/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 220 Headlines 1709 CORPORATION: Weiss Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks 3M CO: Bair Hagger(TM) Suit Ongoing in Ontario 3M CO: Class Suit in Ohio over PFAS Contamination Ongoing 3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in King Suit 3M CO: Facing 26 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF 3M CO: Mediation Discussions Underway in Michigan Suit 3M COMPANY: Timberlake Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit AEP TRANSMISSION: AEP Defends OH House Bill 6 Related Class Suit AETERNA ZENTARIS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein Seeks Class Status for TCPA Suit ALLINA HEALTH: Peterson Sues Over Theft of Health Records ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Class Action AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit AMERICAN NAT'L: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Suit Says AMERICAN PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Cantarero Suit Says APPLE AMERICAN: Mullen Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ARIZONA TILE: Mariscal Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ASPEN MANAGEMENT: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought AURORA CANNABIS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Medina Suit BAIDU INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action BAR 20: Court Certifies Settlement Class and FLSA Collective BECHT ENGINEERING: Tolling Limitations for Putative Class Sought BIOMARIN PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline BIOMARIN PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action BOB'S DISCOUNT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Espinal" BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action BTU: Levi & Korsinsky LLP Reminds of November 27 Deadline C-CUBED GROUP: Gabrielian Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action CABOT OIL: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Long-Term Care Scandal CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Assistant Managers Seek Class Status CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Court Denies Certification of Two Classes CBS TV: Class Status Sought in Female Reporters' Equal Pay Case CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Mineral Interest Owners Seek Class Status CINTAS CORPORATION: Landeros Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Seeks Class Status for TCPA Suit CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Borup Suit CLICK MAIL: Gutierrez-Zapata Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA COAST PROFESSIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Terminated CONTRA COSTA, CA: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Detainees Class COSTA LINDA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA COUCH BRAUNSDORF: Simoni Class Action Removed to D. New Jersey COULTER VENTURES: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Denied as Moot COUNT FINANCIAL: Piper Alderman Files Class Action CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action CSA LA: Latinsky Suit Alleges Retaliation, Wrongful Termination DELAWARE: Certification of COVID-19 Positive Inmates Class Sought DELOITTE MANAGEMENT: Worker Misclassification Class Action Ongoing DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses DENVER, CO: Provisional Certification of Two Classes Sought DIESTEL TURKEY: Misrepresents Turkey Products, Donovan Claims DIY MEDIA: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says DOLLAR TREE: Final Settlement Approval Sought in Snipes Suit DTE PIPELINE: Page Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class DUN & BRADSTREET: Sale Reps Litigation Wins Class Status EASTMAN KODAK: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action EASTMAN KODAK: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Ongoing EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Customer Data Settlement Suit Pending EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGIES: Compton Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA EVOLUS INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Dec. 15 Plaintiff Deadline EVOLUTION DOMINICAN: Underpays Hair Stylists, Ordonez Suit Alleges EXCEL OF UTICA: Faces Sanders Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Class Action FG DINER: Aguilar-Platon Seeks OT Premium Pay FILTERS FAST: Powers Sues Over Breach of Customers' Financial Data FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Seeks Conditional Class Certification GEICO: Jonathan Shafner to Serve as GC Amid COVID-19 Lawsuits GENERAL MOTORS: Golson Class Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to S.D. Fla. GILEAD SCIENCES: KPH Alleges Monopoly of cART Regimen Drugs GINA GROUP: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 10 Deadline GOOGLE LLC: Bentley Sues Over Pricing in App Store GOOGLE LLC: Canadian Lawyers File Class Actions Over Privacy Issue GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Plaintiff Replaced at Lawyer's Behest GRUBHUB INC: Restaurants Sue Over Unauthorized Use of Names, Logos HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Neal Seeks Approval of Class Notice HARD TACK INC: Corbin Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Campaign HAYS FOOD: Welch Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Handloser Suit Seeks to Certify Applicants Class HDFC BANK: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline HOUSTON BAPTIST: Hicks Suit Seeks to Certify Class HOUSTON INSPECTION: Curtis Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders IBEX LIMITED: Consolidated Class Suit in Tennessee Dismissed INDY TRANSPORT: Faces Horta Wage & Hour Suit INTEL CORP: Argument on Motion to Dismiss Set for December J.P. MORGAN: 7 Spoofing Class Suits Consolidated JC COMMERCE: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in TRACLEER(R) Antitrust Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: AWP Suit in New Jersey Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss ERISA-Related Class Suit Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing KIA MOTORS: Kondash Litigation Remains Open, Court Clarifies LANNETT CO: Lead Plaintiff et al. Seek to Certify Class LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 9 Deadline LMT REAL: Court Denies Certification of Tipped Employees Class LOANCARE LLC: Owoc Seeks to Certify Florida Borrowers Class LOS ANGELES LGBT: Whitehorse Class Suit Claims Wrongful Dismissal LVNV FUNDING: Court Grants Norton's Class Certification Bid MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Soto Suit Seeks to Certify Rig Welders Class MASSACHUSETTS: 