---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 211

                            Headlines

AIRBUS SE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
ALTICE USA: Leeper Suit Transferred to Arkansas
ARDENT: Class Action Plaintiffs Can't Access Insurance Docs
AUSTRALIA: Centrelink Robo-Debt Class Action Trial Postponed
AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers Mulls Class Suit Over Border Closures

BANNER CORP: Gonzalez Files Suit in Washington
BERLUTI LLC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
BLINK CHARGING: Zhang Investor Announces Oct. 23 Deadline
BOSTON COLLEGE: Class Action Seeks Partial Tuition Refund

BR INTERVIEWING: Faces Ruffin Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BUCCELLATI INC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
CABOT OIL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
CENTRAL COVENTRY: Almagno Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CENTURA HEALTH: Class Action Moved to State Court in La Plata

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Several Privacy Class Actions
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY: Faces Potential Class Action Lawsuit
COLONY CREDIT: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
COTY INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline

COTY INC: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
COTY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline
FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Schall Law Announces Class Action
FRESNO PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Hedges Asserts Breach of ADA
FRONERI US INC: Yu Files Suit in New York

GLOBAL CELLULAR: Cota Alleges Violation Under ADA
GOHEALTH INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
GOL LINHAS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
GOLAR LNG: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action

GOLAR LNG: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
GP DELIVERY: Green & Hurst Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
HDFC BANK: To Vigorously Defend Against U.S. Class Action
HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS: Rendon Sues Over Wage & Hour Violations
HOME TO COMMUNITY: Ash-Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation

INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Files Suit in Minnesota
JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Flynn-Murphy Files Suit in New Jersey
LG ELECTRONICS: Marriott & Wasle Sue Over Defective Compressors
LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT: Schoech Files FCRA Suit in Kentucky
MAYES EDUCATION: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA

MONAT GLOBAL: Consumers File Complaints Over Hair Care Products
NANO-X IMAGING: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
NANO-X IMAGING: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NANO-X IMAGING: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lineburg Files PI Suit in California

NELSON SERVICES: Marin Suit Seeks OT Pay for Cleaners
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION: Chiappetta Asserts Breach of ADA
NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Reminds of November 20 Deadline
NIKOLA CORPORATION: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Pierce Atwood Discuss Ruling on Plaintiff Incentive

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Alerts of Class Action Filing
OHIO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Asserts Breach of ADA
PACIFIC OAKS EDUCATION: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
PALM BEACH, FL: Teachers File Class Action Over School Reopening
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ilyayev Asserts Breach of FDCPA

PROSHARES ULTRA: Gross Law Announces Class Action
QUTOUTIAO INC: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action
REDFIN CORP: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
TOLEDO, OH: Denies Wrongdoing in Red Light Camera Class Action
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline

UNITED STATES: Ex-Staffer Sues Over Speech-Stifling Contracts
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ordosgoitti Files Suit in Nebraska
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Earley Suit Over 25% Drop in Share Price

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or 56%, to close at
$18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries
fell $2.85 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $72.10 per share on July
31, 2020.

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

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

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 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]

ALTICE USA: Leeper Suit Transferred to Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mesha Leeper and Betty Barton, individually
and o/b/o a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
Altice USA, Inc. doing business as: Suddenlink Communications,
Defendant, was transferred from the Circuit Court of Clark County
with the assigned Case No. 10CV-20-111 to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas (Hot Springs) on Oct. 13,
2020, and assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-06119-RTD.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.

Altice USA, Inc., commonly known as Altice, is an American cable
television provider with headquarters in New York City. It delivers
pay television, Internet access, telephone services, and original
television content to approximately 4.9 million residential and
business customers in 21 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

   Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
   Thrash Law Firm
   1101 Garland Street
   Little Rock, AR 72201
   Tel: (501) 374-1058
   Fax: (501) 374-2222
   Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

     - and -

   Todd M. Turner, Esq.
   Arnold, Batson, Turner & Turner, P.A.
   501 Crittenden Street
   P.O. Box 480
   Arkadelphia, AR 71923
   Tel: (870) 246-9844
   Fax: (870) 246-9845
   Email: todd@abtt.us

     - and -

   William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
   William T. Crowder, PLLC
   1101 Garland Street
   Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
   Tel: (501) 374-1058
   Fax: (501) 374-2222
   Email: willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Floyd Thomas Curry, Esq.
   McMillan, Turner, McCorkle, Curry & Bennington, LLP
   929 Main St.
   P.O. Box 607
   Arkadelphia, AR 71923-0607
   Tel: (870) 246-2468
   Fax: (870) 246-3851
   Email: curry@mtmc-law.com

     - and -

   Ginger K. Gooch, Esq.
   Husch Blackwell LLP
   901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1800
   Springfield, MO 65806
   Tel: (417) 268-4000
   Fax: (417) 268-4040
   Email: ginger.gooch@huschblackwell.com

     - and -

   Jennifer Ziegenhorn, Esq.
   Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
   200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 1501
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 529-3005
   Fax: (901) 888-4040
   Email: jennifer.ziegenhorn@huschblackwell.com


ARDENT: Class Action Plaintiffs Can't Access Insurance Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that the Federal Court has again
struck down an application by class action plaintiffs to access
confidential insurance documents held by a respondent.

Law firm Allens says the court's recent decision, which involves a
shareholder lawsuit against the company that owns the Dreamworld
theme park in Queensland, showed such applications would be
rejected if it is for the purpose of lining up a litigation
strategy.

Allens says there is now "a growing body of case law that supports
the proposition that class action applicants are unlikely to be
able to obtain documents from a respondent (or insurer) concerning
the respondent's insurance position for the purposes of informing
litigation strategy, mediation or settlement".

"Furthermore, a condition precedent in litigation funding
arrangements requiring applicants to obtain access to a
respondent's insurance policies, and the potential termination of
litigation funding if access is not granted, will not hold sway
with the courts when considering whether to grant access to a
respondent's insurance policies."

Shareholders in the Dreamworld class action had submitted to the
court they needed access to the insurance documents of Ardent
Leisure to decide if it was commercially viable for the lawsuit to
proceed.

Access to the documents would also allow them to conduct the
litigation in a proportionate and efficient manner, as well as
enhance the prospects of a favourable settlement for plaintiffs.

The shareholders are suing Ardent Leisure as the owner of
Dreamworld, alleging misleading or deceptive representations about
safety standards caused them to suffer financially when the share
price fell. Dreamworld remains closed, four years after an incident
in one of its rides killed four patrons.

In April the Federal Court had struck down a similar application
made by another class action involving customers who had bought
motor warranty products from Davantage.

The plaintiffs also submitted they needed access to the insurance
documents in order to assess if it made commercial sense for them
to press on with the legal action.

Clyde and Co Partner Gareth Horne told insuranceNEWS.com.au the
court has "effectively drawn a line in the sand" by rejecting the
application.

"The decision levels the playing field somewhat, by limiting the
ability of complainants to obtain an undue forensic advantage in
litigation simply because the defendant has an insurance policy in
place," he said. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Centrelink Robo-Debt Class Action Trial Postponed
------------------------------------------------------------
Asha Barbaschow, writing for ZDNet, reports that the class action
lawsuit brought on by Gordon Legal against the Commonwealth of
Australia in relation to the Centrelink Online Compliance
Intervention (OCI) scheme, colloquially known as robo-debt, was
scheduled to begin Sept. 21, 2020, but the trial was pushed out to
allow the applicants to file an amended statement of claim.

In the amended statement of claim, Gordon Legal has alleged two
Australian ministers and a handful of government officials had
knowledge robo-debt was causing harm to vulnerable Centrelink
customers.

The Department of Human Services, now Services Australia, kicked
off the data-matching program of work in 2016, which saw the
automatic issuing of debt notices to those in receipt of welfare
payments through the Centrelink scheme.

From July 1, 2016 through August 31, 2019, Centrelink's OCI program
saw 1,159,662 assessments be initiated using the automated
data-matching technique.

The amended statement alleges that former Minister for Human
Services Alan Tudge was aware robo-debt notifications contained
errors on the department's part.

The amendment also alleges that the Commonwealth knew about the
vulnerability status of its customers as the knowledge could be
inferred from the eligibility criteria for receiving financial
assistance. It added that any recovery by the Commonwealth of an
asserted overpayment could cause significant financial hardship.

In addition, the claim alleges that the department knew its
fortnightly averaging practices were erroneous back in February
2015 and that in March 2017, Tudge was told 33% of robo-debts "were
changed to AU$0 on review".

According to the applicants, two department officials -- Social
Services chief operating officer Annette Musolino and Malisa
Golightly, who is currently Deputy Secretary Immigration and
Settlement Services at the Department of Home Affairs -- were
allegedly made aware in March 2017 of a draft recommendation by the
Ombudsman in relation to the OCI system that the Commonwealth
"should . . . give further consideration as to how to mitigate the
risk of possible over-recovery of debts".

The claim said the two officials allegedly never sought to dispute
or qualify that recommendation, and neither did Tudge, when he was
told of the same in April.

The claim further accuses the department of being told on 76
occasions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that
Centrelink robo-debts had been set aside on the basis that the
fortnightly income assumption could not lawfully support the
existence of a debt. The applicants allege the Commonwealth acted
unlawfully in determining and asserting any debt overpayment, in
requesting or demanding repayment, and recovering the asserted
debt.

"The Commonwealth had and has no statutory or other power to raise
and recover or seek to recover any Asserted Overpayment Debt, or
impose any penalty thereon, in respect of any Applicant or Group
Member," the claim reads.

"The Commonwealth knew of these matters (including their
unlawfulness) because: It was party to Administrative Appeals
Tribunal reviews in which Asserted Overpayment and which it elected
not to appeal or have reviewed (AAT Unlawful Debt Decisions),
including the 76 decisions," it adds.

