North Tower
RHC Tenant LLC, d/b/a Electric Lemon, is a company that operates an
American restaurant based in New York City. Dr. Howard Dr. Fine,
LLC a.k.a. Howard Fine LLC, d/b/a LA Mercerie, is a company that
operates a French restaurant based in New York City.

Moe Larry Cheese, LLC, d/b/a LE Coucou, is a company that operates
a Modern European restaurant based in New York City. Morimoto NY
Venture, L.P., d/b/a Morimoto, is a company that operates a
Japanese restaurant, with its main office located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Train Design, LLC, d/b/a Pastis, is a company that
operates a French restaurant based in New York City.

Sur Organization, LLC, d/b/a The Clocktower, is a company that
operates an American restaurant based in New York City. 26th Street
Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Upland, is a company that operates a
restaurant based in New York City. SRHG West, LLC, d/b/a Veronika,
is a company that operates a Swedish restaurant based in New York
City.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           
      
         Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         900 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 583-9600


STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended August 1, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has taken the company's motion
to dismiss a consolidated class action suit under submission.

On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.

The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by the company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
active client growth and strategy with respect to television
advertising between June 2018 and October 2018.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has
been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated class action lawsuits (the "Class Action") filed a
consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities
laws.

On October 28, 2019, we and other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the
company and the other defendants filed its reply in support of its
motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019.

The court has taken the motion under submission. "We believe these
claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
them," the Company said.

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

Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal
shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters,
blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men
and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch
Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


UNITED STATES: Amended K.O. Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, K.O., et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-309
(RC) (D. D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissed the First Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are minor non-United
States citizen children who, after arriving in the United States
either at or between designated ports of entry, were forcibly
separated from their parents by the Department of Homeland Security
or one of its sub-agencies, Customs & Border Patrol, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, or U.S. Customs & Immigration Services.
The case arrived before the Columbia District Court upon transfer
from the District of Massachusetts.

In that court, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and their First
Amended Complaint, asserting Constitutional and related statutory
claims against a number of individual federal officials, including
the former Attorney General, the now-former Secretary of DHS, the
now-former White House Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor to the
President.  The Plaintiffs asserted eight counts against the
individual Defendants, all of which remain in the First Amended
Complaint.

The First Amended Complaint added one new Count, bringing the total
to nine against the individual Defendants: violation of the Fourth
Amendment protection against unlawful and unreasonable seizure
(Count I - newly added in the First Amended Complaint), violation
of substantive due process rights to family integrity (Count II),
violation of procedural due process (Count III), violation of the
Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection (Count IV), violation
of substantive due process rights relating to the punishment of
civil detainees (Count V), violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment in connection with coerced waiver of asylum and
other immigration claims (Count VI), violation of substantive due
process rights in connection with the failure to provide adequate
mental health services (Count VII), conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) (Count
VIII), and refusal or neglect to prevent or aide in preventing
conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1986 (Count IX).

The individual Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.  While that motion was pending, the Plaintiffs sought
leave to amend their complaint a second time.  They proposed to add
the United States as a Defendant and to add eight counts against
the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.   The
individual Defendants opposed that, as did the United States, which
appeared specially for the limited purpose of opposing the motion.

Judge Hillman of the District of Massachusetts granted the
individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue.  Judge Hillman transferred the
case to the Columbia District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631.
Judge Hillman did not address the individual Defendants' additional
arguments that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim, and he explicitly left the Motion to
Amend open for this Court to resolve.

The Columbia Court has received supplemental briefing from the
Plaintiffs, from the individual Defendants, and from the United
States.  The individual Defendants maintain that the First Amended
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  The
Plaintiffs' motion to file a Second Amended Complaint adding claims
against the United States is opposed by both the individual
Defendants and by the United States, which is still not a party.
In addition to these pending motions, the individual Defendants
have filed a Notice of Related Case, which the Court also
addresses.

The Plaintiffs argue that the individual Defendants' arguments in
favor of dismissal for failure to state a claim are no longer ripe
for decision because Judge Hillman already ruled on that motion.
It is contrary to the parties' agreement with the Court in their
teleconference that the remaining arguments on the Motion would be
addressed in the parties supplemental briefing.  The Court suspects
the Plaintiffs did not forget that, as they devoted two dozen pages
to the merits of these arguments in their supplemental briefing.

The Plaintiffs' claims against the individual Defendants are the
type of claims for damages against federal agents and officials
acting under color of federal authority that the Supreme Court
first authorized under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics.  In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that
federal agents acting under color of federal authority who commit
an unconstitutional search or seizure could be held liable as
individuals for money damages, and Carlson v. Green, the Supreme
Court extended the Bivens cause of action to allow for damage
claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.

Judge Contreras holds that two special factors primarily give the
Court "reason to pause" in the case: first, the fact that Bivens is
not properly used as a means of challenging general government
policies, and second, the fact that Congress has legislated
extensively in this area without providing of this kind of suit.
Additionally, the fact that national security concerns are likely
implicated and that alternatives forms of relief appear to be
available give the Court further pause.  For these reasons, the
Judge declines to extend Bivens into the new context, and will
grant the motion to dismiss as to Counts I through VII.