11K Residents File Suit v. Gov. for Flu Shot Mandate MCKENNA & DUPONT: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought MEDIANEWS GROUP: Tejada Sues Over Newspaper Carriers' Unpaid Wages MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action MESOBLAST LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Announces December 7 Deadline MLA LAW: Rudler Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MPM ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Workers N S CORPORATION: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline NANO-X IMAGING: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 16 Deadline NASHVILLE TENNESSEE: Collective Action Conditionally Certified NATIONAL GRID: Jenkins Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes NCR PENSION: Stanton Suit Suit Seeks to Certify Class NEW YORK BLACK: Class Status Sought in Case over Non-Cash Tips NEW YORK: Teachers File Class Action Over COVID-19 Risks NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Announces Class Action Lawsuit NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline OAKLAND, CA: Journalists File Class Action Against Police Dep't. PACIFICORP: Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Over Wildfires PANDA RESTAURANT: Spargifiore Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 27 Deadline PEABODY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Won't Be Required Repay Fair Share Dues PENTEGRA SERVICES: D&Os Mismanaged Benefit Plan, Greenberg Says PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Action PHILIP MORRIS: Defendants in Blais to Deposit Award of Damages PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Class Suit in Canada Ongoing PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 30 Deadline PRECIGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 4 Deadline PRECIGEN INC: Disclosures Misled Investors, Seppen Suit Alleges PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Collective Status Sought in Badon FLSA Case PROFESSIONAL BILLING: Katz Seeks to Certify Junk Fax Class PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies FSO Class in "Oglesby" PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Aniello Balks at Yumanity Deal PTKW INC: Approval of Notice to Delivery Drivers Sought QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Seeks to Certify Amended Consumers Class RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Darnis Putative Class Action Ongoing RELIANCE TRUST: Parties Seek to Modify Class Definition in Pledger RENAL ASSOCIATES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 12 ROSIE'S CAFE: Woodbeck Sues Over Improper OT Wages for Servers ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Disclosures Misled Investors, Altomare Alleges ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit SASOL LIMITED: Cohn and Moshell Seek to Certify Rules 23 Class SECOND ROUND: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought SETERUS INC: Albers Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class SHAKE SHACK: Gomez Seeks Blind's Full Access to Restaurant App SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Wage & Meal Class Suit SIX FLAGS: Magic Mountain Employees' Suit Ongoing SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suits Over Credit Card Info SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit Over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement in San Diego Suit Gets Preliminary OK SOLANTIC CORPORATION: Underpays Urgent Care Staff, Roberts Claims SOUTHEAST CORPORATION: Marlow Seeks Overtime Pay SRC COLLISION: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Shop Staff STAAR SURGICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline STANLEY STEEMER: Conditional Cert. of Hourly Workers Class Sought STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing STEVEN MNUCHIN: Court Vacates Provisional Class Certification TACTILE SYSTEMS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline TACTILE SYSTEMS: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Announces Class Action TESLA INC: Class Certification Bid in Twitter Post Suit Pending TRINET GROUP: Facing 401(k) Plan-Related Class Suit TURNER CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA TURQUOISE HILL: Franchi Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value U.S. BANCORP: Collective FLSA Class Status Sought UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Alleges Race Bias in Driver's Rating System UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Lawsuit Wants Univ. to Pay Back Tuition US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Ephrati Class Suit Pending US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending VARSITY BRANDS: American Spirit Anti-Trust Suit Moved to W.D. Tenn. VISTA FORD: Hernandez-Meza Sues over Employment Discrimination W & W ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought WELLS FARGO: Faces Moehring Suit Over Hazard Insurance Charges WELLS FARGO: Jaffe ECOA Class Suit Removed to D. Maryland WELLS FARGO: Martin Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees WORLD WRESTLING: Firefighters Seek to Certify Class Action WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action YAYYO INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline ZARA USA: Gillett Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification [*] Business Leaders Call for Immunity from COVID-19 Lawsuits [*] Class Action Against Illinois Trade Unions Mulled Over Racism [*] Spike in Class Actions in Australia May Shape Exec Hiring ********* 1709 CORPORATION: Weiss Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1709 CORPORATION, dba SHOWTIME GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; THOMAS G. YOUTSOS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00990 (W.D. Wis., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at Showtime Gentlemen's Club in Wausau, Wisconsin from approximately July 1998 until December 2019. 1709 Corporation, d/b/a Showtime Gentlemen's Club, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility, with its principal place of business located at 1709 Merrill Avenue, Wausau, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Urban, Esq. URBAN & TAYLOR S.C. Urban Taylor Law Building 4701 N. Port Washington Rd. Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 906-1700 E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com - and – John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com - and – Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com 3M CO: Bair Hagger(TM) Suit Ongoing in Ontario ---------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative class action related to the company's Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system, pending before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL. No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger(TM) litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Class Suit in Ohio over PFAS Contamination Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAS) chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS. 3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February 2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in King Suit ------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the "King" suit. In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was filed against 3M, Dyneon, Daikin America and the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur, Alabama that have released and continue to release perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans. In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to withdraw all class allegations, dismiss the Water Authority as a defendant and add 24 new individual plaintiffs (for a total of 59 plaintiffs). Discovery in this case is proceeding. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Facing 26 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF ----------------------------------------------------- 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in 26 putative class action suits related to the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). 3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2002. As of September 30, 2020, 784 lawsuits (including 26 putative class actions) have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts where current or former airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were located. As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state or territory attorneys general. In most of these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for alleged injuries such as loss of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs, personal injury and/or funds for medical monitoring. 278 cases filed since October 2019 have been brought by current or former firefighters who claim to have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to AFFF while using the product. The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp. In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue to be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to federal court. As of September 30, 2020, there were 783 cases in the MDL, 770 of which name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of conducting discovery. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M CO: Mediation Discussions Underway in Michigan Suit ------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that mediation discussions are ongoing in the consolidated putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide and other defendants. In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other defendants. The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M’s product contaminated the environment and drinking water sources after disposal. In addition to the consolidated federal court putative class action, as of September 30, 2020, 3M has been named as a defendant in approximately 270 private individual actions in Michigan state court based on similar allegations. These cases are coordinated for pre-trial purposes. Four of these cases were selected for bellwether trials in 2020. In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing certain plaintiffs' medical monitoring and risk of future disease claims, and granting summary judgment to the defendants on one plaintiff's cholesterol injury claims. The parties settled the first bellwether case in early 2020. In June 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of the second bellwether case, and the plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the state appellate court. The court has since allowed the addition of another bellwether case. The first of the three bellwether trials is scheduled to begin in March 2021. The parties have engaged in mediation discussions in both the putative class action and the state court mass action cases. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: Timberlake Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD TIMBERLAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03793-RMG (D.S.C., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals company headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company with its principal place of business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection products based in Bismarck, North Dakota. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in the same venue the company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017. The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"), which supersedes the initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between October 7, 2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of its current officers and one former executive violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable sales growth. The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. We dispute the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on five challenged statements to proceed to discovery. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been resolved. Acuity said, "For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from the matters described above. We are insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. AEP TRANSMISSION: AEP Defends OH House Bill 6 Related Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AEP Transmission Company, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) is a named defendant in a putative class action suit related to to the passage of Ohio House Bill 6. In August 2020, an American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for alleged violations of securities laws. The complaint alleges misrepresentations or omissions by AEP regarding: (a) its alleged participation in public corruption with respect to the passage of Ohio House Bill 6, (b) its regulatory, legislative and lobbying activities in Ohio and (c) its clean energy strategy. The complaint seeks monetary damages among other forms of relief. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring. AEP Transmission Company, LLC offers utility services. The Company supplies electricity and natural gas. AEP Transmission serves customers in the United States. AETERNA ZENTARIS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announce that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. (NASDAQ: AEZS): SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. ("Aeterna") securities on a U.S. Exchange or in a U.S. transaction during the period from August 30, 2011 through November 6, 2014, both dates inclusive, and who did not sell such securities prior to November 6, 20141: THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of themselves and the Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $6,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A telephonic hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan (Toll-Free Dial-In Number: 844-891-8300; Conference ID: 817 247 369#) to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 22, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. In the event that there are any changes to the time, date, or method of the Settlement Hearing, such changes will be posted on the Settlement website at www.aeternasecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, toll-free: (866) 274-4004, fax: (610) 565-7985, info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.aeternasecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than January 26, 2021. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 26, 2021 by the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 26, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Aeterna or any other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 E-mail: info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Laurence Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 313-1887 E-mail: info@rosenlegal.com -AND- Kara Wolke, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel No: (888) 773-9224 E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com [GN] ALLERGAN INC: Weisbein Seeks Class Status for TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY WEISBEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Ray Weisbein asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of: "all persons who received an SMS text message, sent by or on behalf of the Defendants from a short code phone number, including the short code phone number 27747, that advertised the commercial availability or quality of Botox or the Botox Savings Program or that was sent to encourage the sale of Botox or participation in the Botox Savings Program"; 2. designating himself as class representative; and 3. appointing his counsel as counsel. The Plaintiff alleges that Allergan and its Marketing Executives, Andrew Barton and Tara Capalbo, engaged in an unlawful practice of sending identical advertisement and telemarketing text messages en masse to thousands of consumers to try to mislead them into buying pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants committed this misconduct without first obtaining the consumers' prior express consent to be subjected to such intrusive marketing tactics. This conduct violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, he adds. Allergan was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. A copy of the Weisbein's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k4bY9M at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com - and - David P. Milian, Esq. Ruben Conitzer, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com cperez@careyrodriguez.com rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com ecf@careyrodriguez.com ALLINA HEALTH: Peterson Sues Over Theft of Health Records --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Peterson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Allina Health System and Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-20-13221 (D. Minn., Oct. 14, 2020), is a class action complaint over the Defendants' failure to put into place systems or procedures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and similarly situated individuals' health records would be protected and would not be subject to unauthorized access in violation of the Minnesota Health Records Act. The Plaintiff contends that he received health care from the Defendant Allina on numerous occasions. On September 25, 2020, he received an email from Allina confirming that Allina previously released to Blackbaud information relating to health care that he and other similarly situated individuals received from Allina. This information includes names and addresses, and possibly dates of birth, dates Allina cared for patients, the names of doctors who admitted or treated patients, and Allina locations its patients visited. The September 25 email also confirmed that in May 2020 Blackbaud released some or all of the patient information to a third party, who used this information for nefarious purposes. The Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated individuals did not consent to Allina releasing the information to Blackbaud. Also they did not consent to Blackbaud releasing the information to other third parties, he adds. The Defendants' conduct caused Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals to suffer harm, This harm includes, but is not limited to, anger, embarrassment, frustration, nervousness, loss of trust, betrayal, and anxiety, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Minnesota. Allina Health System is a Minnesota corporation in the business of owning and operating an organization of clinics, hospitals and other health care services. Allina's principal place of business is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Blackbaud is a Delaware corporation in the business of operating a cloud software company. Blackbaud's principal place of business is located in South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA R. WILLIAMS, PLLC 2836 Lyndale Avenue S, Suite 160 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Telephone: (612) 486-5540 Facsimile: (612) 605-1944 E-mail: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com - and - A.L. Brown, Esq. CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC 287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 705-8580 Facsimile: (651) 705-8581 E-mail: A.L.Brown@CCLAWG.COM ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alteryx, Inc. ("Alteryx" or the "Company") (NYSE: AYX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-01886, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Alteryx securities between May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Alteryx securities during the class period, you have until October 19, 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. Alteryx is a data analytics company that offers a subscription-based platform for customers to access, prepare, and analyze data from a multitude of sources, then deploy and share analytics at scale to make data-driven decisions. 