The amended claim lists dozens of situations where customers were
threatening self-harm or even suicide in response to receiving a
debt letter. It also alleges that Tudge in July 2017 was told a
"DHS recipient took their own life" following receipt of a
robo-debt notification.

Tudge ended his tenure as Human Services minister in December 2017
and is currently Minister for Population, Cities and Urban
Infrastructure.  

The claim also accuses former Minister for Families and Social
Services Paul Fletcher of having knowledge that a certain ATO
payment differential was not an overpayment.

Gordon Legal launched the robo-debt class action in November last
year on behalf of five representative applicants and hundreds of
thousands of people who are included in the case as group members.

The essence of the applicants' case is that debts raised by
robo-debt are unlawful, and all recipients should be compensated by
the federal government. Gordon Legal was previously seeking
interest payments and damages, but is now asking for exemplary
damages due to the government's continued running of the scheme in
light of its new claims.

Instead of the class action kicking off on Sept. 21, another case
management hearing was heard instead to discuss the amended claim.
The Commonwealth, represented by Michael Hodge QC, said the
applicants were "trying to run a case which is outside the pleaded
case".

"They haven't pleaded either knowledge or reckless indifference in
relation to actual unlawfulness. They pleaded knowledge of other
things in relation to minister Tudge," Hodge said.

During the hearing, Justice Bernard Murphy said that given Hodge's
strong focus on the allegations made against Tudge, over the other
new claims, the judge noted that "likely there was some substance
in the complaint, otherwise [Hodge] wouldn't have pushed it as hard
as [he did]".

"I'm becoming frustrated with the pleadings fight in this case. I'm
frustrated with both sides . . . on the applicants' side, the
pleading has moved around; it wasn't adequately particularised . .
. I suspect when you are confronted with Mr Hodge's complaints
about your submissions that you'll find some of them are outside
the pleaded case," Murphy said.

"From Mr Hodge's side, there's a fair bit of strategy going on in
all of this . . . my focus is on giving both parties a fair
opportunity to put their case and to make sure the respondent
understands the case that's being brought against it.

"This affects hundreds and thousands of people."

Representatives for the Commonwealth had until Sept. 25 to provide
a list of issues it has regarding the amended statement of claim,
while the applicants had until Oct. 2 to respond. In the interim,
another case management hearing was set for Sept. 24. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Maddens Lawyers Mulls Class Suit Over Border Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Price, writing for The Standard, reports that Maddens
Lawyers is calling for registrations of interest for people
impacted by the Victorian-South Australian border closures for a
potential class action against both the state governments on either
side of the border.

Principal lawyer Kathryn Emeny said Maddens was focusing on farming
or agri-business operations affected by the border closure.

"We've become aware of ongoing impacts to farmers and
agri-businesses in the Victorian-South Australian border area," she
said.

"The impacts include the level of disruption and length of time the
closure has been going on for and it has led to concern."

Ms Emeny said registrations were open to anyone but the law firm
had a particular focus on people with properties affected and
cross-border work.

"It is quite early days but we have had interest from businesses
and contractors who are trying to navigate through the
restrictions," she said.

"We're keen to hear from people as soon as possible."

Registrations can be made through
maddenslawyers.com.au/sa-vic-border-closures [GN]


BANNER CORP: Gonzalez Files Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banner Corporation.
The case is styled as Erricka Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Banner Corporation,
doing business as: Banner Bank, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01521
(W.D. Wa., Oct. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract.

Banner Bank is a Washington-chartered commercial bank headquartered
in Walla Walla, Washington, with roots that date back to 1890. The
bank provides services in commercial real estate, construction,
residential, agricultural and consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Roger S. Davidheiser, Esq.
   Friedman Rubin PLLC (SEATTLE-DOWNTOWN)
   1109 1st Ave Ste 501
   Seattle, WA 98101-2988
   Tel: (206) 501-4446
   Fax: (206) 623-0794
   Email: rdavidheiser@friedmanrubin.com



BERLUTI LLC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berluti LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Berluti LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02002-CAB-LL
(S.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2020).

Berluti is a subsidiary brand of LVMH that manufactures menswear,
especially the leather finishing of calfskin, kangaroo leather and
alligator skin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Blink Charging
Company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the 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.

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK)

Investors Affected : March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Blink Charging Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged,
neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii)
Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies
were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company's
network has been overstated; and (iv) 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/blink-charging-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9611&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]

BLINK CHARGING: Zhang Investor Announces Oct. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Blink Charging Co.
(NASDAQ: BLNK)  between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
investor losses under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=blink-charging-co&id=2369
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged,
neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (2)
Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies
were overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company's network
has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation.  You
may retain counsel of your choice.  You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

BOSTON COLLEGE: Class Action Seeks Partial Tuition Refund
---------------------------------------------------------
Megan Kelly, writing for The Heights, reports that a Boston College
student filed a class-action lawsuit against the University seeking
a partial refund for tuition after BC moved classes online for the
remainder of the spring semester in March, on the grounds that the
University failed to provide the full in-person educational
experience and access to facilities for which students paid.

"Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for an
education, not course credits," the suit reads. "They paid for the
robust education and full experience of academic life on BC's
campus; remote online learning cannot provide the same value as
in-person education."

The suit alleges that BC has unjustly retained the full benefit of
tuition and fees payments while failing to provide a full education
to its students -- these allegations are formally titled as "breach
of contract" and "unjust enrichment."

The plaintiff, Anilda Rodrigues, MCAS '22, is claiming that BC
failed to deliver on its contractual obligations to "provide an
agreed-upon number of classes through in-person instruction and
access to physical resources and school facilities" and provide
instruction accredited by The New England Commission of Higher
Education, according to the suit.

Rodrigues asserts that she and other BC students paid thousands in
tuition for each "credit hour" of classroom or direct faculty
instruction. The suit says that Rodrigues received less than half
of her promised time of instruction as a result of the switch to
online classes and is therefore entitled to a partial refund of
tuition, fees, and other payments.

BC's Office of the Provost and Dean of Faculties defines a credit
hour as approximately one hour of classroom or direct faculty
instruction and a minimum of two hours of out-of-class work per
week, though it also includes alternative academic activities, such
as laboratory work, internships, or clinical work.

BC's policy on credit hours is based on Department of Education
regulations set in 2011. The department's website states that its
definition of credit hours does not necessitate that institutions
use an hour of in-person instruction as their only metric of
measuring credit. It also says that asynchronous online courses
meet the requirements for a credit hour so long as students are
completing at least an equivalent amount of work.

The suit describes how Rodrigues' spring semester classes switched
entirely online in March, and it says that the laboratory portion
of one of her classes was canceled and replaced with written
self-study assignments.

Rodrigues' lawyers assert that BC's current policy of charging
lower tuition rates for online instruction at the Woods College of
Advancing Studies is an acknowledgment that online instruction is
not equivalent to in-person classes, according to the suit.

"For example, for the Fall 2020 semester, BC charged undergraduate
students at the Robert J. Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences an
average of $1,968 per credit, but charged undergraduate students
taking courses in its largely or partially online James A. Woods,
S.J. College of Advancing Studies only $534 per credit hour --
almost a 73% reduction," the lawsuit reads.

The claim also says students paid for a full semester of access to
school services and facilities that, given the switch to online
instruction and the requirement to move out of residence halls, BC
did not provide.

Students across the country have brought similar lawsuits against
their universities as a result of the switch to online classes in
the spring—these universities include the University of
California school system and St. John's University in Queens, N.Y.

BC's decision to close campus and end in-person classes was
warranted by the circumstances, the suit says, but Rodrigues "asks
merely to be refunded the money she spent for educational services
that were not provided."

Neal Hutchens, a professor who specializes in higher education law
at the University of Mississippi, told The Heights that he doesn't
know of any precedents for lawsuits like this.

"I would say that we're in somewhat uncharted territory with this
national pandemic kind of situation that we're having," Hutchens
said.

Hutchens said he thinks that the various lawsuits seeking refunds
for tuition and fees from colleges across the country will face
difficult challenges in court.

"I think courts are going to be pretty reluctant to wade into these
lawsuits in a way that would satisfy the students who are suing,"
Hutchens said. "I think they'll probably reject them."

The breach of contract allegation will face scrutiny due to
students lacking specific contracts for the classes they are
enrolled in, Hutchens said.

"It's not going to have a specific contract, like I signed for this
class that would be delivered on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from
2 to 3:30 in person," he said. ". . . This gets into somewhat of an
area of the law where courts will use contract-type principles when
they have a dispute between a student and an institution, but at
times, they hesitate to say it's exactly the same as a contract."

If the University received full tuition and just stopped teaching
its students in March altogether, that would be a different story,
Hutchens said.

"I think at the end of the day, what the institution is going to
offer is to say things like, ‘Students enrolled in these courses
got course credit that counts towards their graduation
requirements. If they're also getting different kinds of
professional certifications, we're working to ensure that it will
satisfy their certification standards,'" Hutchens said. ". . . In
the totality of the student's educational experiences, the school
did the best it could to make good faith efforts to keep the
learning process going."

The University does not comment on ongoing litigation as a matter
of policy, and Senior Associate Director of University
Communications Ed Hayward declined to comment on the case.
Rodrigues also declined a request for comment.

Chris Lefebvre, one of Rodrigues' lawyers, said in an email to The
Heights that the University should be distributing its financial
losses from moving online more equitably between students and the
University.