Two claims in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not rely
on Bivens, but are instead statutory: Count VIII, which alleges a
conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1985(3) and Count IX, which alleges refusal or neglect to
provide or aide in preventing a conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1986.  The individual
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on
these statutory claims.

Judge Contreras holds that while the Plaintiffs have attempted to
distinguish the cases cited by the Defendants -- including Abassi
and the state and local government cases -- they present no cases
to establish affirmatively that liability for the Defendants'
alleged conduct is clearly established.  Simply distinguishing the
Defendants' cases, even if done effectively, would not carry the
Plaintiffs' burden.  The legal conclusions necessary to find in the
Plaintiffs' favor "cannot be clearly established" and thus the
Defendants would not have known with any certainty that the alleged
agreements were forbidden by law.  The individual Defendants are
therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1985(3)
claim, and so the Section 1986 claim necessarily fails along with
it.

Finally, Judge Contreras finds that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint makes identical Bivens and statutory conspiracy claims
against the individual Defendants.  Amending these claims would be
futile because the proposed amendments change nothing about them
and they would not survive a motion to dismiss for the reasons
explained.  It would leave only for the Court's consideration the
proposed tort claims against the United States.  Under these
circumstances, the Judge sees no reason to allow amendment.
Judicial economy would be better served by the filing of a new
action.  Because the claims against the individual Defendants fail
to state a claim, there is nothing to be gained in terms of
judicial efficiency by litigating the claims against the United
States in the action.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Contreras granted the individual
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; and found to be moot the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave from Compliance with the Service
Requirements in Local Rule 15.1 of the District of Massachusetts.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/33EohE2 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Cacciapalle Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-466C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Margaret M.
Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.

The Plaintiffs in the case challenge the actions of the United
States during the conservatorships of the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs take issue with the conservator for Fannie and
Freddie amending a funding agreement between the Enterprises and
the United States Department of the Treasury.

Based on the revisions to that agreement, the Plaintiffs seek the
return of money illegally exacted; damages for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach
of fiduciary duty; and compensation for two types of takings claims
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


There are two categories of the Plaintiffs in the litigation
brought as a class action.  One putative class of the Plaintiffs
consists of holders of Fannie preferred stock, except the United
States, and the other putative class is composed of holders of
Freddie preferred stock, except the United States.  The class
members purchased their stock before the Net Worth Sweep.  The
Class members may hold stock in just one of the Enterprises, or
both.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 10, 2013.  After
jurisdictional discovery proceeded in Fairholme, a related case,
the Plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action
complaint in the case on March 8, 2018.  In their amended
complaint, they plead six direct claims brought in their individual
capacities as shareholders.

The Plaintiffs first assert that the Net Worth Sweep constitutes a
Fifth Amendment taking of their economic interests in their stock
(count I).  Next, they assert a different takings claim based on
any judicial interpretation of the Housing and Economic Recovery
Act of 2008 ("HERA") that precludes them from recovering just
compensation for their property interest in certain causes of
action, including derivative claims on behalf of the Enterprises
(count II).  The Plaintiffs further assert that the Net Worth Sweep
constitutes an illegal exaction (count III) of their economic
interests in their stock because (1) the Federal Housing Finance
Agency as the conservator ("FHFA-C") was operating against its
statutory mandate to preserve the Enterprises' assets; (2) the
FHFA-C repudiated the Enterprises' contractual obligations to their
shareholders outside of the permissible statutory time-frame; and
(3) Treasury entered into the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
("PSPA") Amendments after the statutory time frame for entering
into such contracts had expired.

The Plaintiffs also plead two breach-of-contract claims.  In the
first, they allege that their stock certificates bind the
Enterprises in contract, and that these contracts were breached by
the FHFA-C when it entered into the PSPA Amendments, depriving
plaintiffs of the benefits of those contracts (count IV).  In the
second breach-of-contract claim, founded again on the Plaintiffs'
stock certificates, they allege that the FHFA-C breached the
Enterprises' implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
vis-a-vis the Plaintiffs (count V).  Lastly, they allege that the
FHFA-C, as a conservator pursuant to HERA, owes a fiduciary duty to
the Plaintiffs.  The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is premised on
the Net Worth Sweep being unfair; constituting waste, self-dealing,
gross overreach, and gross abuse of discretion; and failing to
further a valid business purpose or reflect a good faith business
judgment (count VI).

On Oct. 1, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss -- in a single,
omnibus motion -- the claims in the case and 11 related cases
before the Court.  The plaintiffs in each of the 12 cases filed a
response brief on their respective dockets; some of them relied on
a joint brief, while others, as is the case, filed a joint brief
and a supplemental response brief.  The Defendant filed its omnibus
reply brief in each of the cases on May 6, 2019.  The parties have
fully briefed the Defendant's motion, and the Court held a single
oral argument on Nov. 19, 2019, involving the plaintiffs from each
of the 12 cases that the Defendant moved to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs in those cases collaborated during argument; each
plaintiff argued some of the issues.  Thus, the Court infers that
the Plaintiffs in the instant case have adopted the favorable
arguments made by the plaintiffs in the related cases to the extent
that such arguments are relevant.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing
that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
claims, and the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

Judge Sweeney finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
the Plaintiffs' judicial takings claim and their fiduciary duty
claim.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
contract claims due to the absence of privity with the United
States, and lack standing to bring their nominally direct takings,
illegal-exaction, and fiduciary duty claims because the nature of
these claims is derivative, not direct.  