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) that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (ii) that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (iii) that, as a result, and because of the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its second-quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth projections for the third quarter and full-year 2020. Therein, Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of 7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for the fiscal year 2020, the Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to $465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year." On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62 per share, or over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by $12.15 per share, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77 per share, or over 35%. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that three objectors to the settlement in the class action related to passenger capacity have taken an appeal from the preliminarily approval order entered by the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The company, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, were named as defendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits were consolidated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia (the DC Court). On June 15, 2018, American reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million to resolve all class claims in the U.S. lawsuits. That settlement was approved by the DC Court on May 13, 2019, however three parties who objected to the settlement have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. American believes these appeals are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the suit initiated by B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC. On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 28, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit ------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against an antitrust class action lawsuit entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al. In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the company's charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AMERICAN NAT'L: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE CO, and AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-24077-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have systematically and uniformly failed to honor their primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act, by failing to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries' accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing agreements authorized under 42 U.S.C. section 1395w-22(b)(4) (these Medicare Advantage payors are referred to collectively as “MA Plans"). Further, Defendants have also failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and the Class Members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public. The Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the complaint says. The Defendants are auto and/or other liability insurers that provide either no-fault or med-pay insurance to their customers, including Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the Medicare Act. Pursuant to their contractual obligations with their insureds, and under state law, The Defendants are to provide coverage for their insureds' accident-related medical expenses on a “no-fault" basis (that is, without reference to or regard for whether the insured caused the accident in question). In the case of automobile and other accidents specifically involving Enrollees of MA Plans, the Defendants are considered primary plans under the MSP Law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com AMERICAN PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Cantarero Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME CANTARERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PROTECTION GROUP, INC.; ANTHONY BROWN; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV41460 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including willful misclassification of employment status, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages due, inaccurate wage statements, unfair business practices, wrongful termination, and failure to permit employment records inspections. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security guard in Los Angeles, California from approximately March 2013 until his termination on December 15, 2019. American Protection Group, Inc. is a security guard service headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. Heather K. Cox, Esq. BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC 6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (323) 450-2777 E-mail: Greg@barklawfirm.com Heather@barklawfirm.com APPLE AMERICAN: Mullen Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE AMERICAN GROUP LLC; and APPLE PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00996-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying the class defined as: "all individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility and who have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and equal enjoyment of bar counter dining services offered to patrons at the Defendants' restaurants because of the lack of accessible bar counter dining surface seating at the following restaurants: a. 6570 PA-60, Pittsburgh, PA 15205 b. 3944 Broadhead Road, Monaca, PA 15061; c. 4801 McKnight Rd, Pittsburgh, PA 15237; d. 525 Grandview Crossing Dr, Gibsonia, PA 15044; e. 3440 William Penn Hwy, Pittsburgh, PA 15235; f. 2101 Greentree Rd, Pittsburgh, PA 15220; g. 1601 S Braddock Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15218; h. 2045 Lebanon Church Rd, Pittsburgh, PA 15122; i. 1050 Village Cntr. Dr., Tarentum, PA 15084; j. 1685 PA 228, Cranberry Twp, PA 16066; k. 1004 Trinity Cir., Washington, PA 15301; l. 9105 E Stockton Blvd, Elk Grove, CA 95624; m. 14400 Weaver Lake Road, Maple Grove, MN 55311; n. 3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 100, Plymouth, MN 55447; o. 8312 MN 7, St. Louis Park, MN 55426; p. 8588 Blaine Ave, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076; q. 7901 1/2 Southtown Center, Bloomington, MN 55420; r. 8380 E Point Douglas Rd S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016; s. 18891 Freeport Street NW, Elk River, MN 55330; t. 1006 Hwy 55, Buffalo, MN 55313; u. 2000 Vermillion Street, Hastings, MN 55033; and v. 3794 Marketplace Drive, Rochester, MN 55901; 2. appointing Bartley M. Mullen, Jr. as class representative; and 3. appointing R. Bruce Carlson, Esq., and Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Of