"The Boston College student body should not bear the brunt of the
diminished value of their educational experience caused by the
COVID crisis," Lefebvre wrote. "These losses should be apportioned
in a fair and equitable fashion." [GN]


BR INTERVIEWING: Faces Ruffin Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY RUFFIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. BR INTERVIEWING, INC. and BRAUN RESEARCH,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-14513 (D.N.J., Oct. 15, 2020) arises from
the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., among other laws.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly telephone
interviewer at a call center facility in Pensacola, Florida, from
September 2018 to April 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other telephone
interviewers spend substantial amounts of time each day booting up
and shutting down their computers and launching and logging into
the essential computer networks, software programs, applications
and phone systems before and after their shifts and during their
unpaid meal breaks. The Defendants, however, do not pay them for
all of this time.

The complaint further alleges that the Defendants' unlawful rest
break policy deprived the Plaintiff and the telephone interviewers
of overtime pay as required by the FLSA. The Defendants'
non-payment of wages for all compensable time also constitutes
breach of contract or unjust enrichment.

BR Interviewing, Inc. and Braun Research, Inc. are marketing
opinion research firms based in Princeton, New Jersey that conduct
telephone and internet research for various survey research firms,
government and advertising agencies, foundations, universities and
academic entities as well as religious organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Towne Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com

BUCCELLATI INC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buccellati, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Buccellati, Inc., a New York corporation and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02007-GPC-AGS (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 13, 2020).

Buccellati is one of the world's most renowned high jewelry houses,
celebrated for its craftsmanship and one of a kind jewels and
watches since 1919.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CABOT OIL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Cabot Oil & Gas
Corporation. Shareholders who purchased shares in the 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.

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG)

Investors Affected : October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly
mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures;
(ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty
gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement,
as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot
continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal
liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=9611&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]

CENTRAL COVENTRY: Almagno Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
JAMES ALMAGNO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees of the CENTRAL COVENTRY FIRE DISTRICT,
v. CENTRAL COVENTRY FIRE DISTRICT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00440-JJM-LDA
(D.R.I., Oct. 15, 2020), is a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment, overtime pay, liquidated damages and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA include
intentionally failing and refusing to pay all compensation due the
Plaintiff under the FLSA and its implementing regulations, the
complaint says.

The Plaintiff and the class are or were represented by the Coventry
Firefighters Union, Local 3372, IAFF. The Union and the District
are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing
terms and conditions of their employment for the period September
1, 2015 through August 31, 2020.

The Central Coventry Fire District is a Fire District in the Town
of Coventry. The department responds to fire, medical, hazardous
material, and marine responses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Wiens, Esq.
          GURSKY | WIENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD.
          1130 Ten Rod Rd., Ste C207
          North Kingstown, RI 02852
          Telephone: (401) 294-4700
          Facsimile: (401) 294-4702
          E-mail: ewiens@rilaborlaw.com

CENTURA HEALTH: Class Action Moved to State Court in La Plata
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hayes, writing for The Durango Herald, reports that a
class-action lawsuit challenging Centura Health's billing practices
has moved from federal court to a state district court in La Plata
County after the health corporation sought to delay and dismiss the
case on jurisdictional grounds.

Centura Health argued in August that the U.S. District Court of
Colorado, a federal court, does not have jurisdiction over the case
because the plaintiff, Franklin Walker, is a resident of Flora
Vista, New Mexico.

Tim Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- one of the attorneys in the
class-action case and a managing partner for Blood, Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP in San Diego, said the defendant decided to
voluntarily move the case from the federal court to the state
district court to prevent further delay. Courts typically put a
case on hold until questions of jurisdiction are addressed.

"We want to get to the merits of the case," Blood said.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which allows Walter's case
to be considered in federal court, could give Centura Health a
chance to appeal the results of the case on a narrow issue, and
Blood said he wants to avoid that.

The plaintiff filed in Colorado instead of New Mexico because that
is where his surgery took place and where Centura Health is
headquartered, Blood said.

Walter, a patient at Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango - one
of the 17 hospitals owned by Centura Health - received a surprise
bill for $1,216.73 two months after his routine knee replacement
without an explanation or an itemized statement.

He argues the "Consent for Medical Treatment" contract he signed
before the procedure requires the nonprofit corporation to provide
patients with an estimate of what they will have to pay out of
pocket.

The contract between Mercy and nonemergency patients says: "I
acknowledge that estimated responsibility is due at the time of
service and that any remaining charges are due and payable upon
receipt of the bill."

Jennifer Wills, vice president of communications and chief of staff
for Centura Health, said in an email statement to The Durango
Herald in August that Walter was a patient covered by Medicare, and
Medicare does not cover medications an outside physician
prescribes.

Wills also said it is impossible for Centura Health to provide a
patient with an estimate of his or her personal out-of-pocket costs
before a procedure because their hospitals do not know which
medications will be ordered by the patient's physician until after
the procedure.

Centura Health declined to comment about the change in venue. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Pavelka Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter
Communications, Inc. The case is styled as Jackson Pavelka, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01557 (D.
Conn., Oct. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Restrictions
of Use of Telephone Equipment.

Charter Communications, Inc., is an American telecommunications and
mass media company that offers its services to consumers and
businesses under the branding of Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
   Wocl Leydon LLC
   80 Fourth Street
   Stamford, CT 06905
   Tel: (203) 333-3339
   Email: bleydon@tooherwocl.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Several Privacy Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for NU Property Casualty360 reports that a
New York-based tech startup that claims to have amassed a
collection of 3 billion photographic images is tussling with two
federal judges overseeing nearly a dozen privacy lawsuits in New
York and Illinois, home to the strictest biometrics law in the
country.

Since a January 18, 2020, story in The New York Times unveiled the
business model of Clearview AI Inc., which uses facial recognition
to provide photographic information, primarily to law enforcement,
lawyers have filed 11 class actions and Vermont Attorney General TJ
Donovan and the ACLU, represented by Jay Edelson of Edelson PC,
have also filed lawsuits.

Many of the class actions cite the Biometric Information Privacy
Act, a statute in Illinois that prompted Facebook Inc. to pay a
$650 million settlement over its "tag suggestions" feature and a
recent spate of lawsuits against TikTok the MDL panel sent to
Illinois in August.

Clearview AI is facing litigation in Illinois and New York, where
two federal judges have resisted handing over their cases to one
another.

Two states, one precedent creates potential conflict in ruling

In August, Clearview AI, in a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, sought to coordinate all the cases in
New York to avoid duplicative and possibly conflicting court
decisions.

"Two federal judges -- Chief Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern
District of New York and Judge Sharon Coleman in the Northern
District of Illinois -- have ordered the parties to proceed with
the actions both in New York and Illinois concurrently," wrote
Clearview AI attorney Lee Wolosky, in the Aug. 18 motion.

"Without centralization," he continued, "Chief Judge McMahon and
Judge Coleman would need to separately resolve the motions
addressing identical factual and legal issues, which is a waste of
judicial and party resources, and creates a significant risk of
inconsistent rulings, especially given the novelties and
complexities of data privacy law generally and facial-recognition
technology in particular."

Recently, plaintiff lawyers in five class actions in New York
supported Clearview AI's transfer, citing a "growing number of
non-Illinois residents pursuing non-Illinois state claims against
Clearview."

"That's where our case is filed and where the cases should be
consolidated given the witnesses and actions that take place
there," said James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- of
Hausfeld, who filed a nationwide class action in New York that
involves broader privacy claims, as well as BIPA.

"The main argument for the cases in Illinois is this is a BIPA
case, and Illinois cases are best suited to BIPA," he said.
Facebook reached its $650 million settlement; however, in
California federal court. "Any court, we think, can handle these
cases."

Allegations against Clearview AI

Lawyers in five other matters note the progress of the cases in
Illinois, where Coleman issued an Aug. 12 ruling denying dismissal
based on jurisdictional challenges, noting that Clearview AI worked
with numerous Illinois entities, including the Chicago Police
Department. Plaintiffs attorneys also have a pending motion for
preliminary injunction before Coleman.

The venue fight comes as Clearview AI has come under increased
scrutiny, with U.S. Senator Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, and the
U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology raising concerns about privacy and recent breaches in
letters.

The lawsuits allege that Clearview AI scrapes internet sites for
publicly available images without the knowledge or consent of the
individuals in the photographs and, at times, in violation of the
rules of some social media sites, then sells access to the
information to not just law enforcement but to retailers. Many of
the cases also name Clearview AI founder and CEO Hoan Ton-That and
Richard Schwartz, the president, as defendants.

In court documents, Clearview AI has indicated it plans to argue a
First Amendment defense, noting that the photos are publicly
available and has on its legal team Cahill Gordon & Reindel's Floyd
Abrams -- fabrams@cahill.com -- and Joel Kurtzberg --
jkurtzberg@cahill.com -- The team also includes Tor Ekeland, an
attorney in Brooklyn, New York, who specializes in the federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

"Clearview has submitted to a multidistrict judicial panel our
position that the cases in New York and Illinois should be
pre-tried before one court, not some in New York and some in
Illinois, and that the venue for those should be in New York," said
Cahill Gordon & Reindel's Floyd Abrams.

Clearview AI responds

In response to the allegations in the lawsuits, Abrams said: "As
for allegations of privacy violations, we think the law is quite
clear that if somebody puts a picture on the Internet of him or
herself and does not take the steps that are available to keep it
private, that it is public, by its nature, and, as a matter of law,
that therefore there is no valid privacy claim that could be
asserted by those people or by whatever states have passed
legislation in this area."

Cases filed initially in California and Virginia ended up in New
York. On April 21, lawyers at Chicago's Loevy & Loevy, who were
named in August as lead counsel in the Illinois cases, attempted to
intervene to send the New York cases to Illinois. In a May 29
order, McMahon concluded Loevy & Loevy's client, David Mutnick, had
no standing in New York, which is the "primary locus of the
disputes."

"The interest that Mutnick is really seeking to protect is an
interest in controlling the fate of, and the fees to be earned in
several class actions that would, were they all in the same court,
be consolidated and proceed under the leadership of one class
representative's lawyer (I am under no illusion that these cases
are anything other than attorney-driven class actions)," she
wrote.