Judge Sweeney therefore granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in the consolidated case
accordingly.  

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3d5jjTC from Leagle.com.

Hamish P.M. Hume -- hhume@bsfllp.com -- Washington, DC, and Eric L.
Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.co -- Radnor, PA, for plaintiffs.

Kenneth M. Dintzer, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant.


UNITED STATES: Prestige Sues Over Unlawful Denial of EIDL Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION INC., SUPERIOR OVERNIGHT SERVICES INC.,
AMERILOGISTICS GROUP INC., AND STAM PROPERTIES LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons v. UNITED STATES
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JOVITA CARRANZA AS THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE SBA, STEVEN MNUCHIN AS THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, AND DOES 1 TO 5, Case No. 2:20-cv-08963
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the unlawful and ultra
vires policies, practices, and rules implemented by the Defendants
to carry out the directive of the CARES Act's Emergency Economic
Injury Disaster Loans program to eligible businesses.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES" Act). Of
particular relevance to small businesses, like the Plaintiffs, the
CARES Act created two new temporary loan programs, the Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP"), and the Emergency EIDL. The Emergency
EIDL program is a separately codified newly created program
temporarily expanding the class of eligible entities to which the
SBA is authorized and directed to make EIDL loans under Section
7(b)(2) of the SBA Act.

According to the complaint, as a direct and proximate cause of
COVID-19, the related executive orders, and the economic downturn,
Plaintiffs PTI, SOS, AGI, and STAM have suffered significant
business losses. The Plaintiffs applied for an EIDL Emergency loan
in order to mitigate financial losses and stabilize their
businesses in the face of restrictions on imports and the reduction
of available cargo for transportation. However, the Small Business
Administration's categorical 'immigration status' and 'no
amendment' policies have resulted in the Plaintiffs' ineligibility
for EIDL loans that the Plaintiffs should have qualified for under
the plain text of the CARES Act.

As a direct result of SBA's implementation of the said policies,
the Plaintiffs and their employees have suffered severe economic
injuries and risk financial ruin. Absent a court order, the
Plaintiffs will remain unable to obtain the EIDL loans Congress
provided for in the CARES Act, the suit says.

Prestige Transportation Inc. transports cargo throughout the
continental United States as part of interstate commerce on behalf
of its partners, customers, brokers, shippers, and manufacturers.

Superior Overnight Services Inc. offers logistics services,
including Business–to–Business (B2B), Business–to–Customer
(B2C), Dock-to-Dock, and Dock-to-Door (lift gate, inside
deliveries) transportation.

Amerilogistics Group Inc. operates as a private carrier for hire
based on non-exclusive leased trip contracts with motor carriers,
who offer less than truckload services.

STAM Properties LLC is a four-member owned and managed for profit
limited liability company, which owns and rents several apartment
units in Whitehall, New York, to low income households.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicolette Glazer Esq.
          Larry R Glazer Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, #1100
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5354
          E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com
                  larry@glazerandglazer.com


UNITED STATES: TRO/Class Certification Motions in Gomez Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD
J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United
States of America, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01419(APM)
(D. D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia denied the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, and (ii) Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs in the action are United States citizens and lawful
permanent residents whose children and grandchildren
("beneficiaries") were, at the time the litigation commenced, all
"minors" -- meaning unmarried children under the age of 21 --
seeking immigrant visas to enter the country.  Each beneficiary has
since turned or will turn 21 years old in June 2020.  Two have
received their visas since the Plaintiffs filed the action, and the
Plaintiffs concede that their individual claims relating to those
beneficiaries' applications are now moot.  As for the third
beneficiary, W.Z.A., the Plaintiffs fear that if he does not
receive his visa and enter the country before his birthday on June
30, he will "age out" of his minor visa preference category.

What prompted the Plaintiffs' filing of the suit is Presidential
Proclamation 10014, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a
Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery
Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak/ Presidential
Proclamation 10014 halts processing of certain categories of
immigrant visas, including the beneficiary-based visas at issue in
the case.

The Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order preventing the
Defendants from enforcing Proclamation 10014 against minor visa
applicants who will turn 21 years old during the Proclamation's
effective period.  The minor visa applicants are sponsored by the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated United States citizen and
lawful permanent resident parents.  The Plaintiffs also request
that the Court certify a class of visa sponsors whose beneficiaries
or derivative beneficiaries are subject to the Proclamation and
will also age out while the Proclamation remains in effect.  

On May 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint
against the Defendants President Donald Trump, Attorney General
William Barr, the United States Department of State, Secretary of
State Michael Pompeo, the United States Department of Homeland
Security, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf.
They filed the instant motions for a temporary restraining order
and class certification on June 2, 2020.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have violated the
Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Proclamation by
categorically applying it to 20-year-old visa applicants who are
otherwise eligible for visas, and for whom visas are immediately
available, but who will age out of their eligibility before the
Proclamation expires.