"He is using intervention as a vehicle to fight for control of what
he anticipates will be a hotly contested lawsuit that will test the
limits of a new and untried body of law — and assuming all of
these cases end up in a single district (they may or may not), his
lawyer is fighting for the right to be lead counsel."

Case dismissal

Scott Drury, founder of Loevy & Loevy, did not respond to a request
for comment.

In her dismissal order, Coleman also refused Clearview AI's request
to transfer the Illinois cases to New York, noting that Illinois
courts are more familiar with BIPA and have a greater interest in
protecting the privacy interests of Illinois residents.

Clearview's other factors, she wrote, are unpersuasive.

"Under the circumstances," she wrote, "the above
mentioned-convenience factors do not weigh in favor of either forum
in light of modern electronic discovery practices, especially now
during the COVID-19 pandemic where depositions and court hearings
are done remotely via video and audio conferencing."

Both judges have stayed the cases, pending a decision from the MDL
panel, which is unlikely to hear the request until its Dec. 3
hearing. [GN]


COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY: Faces Potential Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan White at Flathat News reports that the College of William and
Mary may be facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of student
athletes which alleges that the recent decision to discontinue
seven varsity athletic teams violates Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972.

On Sept. 23, attorney Arthur Bryant sent a letter to College
President Katherine Rowe announcing the details of this possible
lawsuit. The Flat Hat obtained this letter from Tricia Maher-Miller
'90.

"I and my co-counsel have been retained by members of the women's
varsity gymnastics, volleyball, and swimming teams to prevent their
teams' elimination and, if necessary, pursue a class action lawsuit
against William & Mary College for depriving women athletes and
potential athletes of equal opportunities, athletic financial aid,
and treatment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972," Bryant said in the letter.

"I AND MY CO-COUNSEL HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY MEMBERS OF THE WOMEN'S
VARSITY GYMNASTICS, VOLLEYBALL, AND SWIMMING TEAMS TO PREVENT THEIR
TEAMS' ELIMINATION AND, IF NECESSARY, PURSUE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
AGAINST WILLIAM & MARY COLLEGE FOR DEPRIVING WOMEN ATHLETES AND
POTENTIAL ATHLETES OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, ATHLETIC FINANCIAL AID,
AND TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS
OF 1972," BRYANT SAID IN THE LETTER.

Bryant has a history of representing female athletes at the
College. In 1991, Bryant was retained by members of the College's
women's basketball team in 1991 when their team faced elimination,
after Bryant met with then-President Paul Verkuil and the College's
lawyers to explain how this decision violated Title IX, the women's
basketball team was reinstated.

According to Bryant, the College's decision to eliminate women's
gymnastics, volleyball and swimming after the 2020-21 academic year
also violates Title IX. Bryant said that there will be 220 men and
235 women participating in College athletics after the teams are
eliminated, meaning that women will make up 51.6 percent of
participation within Tribe Athletics. However, data from the U.S.
Department of Education shows that women make up about 57.7 percent
of undergraduate enrollment at the College. Therefore, the College
needs to add around 65 women to athletic programs in order to
achieve Title IX equity, which Bryant says is approximately the
number of women on the teams that the College is eliminating.

"Based on these facts, unless William & Mary agrees not to
eliminate the women's teams or has some plans for compliance with
Title IX  we do not yet know, we will seek a preliminary injunction
immediately preserving the teams," Bryant said in the letter.

Rowe had until September 30 to respond before an injunction is
filed against the College.

College spokesperson Suzanne Clavet declined to directly comment on
the details of the case.

"It is our practice not to comment on either pending or potential
litigation," Clavet said in an email. "The university takes its
obligations under Title IX seriously and is committed to upholding
them."

Bryant is an attorney with Bailey & Glasser LLP, a firm which
specializes in commercial and class action litigation. According to
the firm's website, Bailey Glasser typically focuses on cases
involving energy and finance, and has experience in successfully
prosecuting and defending multimillion-dollar cases, including
complex class actions.

According to the Women's Sports Foundation, Title IX grants female
athletes the right to equal athletic opportunities in educational
institutions that receive federal funding. These equal
opportunities must include equity in athletic participation as well
as equitable access to financial scholarships any other program
components like equipment and supplies. Compliance with the
athletic aspects of Title IX is assessed through total program
comparison, not individual team comparison. This allows educational
institutions to provide different types of athletic programs to men
and women as long as they remain equitable in nature.

Bryant's case mirrors previous litigation at other schools. Eastern
Michigan University faced a similar Title IX lawsuit after they cut
women's tennis and softball in 2018 to balance the school's budget,
according to EMU's website.  The case reached a settlement earlier
this year when EMU agreed to reinstate women's tennis and replace
women's softball with a women's lacrosse team in order to comply
with Title IX. [GN]

COLONY CREDIT: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Colony
Credit Real Estate, Inc. ("Colony Credit" or "the Company") (NYSE:
CLNC) for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the combination of Colony
NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar") and NorthStar Real Estate
Income Trust, Inc. ("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate Income
II, Inc. ("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the
"Merger"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 9,
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. Colony Credit's assets suffered from
deteriorating credit quality in advance of the Merger. Four of the
Company's loans, totaling $261 million and related to a New York
Hotel, were not only impaired, but also suffered from insufficient
collateral and were unlikely to be repaid. As a result, assets that
were part of the Merger were materially overstated. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements and Registration Statement
were false and materially misleading throughout the Merger period.
When the market learned the truth about Colony Credit, 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]

COTY INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-coty-inc-securities-litigation-2

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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

COTY INC: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders in Coty Inc.  There is no cost to
participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020

According to the complaint, Coty Inc. allegedly 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in COTY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/coty-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9424&from=1

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

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

CONTACT:

J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Tel. No.: (212) 616-4899
Fax. No.: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


COTY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Coty Inc. (NYSE: COTY) between
October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important November 3, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Coty
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Coty class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1866.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
to investors 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. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
3, 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-1866.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]

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

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
7, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 23, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Fluidigm suffered from long sales cycles.
The Company's lengthening sales cycles were likely to negatively
impact its revenue negatively. 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 Fluidigm,
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]

FRESNO PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Hedges Asserts Breach of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Fresno Pacific University is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fresno Pacific University,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08582 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).

Fresno Pacific University is a Christian university in Fresno,
California. It was founded as the Pacific Bible Institute in 1944
by the Pacific District Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.
The university awarded its first Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965.
The first master's degree program was introduced in 1975.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com
          michael@gottlieb.legal


FRONERI US INC: Yu Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Froneri US, Inc. The
case is styled as Lauren Yu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Froneri US, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08512 (S.D., N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Fraud.

Froneri supplies and retails dairy products. The Company offers ice
cream cones, sticks, tubs, and multipacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL CELLULAR: Cota Alleges Violation Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Global Cellular, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Global Cellular, Inc., a Georgia corporation
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02022-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2020).

Global Cellular, Inc. is located in Alpharetta, GA, United States
and is part of the Wireless Telecommunications Services
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOHEALTH INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO) investors to
contact the firm now. A securities class action related to
GoHealth's initial public offering has been filed and certain
investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: July 12, 2020 – Sept. 21, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 20, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/GOCO

Contact An Attorney Now:

GOCO@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

GoHealth (GOCO) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that GoHealth's IPO offering documents
contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions.
Specifically, the offering documents allegedly misrepresented or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was
undergoing a period of elevated customer churn that began in the
first half of 2020; (2) GoHealth's unique business model and its
limited carrier base exposed the company to a higher risk of churn;
(3) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer retention as a
result of elevated churn; (4) GoHealth had already entered into
materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its
external sales agents; and, (5) GoHealth internally projected these
adverse trends would continue and worsen after its IPO.

The IPO offering documents allowed GoHealth to go public, issuing
43.5 million shares to investors at $21 per share for total
proceeds of about $913.5 million.

However, since the IPO, GoHealth has reported disappointing
financial performance resulting from the material facts omitted in
the IPO offering documents and its common stock has suffered
significant price declines. By Sept. 15, 2020, GoHealth Class A
common stock closed at just $12.53 per share, or over 40% below the
$21 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less
than two months previously.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving GoHealth's IPO
offering documents misrepresented or omitted churn data when going
public," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a GoHealth investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
GoHealth should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email GOCO@hbsslaw.com.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]

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

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

On July 15, 2019, GoHealth sold approximately 43.5 million shares
of stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at
$21.00 per share raising almost $914 million in new capital.

On August 19, 2020, in GoHealth's first quarterly earnings report
following the IPO, announced that it had incurred a net loss of
$22.9 million in it's 2nd Quarter after reporting net income of
$15.3 million in the prior-year period.

Shares of the GoHealth''s stock are presently trading at almost 50%
below its recent IPO price, at $14.26 per share.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period the
defendants made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal
controls; (2) there was substantial doubt as to the GOL's ability
to continue to operate as a going concern, as a result of negative
net working capital and net capital deficiency; and (3) defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and false and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant time, as a result. When the true details were made
known to 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
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

GOLAR LNG: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Golar LNG Limited
(NASDAQ: GLNG) ("Golar" or the "Company") securities between April
24, 2020 and September 24, 2020 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
that certain employees, including Hygo's CEO, had bribed third
parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing
reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO would be
significantly impaired; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Golar securities between April 24, 2020
and September 24, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at
lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, or through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss
your legal rights.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         Tel No: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
         E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

GOLAR LNG: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Golar LNG
Limited ("Golar" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: GLNG) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 30,
2020 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 23, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Employees of Golar's joint venture, Hygo
Energy Transition Ltd. ("Hygo"), including Hygo's CEO, engaged in a
scheme to bribe third parties, violating the law. The illegal
scheme impacted Hygo's valuation before its IPO. 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 Golar, 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]

GP DELIVERY: Green & Hurst Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK GREEN and PATRICK HURST, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. GP DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., and
GREGORY PIERCE, Case No. 4:20-cv-01236-SWW (E.D. Ark., Oct. 15,
2020), is a collective action brought by the Plaintiffs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours
that they worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and other Day Rate Employees were
paid a flat day rate regardless of how many hours they worked in a
day. The Plaintiffs add that they regularly worked more than 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Delivery Drivers. Mr. Green
worked from October of 2012 until 2017, and as a Route Manager from
2017 until September of 2020. Mr. Hurst worked from March of 2020
until August of 2020.

The Defendants operate a contracting delivery service for FedEx to
deliver packages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

HDFC BANK: To Vigorously Defend Against U.S. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Anup Roy, writing for Business Standard, reports that private
sector lender HDFC Bank on Sept. 21 denied allegations of any
wrongdoing in its lending practices and said it would vigorously
defend itself against the lawsuit filed in the US.

According to a source, the statement pertains to a lawsuit filed by
US-based law firm Pomerantz, whereas two other firms -- Rosen Law
Firm and Schall Law -- have already announced that they would be
filing suits against the bank. However, they have not filed the
suits yet.

The class action lawsuits alleges the bank gave misleading public
statements and for failing to inform the investors about the bank's
improper internal controls on lending practices in its
vehicle-financing operations.

"The lawsuit, which was filed by a single small security holder,
who seeks to represent a class of the bank's security holders, is
based on allegations that the security holder claims caused a
temporary decline in the bank's ADR stock price in July 2020. The
bank denies the allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously
in the lawsuit," it said in a filing with exchanges.

The bank said it expects its response to the lawsuit to be due in
early 2021. "Since the lawsuit is at a premature stage, there is no
matter at this point of time which requires disclosure," it said.

The lawsuit has named outgoing Managing Director Aditya Puri,
CEO-designate Sashidhar Jagdishan, and Company Secretary Santosh
Haldankar as ‘individual defendants' and collectively, with the
bank, as ‘defendants'. [GN]


HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS: Rendon Sues Over Wage & Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. RENDON, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS, INC.
(dba Rosecrans Care Center), a California Corporation; and DOES
1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV39775 (Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of other
current and former aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General, against the Defendants for engaging in a pattern
and practice of wage and hour violations under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff contends that during the class period, the Defendant
did not have in place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately
record and pay him and other aggrieved employees for the actual
time they worked each day, including overtime hours. As a result
the Defendant was able to, and did in fact, unlawfully and
unilaterally alter the time recorded in the timekeeping system, and
was able to avoid paying them the applicable overtime compensation
for overtime worked, the Plaintiff adds.

Healthcare Investment Corporation's line of business includes
issuing shares, managing investment funds, and mutual fund
sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619)255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203

               - and -

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

HOME TO COMMUNITY: Ash-Robinson Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA ASH-ROBINSON, ADREANNE WALKER, RODNEY LEWIS and AARON BURTON,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
HOME TO COMMUNITY LIVING, INC., and REESHEMA BRITT, Case No.
4:20-cv-01239-DPM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 15, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The complaint alleges the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
overtime wages for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 per
week in violation of the federal and state laws. The Defendants'
termination of Ash-Robinson was also a direct and willful violation
of the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision, which forbids employers
from firing or otherwise taking retaliatory action against
individuals who have asserted their rights under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as caregivers.

Home to Community Living, Inc. is a Little Rock, Arkansas-based
company which provides supportive living, case management and
specialized medical supplies services to clients who are disabled
and require such assistance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Files Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inflection Risk
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tony N. Taylor, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Inflection
Risk Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-20-13239 (D., Minn,
Oct. 14, 2020).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Civil Other/Misc.

Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC is located in Redwood City, CA,
United States and is part of the Managed Application & Network
Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Gerard Albanese, Esq.
   43 Main St. S.E., Ste. 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414



JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Flynn-Murphy Files Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Land Rover
North America, LLC. The case is styled as Loretta Flynn-Murphy,
Lynn Cohn and Kelly McNew, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jaguar Land Rover North America,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-14464-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle
Prod. Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.

Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC was founded in 2001. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing or assembling
of complete passenger automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



LG ELECTRONICS: Marriott & Wasle Sue Over Defective Compressors
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON MARRIOTT and MICHAEL WASLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-14514 (D.N.J., Oct. 15, 2020), is a class action
complaint brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Kenmore
refrigerators containing a linear compressor manufactured by LG
Electronics during the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31,
2017.

According to the complaint, each of the Refrigerators was sold for
more than $1,000 to the Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class. However, the LG compressors in the Refrigerators are
defective and have a long history of failing. The complaint adds
that when the compressor fails, the Refrigerator is unable to cool
food in the Refrigerator, including in the freezer. The
Refrigerator warms and its perishable contents spoil. While
refrigerators normally last 13 years on average, the Kenmore
Refrigerators with LG compressors have been failing en masse within
approximately 36 months.

LG Electronics manufactures and distributes consumer electronic
products. The Company offers light emission diode televisions,
mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers,
air conditioners, and projectors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI &FEARON, LLP
          2600 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Jersey City, NJ 07306
          Telephone: (201) 200-0900
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT: Schoech Files FCRA Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home
Improvement, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Von Schoech and
Matthew Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Lowe's Home Improvement, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00168-TBR (W.D. Ky., Oct. 14, 2020).

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

Lowe's Home Improvement, LLC is an American retail company
specializing in home improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Devan A. Dannelly, Esq.
   Biesecker Dutkanych & Macer LLC - Louisville
   101 N. Seventh Street
   Louisville, KY 40202
   Tel: (502) 561-3484
   Fax: (812) 424-1005
   Email: ddannelly@bdlegal.com

     - and -

   Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
   Stumphauzer O'Toole McLaughlin McGlamery & Loughman Co.
   5455 Detroit Road
   Sheffield Village, OH 44054
   Tel: (440) 930-4001
   Fax: (440) 934-7208
   Email: mdooley@omdplaw.com




MAYES EDUCATION: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Mayes Education, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mayes Education, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08583 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).

Mayes Education, Inc. provides education services. The Company
offers online degree programs at the associate, bachelor, master,
and doctorate levels in a multitude of areas such as occupational
safety and health, fire and health care administration, criminal
justice, business, and human resource management, as well as
undergraduate and graduate certificate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal



MONAT GLOBAL: Consumers File Complaints Over Hair Care Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that hundreds of
consumers have filed complaints about an array of expensive hair
care products -- marketed by a company in South Florida -- that
they say led to hair loss, balding, itching, sores and skin
lesions.

Many have filed federal lawsuits against Monat Global Corp., which
has signed an agreement with Florida's attorney general's office
promising not to engage in unlawful and misleading sales and
marketing practices alleged in complaints to the Better Business
Bureau and U.S. Food and Drug Administration dating back to 2015.

Some customers said that when they reported the problems to the
sales reps, they were told that their hair was undergoing
"detoxification" and they should continue to use the product.

"After two weeks using the product I started noticing extreme hair
loss with every shower," a customer posted on the Better Business
Bureau website in 2017. "It would cover the drain and come out in
clumps. I contacted the rep and she told me that my hair was
detoxing. I continued to use [it] another week and my hair still
was falling out in clumps after washing."

Some complained that they weren't told that by accepting discounts
offered for initial purchases of Monat products, they were enrolled
in VIP memberships and automatically charged for future deliveries
they did not request.

In an "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance" that took effect in
September, Monat certified that it would refrain from engaging in
activities alleged in complaints reviewed by the state. Monat did
not admit to the conduct alleged in the complaints, and the
agreement states that the attorney general "takes no position" on
whether Monat "acted reasonably and in good faith or conducted its
business fairly and honestly" or whether "clinical studies
demonstrate the safety or efficacy of [Monat's] products."

Many of the complaints under investigation mirror charges by
customers in 10 class action suits filed by 18 lead plaintiffs from
15 states against the lucrative multilevel marketing company, which
is headquartered in Doral.

In 2018, those suits were consolidated into a single multidistrict
suit underway in U.S. District Court in Miami. The consolidated
lawsuit accuses Monat of representing its products as clinically
proven to promote hair growth and prevent baldness -- claims it
says only a drug regulated and approved by the FDA can make. The
suit also accuses the company of falsely claiming its products
contain only natural ingredients and no toxins, petrochemicals,
sulfates, or gluten.

Monat, founded in 2014, declined to answer specific questions about
allegations outlined in the agreement and the class action
lawsuits. But the company released a statement that reads, in
part:

"We've have been working closely with the Florida attorney
general's office to address a number of matters related to customer
relations and our rapid growth since 2017. After a lengthy process,
we are pleased this matter has come to a close with no findings of
wrongdoing.

"We grew incredibly fast in 2017 and 2018 — faster than we
expected. We also grew faster than we were prepared for and as a
result, we had some issues to address. Those issues have now been
resolved.

"Our working relationship with the Florida [attorney general's]
office was productive and positive and they brought some important
matters to light while empowering us to address them. We have
clarified and more carefully addressed our marketing messages and
our process for handling complaints to improve the customer
experience."

Complaints piled up quickly

After its founding in 2014, Monat evolved rapidly into one of the
nation's largest sellers of hair care products through its system
of sales reps extolling the brand's benefits and offering discounts
to customers willing to become sales reps themselves.

Within three years, the company sold more than 20 million units of
its product in the U.S. and Canada and generated about $300 million
in 2017 alone for its corporate owner, Alcora Corp., according to
the consolidated suit.

Customers are typically sold Monat products in small bundles called
"treatment systems" that include a shampoo, a conditioner and a
"leave-in" product with names like Moxie Magnifying Mousse,
Rejuvabeads, Replentish Masque and Reshape Root Lifter.