They seek to certify the following class: All individual immigrant
sponsors with approved immigrant visa petitions for a child,
including for derivative child relatives in applicable preference
categories, with a current priority date while Presidential
Proclamation 10014 is in effect; and whose sponsored child or
sponsored derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation
and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his or her
current visa preference category by turning 21 years old while the
Proclamation remains in effect.

The briefing concluded on June 18, 2020, and the Court held a
hearing on the motions the same day.

Judge Mehta does not reach the merits of the Plaintiffs' temporary
restraining order and class certification motions because they have
not shown at this stage in the proceedings that they have standing
nor that their claims are ripe and not moot.  The record evidence
before the Court suggests that the Defendants' enforcement of the
Proclamation has, at most, funneled the Plaintiffs' beneficiaries'
applications into a different administrative channel that carries
no greater burdens or risks of denials, at least as to potential
age-outs.  The Plaintiffs have not shown beyond mere speculation
that their beneficiaries' consideration under the national interest
exception will imminently cause them harm.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that disputes about future
events where the possibility of harm to any given individual is
remote and speculative are properly left to the policymaking
Branches, not the Article III courts.  Consequently, the Judge
cannot conclude on this record that the Plaintiffs have shown a
substantial likelihood of standing under the heightened standard
for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.

As the Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument, Plaintiffs Mirna S.'
and Gomez's claims are now moot because their beneficiaries, M.T.S.
and Alondra, have received their visas and immigrated to the United
States.  The Judge therefore can provide no additional remedy for
these Plaintiffs.  Likewise, Plaintiff Vicenta S.' claims are
unripe because her grandson W.Z.A.'s visa application is proceeding
and appears likely to be granted under the Second Proclamation.
While the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' concern that they
will have little time to seek judicial relief before W.Z.A. ages
out if his visa application is denied, the risk that W.Z.A. will be
denied is only hypothetical and speculative at this point.  Should
the feared denial come to pass, the Court is prepared to
expeditiously revisit its decision.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining
order must be denied because the Plaintiffs have not shown that
they had standing at the outset, and because their claims have
become moot or remain unripe since the litigation commenced.  The
Court will retain jurisdiction over the case while W.Z.A.'s visa
application proceeds.

Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that they are nevertheless entitled
to class certification because two exceptions to the doctrine of
mootness apply to Mirna S.'s and Gomez's claims.  Under the first
exception, if a named plaintiff's claim is inherently transitory,
and becomes moot prior to certification, a motion for certification
may 'relate back' to the filing of the complaint.  The second
exception, which has not been considered by the D.C. Circuit,
applies when a defendant picks off named plaintiffs in a class
action before the class is certified by strategically mooting named
plaintiffs' claims in an attempt to avoid a class action.

The Judge need not decide whether either exception applies in the
case, however, because both exceptions simply operate to relate the
motion for class certification back to the filing of the complaint
-- the exceptions cannot salvage a suit that was never justiciable
to begin with.  The relation back doctrine therefore cannot
"salvage" the Plaintiffs' claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mehta denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  The parties was directed to
provide the Court with a joint status report, updating the Court on
the status of W.Z.A.'s visa application.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/3lmyvyU from
Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Decision in Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant David Daleiden filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jane Does 1-10, et al. v.
University of Washington, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01212-JLR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James L.
Robert of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On Feb. 9, 2016, Defendant David Daleiden sent a written request to
Defendant UW under Washington State's Public Records Act ("PRA") to
inspect or obtain copies of all documents that relate to the
purchase, transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues, human
fetal organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the [UW] Birth
Defects Research Laboratory from 2010 to present. On Feb. 10, 2016,
Defendant Zachary Freeman issued a similar PRA request to UW.

Among other documents, these PRA requests sought communications
between UW or its Birth Defects Research Laboratory, on the one
hand, and Cedar River Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Greater
Washington and North Idaho, or certain individuals or employees of
Cedar River and Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North
Idaho, on the other hand. Mr. Daleiden's PRA request specifically
lists the names of eight such individuals.

On July 21, 2016, UW notified Doe Plaintiffs that absent a court
order issued by Aug. 4, 2016, UW would provide documents responsive
to Mr. Daleiden's PRA request without redaction at 12:00 p.m. on
Aug. 5, 2016. On July 26, 2016, UW issued a similar notice to Doe
Plaintiffs regarding Mr. Freeman's request and indicated that,
absent a court order, UW would provide responsive documents without
redaction on Aug. 10, 2016.

On Aug. 3, 2016, Doe Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
putative class seeking to enjoin UW from issuing unredacted
documents in response to the PRA requests. They object to
disclosure of the requested documents in unredacted form because
the documents include personally identifying information such as
direct work phone numbers, work emails, personal cell phone
numbers, and other information.  On the same day that they filed
suit, Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking both a temporary
restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction against
disclosure of the requested documents.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Does 1-10, et al. v.
University of Washington, et al., Case No. 20-80137, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated; and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jill D. Bowman, Esq.
          Sarah Julia Littell, Esq.
          Jenna M. Poligo, Esq.
          Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-0900
          E-mail: jill.bowman@stoel.com
                  julia.littell@stoel.com
                  jenna.poligo@stoel.com
                  vanessa.power@stoel.com