On its website, the company sells a one-ounce container of a
pre-shampoo treatment called Rejuveniqe Light for $99 - $84 for
"VIP Customers" - that the company states will leave skin and hair
"looking healthy, radiant and vibrant."

What Monat promises not to do

In the agreement with the attorney general, Monat affirmed that it
will permanently refrain from:

-- Making any representation "about the health benefits, safety,
performance, or efficacy" of any of its products unless it
"possesses and relies upon Competent and Reliable Scientific
Evidence ... to substantiate that the representation is true."

-- Misrepresenting that a product "causes hair loss because your
scalp is detoxifying and the hair follicles are enlarging."

-- Misrepresenting that a product "is clinically proven to
increase hair growth and significantly decrease hair loss."

-- Misrepresenting that the benefits of its products "are
scientifically proven" or that independent lab tests confirm their
safety and effectiveness.

-- Misrepresenting that the company was certified by any entity,
including governmental entities.

-- Misrepresenting that a product "does not and never will contain
polyethylene glycol, petrochemicals, sulfates, harmful fragrances,
and harmful colors," and that its products are "100% vegan or
gluten free."

-- Misrepresenting that customers are receiving a 100% money-back,
satisfaction guarantee, and the total cost that will be incurred as
a result of accepting a discount.

-- "Falsely or deceptively using stock photos as ‘before and
after photos' in its advertisements.

In addition, the company agreed to "clearly and conspicuously"
disclose its terms and conditions before obtaining customers'
billing information and/or charging the consumer's credit card,
debit card, bank account or other financial account.

Monat agreed to pay $250,000 to cover the state's attorneys fees,
costs and investigative fees, and to refund at least $82,782 to
customers whose complaints were reviewed in the investigation.

Kylie Mason, spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody,
said by email that investigators reviewed 21 complaints to the
Attorney General's Office and 874 complaints to the Better Business
Bureau submitted between June 2015 and March 2019. The office has
received another 30 complaints since the agreement was signed on
Aug. 13.

The agreement required the company to voluntarily comply with its
terms within 30 days after signing it. Failure by Monat to comply
with the terms will be considered evidence of a violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and could result
in the Attorney General's Office reopening the investigation and
taking further action, Mason said.

"In entering into this [agreement], our office obtained restitution
for consumers, strong injunctive terms to prevent future
violations, and a provision establishing penalties if any future
violation occurs," Mason said.

Mason said the office will be in contact with consumers eligible
for refunds and is working to establish a process for further
"consumer redress." Once in place, the office will issue a notice
about the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on its website along
with instructions on how consumers can request refunds.

Suit says Monat lied about product safety

Janet Varnell, a Tampa-based plaintiffs attorney representing one
of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit, said in an
interview that the agreement with the attorney general's office is
an important development in a long-running awareness campaign waged
by Monat's dissatisfied customers.

"I certainly hope it's going to curb the practices that so many
people are complaining about," she said in an interview. "I'm
encouraged because the attorney general's office will go after them
if they violate any of the terms."

Defendants in the suit accuse Monat of marketing its products as a
revolutionary anti-aging "treatment system" with the ability to
grow hair and impact hormonal levels to prevent hair loss.

The suit says Monat or its agents touted the products as "safe,"
"naturally based," and "clinically tested, proven and guaranteed to
deliver longer, fuller, stronger, younger-looking hair in just 90
days."

The lawsuit accuses the company of representing that its products
are "FDA approved" and made in the United States in a facility
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They have
"curative benefits such as the ability to treat medically diagnosed
hair and scalp conditions."

But the company never sought nor received FDA approval, the suit
states. "Far from the panacea promised by [the company], Monat
Products can cause embarrassing and extreme hair loss, hair
breakage, head sores, infections requiring antibiotic treatment and
other severe skin reactions," it claims, adding, "Once hair loss
begins, it can often continue for weeks or months "even if the
consumer immediately discontinues use of the products."

Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit include Amber Alabaster, an
Oklahoma resident who said her hair turned yellow, dry and brittle,
and she developed cystic acne after using seven Monat-branded
products over two months in 2017.

Alabaster's suit, filed in December 2018 by the Coral Gables firm
Colson Hicks Eidson, also accused Monat of concealing customers'
reports of adverse effects by deleting negative comments from the
internet, suing critics, and issuing cease-and-desist letters to
individuals who complained publicly about the products.

Vickie Harrington, a North Carolina customer who started a Facebook
group for other alleged victims, was sued by Monat in January 2018
for more than $75,000. Monat's complaint, filed in federal court,
accused Harrington of making defamatory statements about its
products, including by posting "an altered photograph of Leonardo
da Vinci's Mona Lisa portrait, with the subject's hair removed so
she appeared bald, which Harrington titled ‘Monat Lisa.'"

Harrington settled with the company for terms that included turning
over control of the Facebook group to Monat, Alabaster's suit
states.

Since then, alleged victims have created another Facebook group.
The word Monat is not in its name and participants are careful not
to use the company's name when commenting.

Plaintiffs 'should have known' about allergies

In the response it filed in court to the consolidated lawsuit,
Monat denied all charges by plaintiffs and said it was victimized
by smear campaigns organized by hair stylists who "struck back"
against Monat out of concern that Monat's sales were displacing
their salon-brand products.

Among its defenses, Monat accused the plaintiffs of breaching their
"duty of care" by failing to determine whether they were allergic
and hypersensitive to any of the ingredients in its products, and
by not avoiding use of products to which they are allergic or
hypersensitive.

The company also accused plaintiffs of "failing to mitigate their
damages by using products with ingredients to which "they knew or
should have known they had allergies or hypersensitivities," using
products "that allegedly caused them harm for longer than was
reasonable under the circumstances," and of failing to seek
immediate medical attention or follow doctors' advice.

While the consolidated suit claims Monat sales reps told customers
experiencing adverse reactions that they were "detoxing" and should
continue using the product, it also says that the company now tells
consumers to stop using the product in such cases. And in a
response to a complaint about hair loss and scalp itching on the
Better Business Bureau site, the company said it recommends "that
anyone who may have a problem with any of our products should cease
using the product immediately" and speak with their physician.

In its statement for this story, Monat said it now has more than 2
million customers in five global markets. Of its 1,000 employees
around the world, nearly 500 are in South Florida. The company
donates more than $1 million a year to charities through its Monat
Foundation.

"We continue to focus on manufacturing the most safe and effective
premium hair and skin care products," the statement said. "Each
year we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct thousands
of tests to ensure our products are safe and effective. We continue
to engage third-party scientific testing laboratories to validate
the safety and effectiveness of our products. In each case the
findings are conclusive -- our products are safe and effective for
their intended purpose." [GN]


NANO-X IMAGING: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) investors to
contact the firm now. Hagens Berman also encourages potential
whistleblowers to consult with its attorneys. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Aug. 21, 2020 - Sept. 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 16, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NNOX

Contact An Attorney Now: NNOX@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) Securities Class Action:

The lawsuit centers on whether NNOX misled investors about its
technology and customers.

According to the complaint, prior to and since going public in Aug.
2020, NNOX has touted its development of a digital X-ray source,
the "Nanox System," enabling cost reduction of imaging systems by
orders of magnitude. The company has also emphasized its lucrative
commercial agreements with key customers.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Sept. 15, 2020, when Citron Research published a report accusing
Nano-X of conducting "the most blatant stock promotion we have seen
in years." Citron challenged Nano-X's claimed new innovative
technology, stating "we have not even seen proof of the product and
have only seen a mockup drawing of what this machine is supposed to
look like." Citron also alleged that Nano-X's commercial
"agreements may sound nice on the surface, but these appear to be
no more than fake customers." Specifically, Citron examines several
of Nano-X's purported largest customers, charges that they do not
have the operations to satisfy their multi-million dollar
commercial agreements, and concludes that NNOX's claims that these
are real customers are "ludicrous."

Following this report, the price of Nano-X shares crashed sharply
lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Nano-X
misrepresented the status of its X-ray source and commercial
agreements," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.

If you are a Nano-X investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Nano-X should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email NNOX@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


NANO-X IMAGING: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nano-X Imaging Ltd.  ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
NNOX) 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-04528, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Nano-X securities between August 21, 2020 and September
15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nano-X 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.

Nano-X purportedly develops and produces x-ray source technology
for the medical imaging industry.

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) Nano-X's commercial agreements
and its customers were fabricated; (ii) Nano-X's statements
regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company
never provided data comparing its images with images from
competitors' machines; (iii) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nanox System was not
original; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On September 15, 2020, Citron Research published a report titled
"Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market – Theranos
2.0" (the "Citron Report"). With respect to Nano-X, the Citron
Report stated that "this $3 billion company is nothing more than a
science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake
customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond
the realm of possibility."

The Citron Report revealed that the Company's claims about its
customers with commercial agreements were false.

The Citron Report also discussed how Nano-X has not published any
data comparing images from its machines with other x-ray machines
and that Nano-X's statements that it was creating a novel solution
to medical imaging were false.

The Citron Report noted and explained that the Company's 510(k)
application to the FDA for the Nanox System was an admission that
the Company did not have a novel product, stating, in part: "By
submitting a 510(K), you are saying you have nothing new and are
seeking easy approval as you are just another product that has
already been tested."

On this news, Nano-X's ordinary share price fell $12.41 per share,
or more than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80
per share on September 16, 2020, damaging investors.

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]

NANO-X IMAGING: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX), between August
21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nano-X investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Nano-X class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1945.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) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were
fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox
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 Nanox 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1945.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]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lineburg Files PI Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph Lineburg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Western
New England University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02675-SEB-MPB
(S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2020).

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

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from up to 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NELSON SERVICES: Marin Suit Seeks OT Pay for Cleaners
-----------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL GUERRERO MARIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. NELSON SERVICES SYSTEMS, INC. (D/B/A NELSON
SERVICES), NELSON REALTY SERVICES, INC. (D/B/A NELSON REALTY),
NELSON GISBERT, and NELSON GISBERT (A/K/A NELSON JR.), Case No.
1:20-cv-08607 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to pay him appropriately any additional overtime
premium for any hours he worked over 40 in a week, he adds.

Mr. Guerrero was employed as a cleaner at the Defendants' cleaning
company.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a cleaning company, located
at 199 Nepperhan Ave, Yonkers, New York under the name "Nelson
Services" and a real estate company at 199 Nepperhan Ave, Yonkers,
New York 10701 under the name "Nelson Realty". The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or
agents of Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate
entities, operate or operated the cleaning company as a joint or
unified enterprise.[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

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION: Chiappetta Asserts Breach of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services
are facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ann Chiappetta and
American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. New York
State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services,
Commissioner Patrick A. Murphy, in his official capacity and
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity, Defendants,
Case No. 7:20-cv-08546 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).

New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services
is responsible for coordinating the activities of all State
agencies to protect New York's communities, the State's economic
well-being, and the environment from natural and man-made disasters
and emergencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michelle Brooke Iorio, Esq.
   Disability Rights Advocates
   2001 Center St Fl 4
   Berkeley, CA 94704
   Tel: (510) 665-8644
   Fax: (510) 665-8511
   Email: miorio@dralegal.org


NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Reminds of November 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against NextCure,
Inc. ("NextCure" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 20, 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. NextCure made numerous misleading
statements about its treatment candidate, NC318. The Company misled
the market on NC318's effectiveness and patient responses to the
candidate, among other things. 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 NextCure,
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]

NIKOLA CORPORATION: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Nikola Corporation (NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
Class Period: 3/3/2020 - 9/20/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-nikola-corporation-securities-litigation

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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


NPAS SOLUTIONS: Pierce Atwood Discuss Ruling on Plaintiff Incentive
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that for years, class action settlements typically have
included incentive payments to named plaintiffs. The payments
usually represent a very small percentage of the overall settlement
payout, and are designed to compensate named plaintiffs for their
time and trouble in service to the class. By way of a simple
hypothetical, a million dollar settlement might include an
incentive payment of $5,000 to a named plaintiff, in addition to
that person's share of the payment to the class. Class counsel
invariably request incentive payments as a component of the overall
settlement, defendants generally agree to them, class members
rarely object to them, and courts typically approve them. Because
incentive awards tend to be such a small percentage of the
settlement, usually dwarfed by the fees and costs class counsel
request, the settling parties and the court spend very little time
on them. After all, the thinking goes, named plaintiffs did have to
do some work in representing the class, so it is only fair that
they get compensated.

Unless, that is, you practice in the 11th Circuit. On September
17th, a divided panel of that court held that incentive payments in
class action settlements are unlawful in light of two Supreme Court
decisions from the 1880s (you read that right!) involving common
funds. In those cases, the Court held that creditors who
successfully pursued claims benefiting other creditors could
recover from the common funds amounts to reimburse them for the
legal fees and litigation expenses they incurred, but not for their
"personal services and private expenses," such as travel and hotel
expenses.  Finding a close resemblance between the disallowed fees
in the Supreme Court cases and incentive fees in class action
settlements, the majority held that it was constrained to disallow
the incentive payments.

The majority in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, described an
incentive award as both a "salary" designed to reimburse plaintiffs
for their time and efforts and a "bounty" designed to induce
plaintiffs to participate in the lawsuit. And, "[w]hether Johnson's
incentive award constitutes a salary, a bounty, or both, we think
it clear that Supreme Court precedent prohibits it."

In support of the award, the plaintiff argued that the Supreme
Court cases weren't binding because they did not involve class
actions and were decided decades before there was a Rule 23. In
rejecting this argument, the panel held that, even though the
procedural context was different, the logic of the Supreme Court
decisions applied, and also pointed out that Rule 23 says nothing
about incentive awards.

Plaintiff also argued that incentive awards are ubiquitous, and
therefore the early precedents must not prohibit them. The panel
agreed with the premise of this argument, but not with its
conclusion. It held that it was "not at liberty to sanction a
device or practice, however widespread, that is foreclosed by
Supreme Court precedent."

The majority's decision sparked a vigorous dissent. The dissent's
concern was that, without incentive awards, named plaintiffs would
be forced "to incur costs well beyond any benefits they receive
from their role in leading the class," and therefore would "be less
willing to take on the role of class representative in the future."
The dissenting judge observed that incentive awards are routine in
class actions, and suggested that the only appropriate inquiry
should be on an award's fairness, not on whether incentive awards
are lawful. That, after all, has been the approach of other
Circuits, none of which have questioned the lawfulness of incentive
awards.

What does this surprising new decision mean for class action
settlements? For cases outside the 11th Circuit, probably not much.
Class counsel will continue to ask for incentive awards, defense
counsel will continue to agree to them, and most courts likely will
continue to award them, even in cases where the awards draw
objections. Within the 11th Circuit, however, the decision has
plaintiff class action lawyers understandably concerned. The
dissenting judge is likely correct that the prospect of recovering
incentive awards serves as an effective inducement to allegedly
injured parties to seek to represent a class. If incentive awards
are unlawful, it stands to reason that it will be more difficult
for plaintiffs' counsel to recruit willing parties to the class
representative role. And, where there are no class representatives,
there are no class actions. For the time being, at least, this
minor feature of many class action settlements that parties,
counsel, and judges have until now taken for granted may well deter
future class action filings and sow confusion in the negotiation
and approval of class action settlements, at least in courts where
the decision represents binding precedent.

The final word on incentive awards of course has not been written.
The settling parties in Johnson will likely seek and may well
obtain en banc review. And, since the case involves an admittedly
ubiquitous practice about which the circuits are, at least
arguably, split, involving the application of Supreme Court
precedents in a context that did not exist when those cases were
decided, the prospect of Supreme Court review if the decision
stands is not out of the question. [GN]


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Odonate Therapeutics
Inc.  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9422&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020

Class Period: December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020

Allegations against ODT include 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.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


OHIO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Asserts Breach of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Christian University is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ohio Christian University,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08581-RA (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Ohio Christian University is a private Christian college in
Circleville, Ohio. The school is denominationally affiliated with
the Churches of Christ in Christian Union.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com
          michael@gottlieb.legal


PACIFIC OAKS EDUCATION: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Oaks Education Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Oaks Education
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08584-PAE-JLC (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2020).

Pacific Oaks College is private college with its main campus in
Pasadena, California and a second branch campus in San Jose. The
college draws on Quaker principles and focuses on social justice.
It offers full and part-time undergraduate and graduate courses at
Pacific Oaks' California campuses as well as online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com
          michael@gottlieb.legal



PALM BEACH, FL: Teachers File Class Action Over School Reopening
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Lowe, writing for WPTV, reports that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against the School District of Palm Beach just days
before class is set to start.

"I knew it had to be done, so I jumped right on it," Greg Launel, a
culinary teacher at Jupiter Middle School, said. "Sept. 21
represents a first day of school that no adult, no child, should
ever have to experience but here we are."

About 41% of Palm Beach County students, roughly 60,000 kids, were
scheduled to return to campus on Sept. 21.

Launel, along with several other teachers, said it's impossible to
open safely with that number of students and that they are planning
to teach from home while the lawsuit makes its way through the
courts.

"I have agreed to represent the teachers for free to try to keep
from them from having to go back into a valley of death," attorney
Barry Silver said.

In the lawsuit filed on Sept. 18, Silver calls the coronavirus a
raging pandemic and alleges that cases will dramatically rise if
schools reopen without appropriate safeguards.

"I'm devastated," Launel said. "Every day, I have a near panic
attacks and I just start crying because why should this have to
happen? Why should we be having this conversation right now? I
don't know."

Silver said the opening of schools needs to be delayed and that he
has filed a motion for an emergency hearing that could take place
as soon as Sept. 21.

The School District of Palm Beach County issued the following
statement:

Palm Beach County Public School campuses will reopen to students,
as planned and as required by the State's Emergency Order
2020-EO-06, on September 21. The District's legal team is handling
the litigation of the matter and does not comment on the strategies
of matters that are in litigation. As for District campuses, many
efforts have been made to balance the need to have teachers in the
classroom for those students who have chosen to return to brick and
mortar. The District has been working hard to ensure that both
employees and students have an enjoyable and safe return. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Ilyayev Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Roman Ilyayev, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04944 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).

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

Portfolio Recovery is a collection agency that specializes in
purchasing old debts from companies who have been unable to collect
the debt themselves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Uri Horowitz, Esq.
   Horowitz Law, PLLC
   14441 70th Road
   Flushing, NY 11367
   Tel: (718) 705-8706
   Fax: (718) 705-8705
   Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


PROSHARES ULTRA: Gross Law Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Proshares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
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.

Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)

Investors Affected : March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) decreased demand for oil due to
the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and diminished
oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had caused
extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of investor
capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, in
a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened
illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") futures contract
markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the Fund to approach
positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends exacerbated by the
Offering itself); (3) there was a sharp divergence between spot and
future prices in the WTI oil markets, leading to a super contango
market dynamic as oil storage space in Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled
and was insufficient to account for the excess supply expected to
be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020 futures contract. As a
result, UCO could not continue to pursue the passive investment
strategy represented in the Registration Statement, causing its
results to significantly deviate from its purported benchmark.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form/?id=9611&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]

QUTOUTIAO INC: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Qutoutiao Inc.
(NASDAQ: QTT) (1) pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's
September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (2) between
September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover investor losses under the
federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=qutoutiao-inc&id=2403
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the October 19, 2020 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related
party, thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the content and
quality of the advertisements; (2) the Company placed
advertisements on its mobile app for products whose claims could
not be substantiated and thus were considered false advertisements
under applicable regulations; (3) as a result, the Company would
face increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) as a
result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation.  You
may retain counsel of your choice.  You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

REDFIN CORP: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Redfin Corporation, a Delaware corporation
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02023-TWR-LL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2020).