               - and -

          Steven Walter Fogg, Esq.
          Maia Robbins, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE, LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 274-8669
          E-mail: sfogg@corrcronin.com
                  mrobbins@corrcronin.com

Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public
corporation; and PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at
the University of Washington, in his official capacity, are
represented by:

          Nancy Sagor Garland, Esq.
          AGWA-OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL
          (SEATTLE)
          UW Box 359475
          Seattle, WA 98195-9475
          E-mail: nancysg@uw.edu

               - and -

          John Robert Nicholson, Esq.
          FREIMUND JACKSON & TARDIF, PLLC
          701 5th Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 582-6001
          E-mail: johnn@fjtlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, is represented
by:

          Peter Breen, Esq.
          Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
          19 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-1680
          E-mail: pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org
                  tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org

               - and -

          William John Crittenden, Esq.
          GROFF MURPHY, PLLC
          12345 Lake City Way NE 306
          Seattle, WA 98125
          Telephone: (206) 361-5972
          E-mail: wjcrittenden@groffmurphy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq.
          FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND
          P.O. Box 9520
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 759-9948
          E-mail: jtrissell@limandri.com


UNUM LIFE: Vasquez ERISA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JAVIER VAZQUEZ, and all others similarly
situated v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
2020L009359, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of the
First Judicial Circuit, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on September 29, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05799 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's declaration of his rights
under the terms of an employee welfare benefit plan, with long term
disability benefits funded by a Group Insurance Policy issued by
the Defendant and governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the
Group Policy is void.

Unum Life Insurance Company of America is a company that provides
supplemental insurance coverage in the workplace based in Portland,
Maine.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Jacqueline J. Herring, Esq.
         SMITH VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES
         180 North LaSalle St., Suite 3130
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 541-0300
         Facsimile: (312) 541-0933
         E-mail: jackie.herring@svs-law.com


VARIAN MEDICAL: Agreement Reached in Siemens Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020,
that an agreement has been reached in the suits including class
actions related to the company's merger with Siemens Healthineers
Holding I GmbH.

On August 2, 2020, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Siemens Healthineers Holding I GmbH, a company
organized under the laws of Germany ("Parent"), Falcon Sub Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and, with respect to certain provisions, Siemens
Medical Solutions USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Guarantor"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into Varian, with Varian surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, on September 14, 2020,
Varian filed a definitive proxy statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, as of September 11, 2020,
three lawsuits, including two purported class action lawsuits, have
been filed by purported Varian stockholders in connection with the
Merger.

On August 31, 2020, a purported Varian stockholder filed a lawsuit
against Varian and the members of Varian's board of directors
alleging that the Proxy Statement contained alleged material
misstatements and/or omissions in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit is captioned Stein v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et
al., Case 3:20-cv-6140 and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 3, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants by purported Varian stockholders
asserting similar claims: Kent v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et
al., Case 1:20-cv-1178, pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, and Zimmer v. Varian Medical Systems,
Inc., et al., Case 4:20-cv-6266, pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaints generally allege that the Proxy Statement filed by
Varian in connection with the Merger fails to disclose allegedly
material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections
of Varian, and (ii) certain financial analyses of Varian's
financial advisor. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin
Varian from consummating the Merger, or in the alternative,
rescission of the Merger and/or compensatory damages.

While Varian believes that no supplemental disclosures are required
under applicable laws, to reduce the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, on October 5, 2020, Varian reached an
agreement to resolve the Actions in exchange for voluntarily making
certain disclosures that supplement and revise those contained in
the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiffs in the Actions have agreed that, following the filing of
this 8-K, they will dismiss the Actions in their entirety, with
prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice to
all other members of the putative class.

Varian denies that any of the defendants have committed or assisted
others in committing any violations of law. Nothing in the
supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
supplemental disclosures set forth herein.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3iEzc4T.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, sells, and
services medical equipment. The Company offers radiotherapy,
radiosurgery, X-ray tube technology, digital image detectors, cargo
screening, and non-destructive testing equipment. Varian Medical
Systems serves the healthcare sector globally. The company is based
in Palo Alto, California.


VILLA CHARITIES: Faces $35MM COVID-19 Negligence Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue-Ann Levy, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that Domenica
Gusciglio says she learned from officials of Villa Colombo Vaughan
on her anniversary on March 18 that her 86-year-old mom "wasn't
doing well."

Mom Anna Sforza, who suffered from dementia, passed away 11 days
later never having been tested by the facility for COVID-19, or
having been taken to hospital, according to Gusciglio.

Gusciglio is the representative plaintiff in a $35-million
class-action suit against Villa Charities, Villa Colombo Homes for
the Aged in North York, Universalcare Canada Inc. and Villa Colombo
Seniors Centre in Vaughan where her mom was a five-year resident.

The lawsuit - brought on behalf of 47 residents who suffered from
COVID, 50 who died and up to 500 family members - alleges that the
defendants were "negligent and deficient" in the care of Storza and
other residents, which contributed to their demise.

It claims that the Villa Colombo homes failed to "follow acceptable
practices" to prevent and contain COVID-19, that they didn't
adequately plan for the pandemic and didn't have adequate staff,
that they didn't communicate with families of residents and that
they failed to comply with public health directives around resident
isolation and testing, use of PPE and employee testing.