Redfin is a real estate brokerage. The Seattle-based company was
founded in 2004, and went public in Aug. 2017. Glenn Kelman is the
CEO. Redfin's business model is based on sellers paying Redfin a
small fee, either 1 or 1.5% to list the seller's home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOLEDO, OH: Denies Wrongdoing in Red Light Camera Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Blade reports that as multiple lawsuits involving Toledo's red
light camera program move through the court system, the city has
denied both any wrongdoing and the demand to pay back those who
received tickets through the program.

A class-action civil lawsuit was filed against the city in June in
an attempt to get refunds for motorists who paid fines for traffic
citations related to the use of cameras.

"We're absolutely going to contest that suit," said Dale Emch,
Toledo law director.

In its response to the complaint, the city states that the
plaintiff, a Franklin County resident who was fined through one of
Toledo's traffic cameras, has not suffered any injury or damage,
and if injury or damage did occur, it was because of the
plaintiff's own negligent or unlawful actions.

Additionally, the city states that the plaintiff, Sam Jodka of
Dublin, Ohio, is not entitled to damages or relief, and requested
that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice.

Mr. Jodka received a traffic ticket from a handheld or mobile
device dated Sept. 12, 2019, according to court records. He paid
the fine, but his attorney, Andrew Mayle, previously said the
appeal process is rigged and called the entire program a
money-making scheme.

Mr. Mayle said the next step is discovery, gathering information
and evidence through depositions, part of which will determine
whether the lawsuit can move forward as a class-action suit.

"The goal of discovery would be to test [the city's] denials," he
said.

In this case, Mr. Mayle's focus is on getting restitution for those
affected by the cameras. Ultimately, it could have an impact on
tens of thousands of people, he said.

The lawsuit came after the Ohio Supreme Court struck down Toledo's
administrative-appeal process for the citations from the
traffic-camera program. After the ruling was issued, the city
suspended the traffic camera program and dismissed all pending
administrative appeals to the tickets.

A trial is scheduled for December 2021.

The city is also suing the state for a law enacted last year that
restricts the use of automated traffic-enforcement cameras. Lucas
County Common Pleas Court Judge Myron Duhart previously issued a
preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law, and Mr.
Emch said the city is seeking a permanent injunction.

In that lawsuit, the city contends that the state is infringing on
their home-rule, Mr. Emch said. Dayton filed a similar lawsuit
against the state for its red light camera program.

What Mr. Emch believes will happen, though, is that Toledo's suit
against the state -- or another city's suit against the state
regarding traffic cameras -- will ultimately be decided by the Ohio
Supreme Court.

"One city or the other is going to end up in the supreme court and
ultimately the supreme court is going to have the final say on
this," he said.

Toledo police Chief George Kral said that losing a tool like the
red light cameras would make it more difficult to ensure safe
vehicular traffic within the city.

"I'm really hoping the city prevails in this," he said.

He declined to comment on the class action suit.

Toledo Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz defended the use of cameras and
said it's not a "money-grab" but a way to keep people safe by
enforcing speeding and reckless driving laws.

"There is really a public safety component to this," he said.

The mayor said he understands why people don't like the cameras but
claimed there was a simple solution: don't speed, and don't drive
through red lights.

"For me, it comes down to the question of whether these cameras are
good or not," he said. "I think they are." [GN]


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC: UPLCQ)
between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the class action case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Ultra investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ultra class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.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
to investors that: (1) Ultra's proved reserves were materially
overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of dollars
less than represented; (2) Ultra's proved undeveloped reserves were
of de minimis value because they contained low quality deposits
that lacked a commercially viable path to development; (3) Ultra
was unable to meet the production and development estimates
provided to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis;
(4) Ultra was unable to withstand even a modest downturn in the
price of natural gas because, inter alia, Ultra's business had less
financial and production flexibility than claimed; (5) Ultra did
not have the technical or financial capabilities or available asset
base to sustainably grow its oil and natural gas production by any
meaningful amount; and (6) Ultra lacked the production capabilities
or asset base necessary to meaningfully grow production through
horizontal well drilling, and initial test wells were not
representative of the Company's actual horizontal well prospects.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.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]

UNITED STATES: Ex-Staffer Sues Over Speech-Stifling Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that as president and long before,
Donald Trump has used broadly worded non-disclosure agreements to
silence business partners, ex-wives, mistresses, political staffers
and anyone else who might be inclined to publicly criticize him.
Now a former staffer is fighting back with a class-action lawsuit
that could invalidate those speech-stifling contracts across the
board and peel back the veil of improper secrecy surrounding this
White House.

Non-disclosure agreements have become common in the business world,
but that doesn't make them right. And in the political world, where
taxpayer interests intersect with elected leaders' business, they
are outright un-American. These agreements are essentially
contracts that prohibit employees and others from revealing,
discussing or even criticizing their employers in the future.
Forever.

In Trump's case, they've been used to muzzle former staffers whose
testimony about what happens in the White House (outside the
separate issue of classified information) is both protected by the
First Amendment and important for the nation to know. Presidential
use of non-disclosure agreements is a new phenomenon, historians
say. Part of it surely is that past presidents weren't so
thin-skinned, nor so likely to inspire the lack of loyalty from
ex-staffers that Trump tends to prompt. Or maybe he just has more
to hide.

In any case, Trump has already lost initial legal fights trying to
use these agreements to prevent publication of tell-all books about
his administration or his family, including one by his own niece,
Mary L. Trump. Of the many unflattering moments she and others
portray in those pages, perhaps none is more disgraceful than the
specter of a president asking courts to prevent the publication of
books.

While Trump has, fortunately, been generally unsuccessful in using
these constitutionally suspect agreements to silence critics, he
keeps trying, forcing expensive and time-consuming legal fights.
But one pending case may change all that.

Jessica Denson, the Trump campaign's former Hispanic outreach
director, has filed a class-action suit seeking to end all use of
non-disclosure agreements by the campaign. She argues that even as
Trump uses the bully pulpit to criticize, deride and often slander
his critics, he uses these catch-all contracts and an arsenal of
legal resources to deprive those critics of their First Amendment
rights. Denson's agreement, for example, prohibited her from
criticizing Trump not just while she worked for the campaign, but
"at all times thereafter." And it allows Trump to decide --
retroactively, and in perpetuity -- what information will and won't
be considered confidential.

For a private business mogul to foist such Orwellian contracts on
underlings would be disturbing. For the supposed leader of the free
world to do it is philosophically and probably constitutionally
indefensible. A solid slap-down by the courts of this repugnant
practice would shed needed light on this shady administration while
preventing this practice from becoming standard procedure for
future presidents. [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ordosgoitti Files Suit in Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Werner Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Gilver Ordosgoitti, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Werner
Enterprises, Inc. and Werner Leasing, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00421 (D. Neb., Oct. 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed for Diversity-Declaratory Judgment.

Werner Leasing, LLC is a transportation and logistics leader, with
more than 8000 trucks, 24000 trailers and nearly 13000
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bryant C. Daniels, Esq.
   Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
   David C. Leimbach, Esq.
   SCHNEIDER, WALLACE LAW FIRM - EMERYVILLE
   2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Tel: (415) 421-7100
   Fax: (415) 421-7105

     - and -

   Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
   BOULTER LAW FIRM
   1101 5th Avenue, Suite 310
   San Rafael, CA 94901
   Tel: (415) 233-7100
    
     - and -

   Christopher P. Welsh, Esq.
   WELSH, WELSH LAW FIRM
   9290 West Dodge Road
   Suite 204, The Mark
   Omaha, NE 68114
   Tel: (402) 384-8160
   Fax: (402) 384-8211
   Email: cwelsh@welsh-law.com




WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Earley Suit Over 25% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA EARLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WRAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAVID NORRIS, THOMAS SMITH,
JAMES A. BARNES, MIKE ROTHANS, and MARC THOMAS, Case No.
2:20-cv-09444 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2020) seeks to recover
compensatory damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Wrap securities between April 29,
2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive.

In December 2019, the Company announced that the Los Angeles Police
Department ("LAPD") would train its officers on the BolaWrap and
deploy 200 devices in the field for a 90-day pilot program
beginning in January 2020.

On July 22, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging that the BolaWrap had limited use in the field and
therefore Wrap has a very small total addressable market. The
report also alleged that it was likely Wrap did not secure a
contract with the LAPD.

On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a second
report, alleging that, despite previously touting the LAPD pilot
program, Wrap failed to disclose the key findings from the initial
180-day testing period because it was "bad news." The report
described the nine incidents in which the BolaWrap had been used,
thereby highlighting its limited utility.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.07, or 25%, close
at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.

The complaint contends that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there were
limited instances in which Wrap's BolaWrap could potentially be
used because it requires a minimum of 10 feet between the officer
and the suspect; (2) that, as a result, the BolaWrap was reasonably
unlikely to be effective in most situations; (3) that the LAPD
sought extensions of the pilot program because they needed a larger
sample size to assess the effectiveness of the BolaWrap; (4) that
the LAPD had not found the BolaWrap to be useful or effective
during its pilot program; (5) that, as a result, Wrap had not
received positive feedback from the LAPD about the BolaWrap and
therefore it was unlikely that the Company would secure a sizeable
contract with the LAPD; and (6) 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.

Wrap Technologies, Inc. is a security technology company whose sole
product is the BolaWrap, a remote restraint device.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


                            *********

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 ***