Anthony DiCaita, president and CEO of Villa Charities Inc.,
provided a terse response through the public relations firm,
Maverick:

"We have been served, the matter is now before the courts and at
this time we have no comment," he said.

Gusciglio claimed when she was permitted to go in on March 18, she
tried to put "cold compresses" on her mom the entire night to try
to break a high fever.

She alleged she returned for three more nights until the home's
officials told her she couldn't come anymore. When she came on
March 22 with her husband, she claims both were "thrown out."

"They said she was getting better," she alleged.

On March 19 -- after the province-wide lockdown had been put in
place -- she said she noticed the party room had been set up with a
balloon with "100" on it -- for a 100th birthday party -- a
billboard and tables from another room.

When she asked the coordinator about the party, she claimed she was
told "they were making an exception" for the 100th birthday.

She also alleged she was told the birthday girl would be put in one
corner of the room and the family in another.

"What do you say?" she asked.

A few days later, she was called and told her mom had "taken a turn
for the worse" and she was permitted back in, claimed Gusciglio.

When she went in, she claimed she learned that management had told
staffers to take off their masks and a lot of other "crazy things
that were going on."

She said they never sent Sforza to the hospital.

She was allegedly informed none of the staff and residents were
tested for COVID-19 even though she learned there were a "lot of
sick people."

"Then they would be branded if they have COVID," she said.

Lawyer Jillian Siskind, who has filed the lawsuit in partnership
with Diamond & Diamond lawyers, said other plaintiffs have
allegedly indicated families were never told about any cases of
COVID-19 in the facilities until "well into April."

Gusciglio said she was particularly upset with a photo opportunity
by Ontario cabinet minister Steven Lecce, the MPP for King-Vaughan,
taken in May in front of Villa Colombo, just weeks after the deaths
occurred.

"It was really a kick to my gut," Gusciglio said. "Why aren't they
taking pictures with all the dead people they let down?" [GN]


WELLSTAR HEALTH: Cole Sues Over Facility Fees Charged to Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Georgia corporation, and
WELLSTAR NORTH FULTON HOSPITAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, and
John Doe 1-2, Case No. 2020CV340612 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., Sept.
18, 2020), challenges the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful practice of charging patients visiting a Wellstar
emergency room a substantial undisclosed facility fee.

According to the complaint, the facility fee is not only being
billed in addition to the charges for the individual items of
treatment and services provided the patient, but is also
effectively hidden and concealed from the patient. The knowledge of
this undisclosed facility fee is essential to the patients,
including the Plaintiff, as it would be a substantial factor in an
emergency care patient's decision to remain at the hospital and
proceed with a medical evaluation and stabilizing treatment.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Georgia, who was treated at Webstar
North Fulton Hospital in Fulton Country, and who was billed a
surprise facility fee by Webstar as a result of being seen in
hospital's emergency room.

Webstar Health System, Inc. and Wellstar North Fulton Hospital,
Inc. are healthcare services provider based in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          THE ANTONINO FIRM LLC
          8325 Dunwoody Place Northridge 400
          Bldg 2 (Rosner Law Group)
          Atlanta, Georgia 30328
          Telephone: (770) 408-1229
          Facsimile: (470) 875-0194
          E-mail: lauren@antoninofirm.com

               - and -

          Barry Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER
          9550 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 252
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 778-6090
          E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com


WEST PENN: Faces Class Action Over Secret Recordings
----------------------------------------------------
Rick Earle, writing for WPXI-TV, reports that two women filed a
class action lawsuit against West Penn Hospital alleging they were
secretly recorded while undressing in a hospital exam room.

"This suit seeks damages for their humiliation, their exposure and
their exploitation at the hands of a West Penn Hospital employee,"
attorney Michael Zagari said.

Zagari represents a 25-year-old woman, who he said went to the
hospital for a cancer procedure.

"Her trust in medicine has been shattered at a time when her trust
in medicine is vital. It's extremely important. These are women
that are battling cancer. They have a cancer scare -- that's why
they are there. That's why they're putting trust in the hospital
and I can tell you she feels betrayed," Zagari said.

After a worker discovered a small video camera in a bathroom,
police charged former hospital employee Guy Caley in July with
invasion of privacy. Eighty-three more charges were filed against
him earlier this month. He's accused of videotaping co-workers in a
bathroom and patients in an exam room.

"Unbeknownst to these women, prior to Mr. Caley stepping out of
that examination room, or that imaging room, Mr. Caley had set up
cameras inside the imaging room to record them getting undressed,"
Zagari said.

Attorney Rob Peirce, who's working with Zagari and attorney Joe
Charleton, said Caley allegedly videotape 21 employees and at least
34 patients. The lawsuit, however, only involves the patients who
were recorded.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as changes. Peirce
contends the hospital didn't do enough to protect privacy.

"We believe that protocols were not followed or even worse
protocols were not in place. And we are determined and we are
asking the court to make sure that if West Penn Hospital and other
facilities won't do it, that the courts will get involved on behalf
of these victims and make sure procedures are in place so no one
has to go through this again," Peirce said.

Peirce believes this is the tip of the iceberg and there may be
more victims out there.

After criminal chargers were filed, West Penn Hospital called the
allegations reprehensible, and said safe guarding privacy is the
utmost priority:

"As we stated previously, the allegations described in the criminal
charges against a former West Penn Hospital employee are appalling,
and West Penn condemns his actions in the strongest possible terms.
We are dismayed that such a reprehensible act was committed on our
campus. At Allegheny Health Network and West Penn, we place the
utmost priority on safeguarding the privacy and dignity of our
employees, patients, and visitors, and we deeply regret that some
have been unknowingly affected by this criminal act. AHN and West
Penn would like to thank the Highmark Health police department and
the Allegheny County District Attorney's office, who thoroughly
investigated this case over the last several months, leading to the
charges being filed. We continue to cooperate fully with
authorities as their investigation and prosecution proceed." [GN]


WEST ROAD PIZZA: Calhoun Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA CALHOUN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. WEST ROAD PIZZA STOP, INC.; ALI ALSAMAWI; DOE CORPORATION 1-10;
JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Sept.
30, 2020), is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated current
and former delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby, failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum wages for
all hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Sammy's Pizza store in Woodhaven, Michigan, from February 2020 to
June 2020.

West Road Pizza Stop, Inc., is a company that owns and operates
Sammy's Pizza stores in Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
         Robert M. Howard, Esq.
         BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
         990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
         Grand Rapids, MI 49503
         Telephone: (616) 458-6814
         E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com

                - and –

         Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
         Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
         Cincinnati, OH 45209
         Telephone: (513) 715-8711
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a shareholder class action suit initiated by Samuel Kamau.

On July 24, 2020, Samuel Kamau filed a shareholder class action
complaint in the District Court for the Central District of
California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period from October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020 against
Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Renhui Mu, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled
Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No.
2:20-cv-06656).

Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things, that
Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by failing to
disclose that the repayment of a RMB 580 million "loan" to Guohong
Asset Management Co., Ltd. was "highly uncertain," and that the
resignation of the Company's former independent auditor was
"foreseeably likely" given the non-payment of the foregoing loan as
well as alleged material weaknesses in the Company's control over
financial reporting.

The Amended Complaint does not specifically allege the damages
purportedly suffered by the class, and we are not yet able to
provide a reliable estimate of any such damage claim.

Wins Finance said, "We believe that the claims from this proceeding
are without merit and basis, we are vigorously defending this
proceeding."

Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and
leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and
agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The
company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation
Limited.


WINS FINANCE: March 2021 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that a final settlement
approval hearing has been set for March 22, 2021, in the action
entitled, Desta v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.

As of June 30, 2018, the Company and certain of its executive
officers have been named as defendants in one civil securities
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Courts.

On April 20, 2017, Michel Desta filed a securities class action
complaint in the District Court for the Central District of
California seeking monetary damages against the company,
JianmingHao, Renhui Mu, Peiling (Amy) He, and Junfeng Zhao
(entitled Desta v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal.
Case No. 2:17-cv-02983) (hereafter, the "California Action").

On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel, and on August 25, 2017 lead plaintiffs
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Amended Complaint (which did not name Peiling (Amy) He as a
defendant), alleges a claim against us for securities fraud
purportedly arising from alleged misrepresentations concerning
Wins' principal executive offices (which alleged misrepresentations
resulted in Wins being added to, and then removed from, the Russell
2000 index).

On October 24, 2017,the company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim as against it.

On March 1, 2018, the District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
Thus, the civil action has proceeded to the fact gathering
"discovery" stage in respect to the Company.

As a result of a private mediation conducted in November 2018, the
Company agreed in principle to settle the class action, on behalf
of all remaining defendants.

The full terms of that settlement remain confidential (but include
certain contingencies concerning shareholder participation in the
settlement and required court approvals).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement by order
entered on March 4, 2019. Given that the Company has not yet
received the necessary approvals from Chinese regulators as to the
transfer of the settlement funds from China to the United States,
the Court entered an Order dated August 11, 2020 setting a final
settlement approval hearing for March 22, 2021.

Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and
leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and
agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The
company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation
Limited.


WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Consolidated Suit v. Comerica Bank Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that Comerica Bank
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW  

In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated class action
(Class Action) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (California District Court) brought on
behalf of former Noteholders and Unitholders against Comerica Bank.


It is comprised of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4,
2018 and April 26, 2018. The five lawsuits were consolidated, Lead
Class Counsel was appointed, and Lead Class Counsel filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 19, 2019. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted claims for aiding and
abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty (Count 2), negligence (Count 3), and violations of
California's unfair competition law (Count 4).

On November 1, 2019, Comerica moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of
subject matter jurisdiction).

With respect to Count 1 (aiding and abetting fraud) and Count 2
(aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), Comerica argued
that the Class Plaintiffs’ allegations did not demonstrate that
Comerica had actual knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty that Comerica is alleged to have aided and abetted;
with respect to Count 3 (negligence), Comerica argued that there is
no duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica; and with respect
to Count 4 (California Unfair Competition Law), Comerica argued
that a claim for unfair competition fails when there is no actual
knowledge of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty and no duty owed.

In addition, Comerica argued that all causes of action failed to
state a claim for the additional reason that Comerica's filing or
non-filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under federal law
cannot support any of the causes of action, and that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because all of the causes of
action belong to the Liquidation Trust such that the Class
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue them.

On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Comerica's motion to dismiss. The Court denied
Comerica's request to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on the ground that the
allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint sufficiently
alleged that Comerica had the requisite knowledge of the underlying
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.  

The Court granted Comerica's request to dismiss Count 3 on the
ground that the allegations of the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint did not sufficiently allege a duty of care owed to
non-customers of Comerica.  

On Count 4, the Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent
it relied on a failure to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)
(which claim the Court found was preempted by federal law, which
prohibits disclosure of a SAR), but denied the motion to dismiss to
the extent the complaint relied on violations arising from
non-SAR-related conduct, and the Court granted the class leave to
amend the complaint.  

The Court also denied Comerica's request to dismiss based on
Comerica's allegations that the class lacked standing and that the
Trust cannot be a member of a class, finding instead that the class
has plausibly alleged standing to sue, and that the question of
whether the Trust can be a class member did not need to be answered
at this stage.

On August 26, 2020, the putative class filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserted claims for
aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty (Count 2), and violations of California’s unfair
competition law (Count 3).  

Comerica's response to the First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint has not yet been filed.

The Trustee asserts that he is a member of the putative class and
Comerica disputes that assertion.

Woodbridge Liquidation Trust (the Trust) and its wholly-owned
subsidiary Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC (the "Wind-Down Entity")
were formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to
prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate
and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed
administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including
professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in
accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to
Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and
after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority
claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California.


WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE: Martinez Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARTINEZ and RAMON COLON CRUZ, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-04011-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated landscapers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to
misclassifying them as independent contractors.

Mr. Martinez and Mr. Colon Cruz were employed by the Defendant as
drivers and landscapers from approximately 2018 until July 25,
2020, and from approximately 2019 to August 2020, respectively.

Woodvalley Landscape, Inc., is a provider of landscape services
with its principal place of business in Gwinnett County,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WPX ENERGY: Order of Dismissal Issued in Hudson Suit
----------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020, that
the court in Hudson v. Muncrief, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0095-JRS,
has granted a Stipulation and Order Regarding Mootness Fee Request,
Notice, and Dismissal.

In connection with the acquisition of Felix Investments Holdings
II, LLC (the "Acquisition"), WPX Energy, Inc. (the "Company") and
the members of its Board of Directors were named as defendants in a
putative class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Hudson v. Muncrief, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0095-JRS.

On March 3, 2020, the Court approved the dismissal of the Hudson
action as moot following the Company's filing of certain
supplemental disclosures concerning the Acquisition on a Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on February 28, 2020.

The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any application for
attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by the Hudson action
plaintiff or her counsel (the "Fee Request").

On September 28, 2020, the Court granted a Stipulation and Order
Regarding Mootness Fee Request, Notice, and Dismissal (the "Order")
in the Hudson Action to resolve the Fee Request. The Order requires
that the Company give notice of the Order to its stockholders.

A copy of the order is available at https://bit.ly/36I1fhw.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration
and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its
operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico
Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production from
tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston and San
Juan Basins.


XCEL CARE: Mogocha Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay for Caregivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felistus Mogocha and all others similarly situated v. Xcel Care,
LLC and Patricia A. Ackeifi, Case No. 3:20-cv-01492 (D. Conn.,
Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime pay to the Plaintiff and the putative class
members in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Connecticut Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by the federal
and state laws, and failed to accurately record all hours she
worked, including interruptions during the live-in sleep and meal
breaks. She asserts that she and the class members were frequently
interrupted during the night and failed to get at least five hours
of uninterrupted sleep time but the Defendants assumed that they
all had eight hours of uninterrupted sleep time and took three full
one-hour meal breaks and failed to pay them for this time.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Home
Health Aide, a/k/a Caregiver, on September 1, 2018.

Xcel Care, LLC, is a non-medical home health care agency in
Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
          100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103-3007
          Telephone: (860) 249-7180
          Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
          E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com


YAYYO INC: Faces Hamlin Suit Over 90% Drop in IPO Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON J. HAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YAYYO, INC.; RAMY EL-BATRAWI; JONATHAN ROSEN; KEVIN
PICKARD; HARBANT S. SIDHU; JEFFREY GUZY; CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO; PAUL
RICHTER; AEGIS CAPITAL CORP.; and WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-08235 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), is brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded YayYo
securities pursuant and traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus issued in connection with YayYo's November 14,
2019 initial public offering, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

According to the complaint, on November 14, 2019, YayYo filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission the final prospectus for the
IPO of common stock on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms
part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, YayYo sold
2,625,000 shares at $4.00 per share, purportedly the "total gross
proceeds from the offering were $10,500,000."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement,
YayYo's stock price has fallen significantly below its IPO price,
damaging the Plaintiff and the Class members, according to the
complaint. As of the filing of this Complaint, YayYo's stock trades
at approximately 40 cents per share, a 90% decline from the price
the stock was offered at the IPO.

YayYo, Inc., develops and delivers a rideshare booking and cost
comparison application. The Company offers a metasearch application
for smartphones that provides price comparison and booking of
available ride sharing, as well as taxi and public transportation
services. YayYo serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***