Carlson Lynch, LLP, as Class Counsel. Apple American Group LLC owns and operates franchised grill and bar restaurants. The Company offers lunch combos, appetizers, burgers, sandwiches, salads, desserts, and beverages. Apple Pennsylvania LLC was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35g3vdx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Robin A. Bolea, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LAW FIRM 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com rbolea@carlsonlynch.com ARIZONA TILE: Mariscal Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as EDGAR MARISCAL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ARIZONA TILE, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01160477-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 26, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09812 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest period premiums, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon separation, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices. Arizona Tile, LLC is a company that wholesales construction materials, with its principal place of business in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Andrew B. Levin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com aaron.cole@ogletree.com andrew.levin@ogletree.com ASPEN MANAGEMENT: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned MARIAN DOUGLAS, v. ASPEN MANAGEMENT USA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05568-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class defined as: "all current and former hourly paid Property Managers employed by Defendant who, during the past three years, received a bonus or other non-discretionary pay"; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail and e- mail) to the Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth above; and 3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in the time frame specified by the Plaintiffs as set forth. This is an action for unpaid overtime wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA and OMFWSA when it failed to include monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual non-discretionary bonus pay in its Property Managers' regular rates of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime. Ms. Douglas filed her First Amended Complaint on September 17, 2020. The Defendant Aspen Management USA, LLC is in the business of real estate acquisition and management of residential properties. The Defendant is owned by David Wooster, Matthew Wooster, and Thomas Wooster. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for FLSA conditional collective action certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Wnfn2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: 614-610-4134 Facsimile: 614-547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com AURORA CANNABIS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Aurora Cannabis, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com . Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB ) Class Period: February 13, 2020 - September 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020 Shareholders with $50,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (2) the Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was foreseeable that Aurora would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; 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. To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com , or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com . If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Medina Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMITA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOMAX FINANCIAL, LLC and CARNOW ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 19-CV-1582-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order: 1. denying as moot the parties' joint motion to adjourn the trial scheduling order; 2. adopting the parties' stipulation to dismiss CarNow Acceptance Corporation; 3. dismissing the Defendant CarNow Acceptance Corporation, with prejudice from this action; 4. adopting the parties' stipulation to certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 5. certifying the Rule 23 Class defined as: "all hourly-paid, non-exempt Collector employees employed in Wisconsin by Automax Financial, LLC within the two year period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint who received certain non-discretionary compensation that was not included in their in regular rates of pay for overtime compensation and/or who did not receive compensation for pre-shift activities"; 6. defining Section 216(b) collective as follows: "all hourly-paid, non-exempt Collector employees employed in Wisconsin by Automax Financial, LLC within the two year period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint who received compensation in addition to their straight time rate of pay during workweeks in which said employees worked in excess of 40 hours and who have consented to join this lawsuit pursuant to this Court's prior orders"; 7. appointing the Plaintiff Damita Medina to serve as Class Representative of the Rule 23 class and Section 216(b) collective; 8. appointing law firm of Walcheski & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel of the Rule 23 Class and Section 216(b) collective; 9. granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement; 10. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement Agreement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA and state wage and hour law; 11. approving the parties' "Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement" in a form that is substantially similar to that which is attached to the Agreement, for distribution to all opt-in plaintiffs and putative members of the Rule 23 Class and Section 216(b) collective; 12. approving that the provision of the Notice by mail to the Class constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the class and collective; 13. directing the Class Counsel to mail the Notice to the Class and collective members within 10 days of this Order; 14. directing the individuals who wish to opt-out of the Rule 23 Class shall have 30 days after the mailing of the Notice to opt-out per the instructions set forth in the Notice; 15. directing that any individual who does not opt-out shall be bound by any final order by the Court approving the Settlement Agreement; and 16. directing that any Rule 23 Class member who wishes to object in any way to the proposed Settlement Agreement must file and serve such written objection(s) per the instructions set forth in the Notice, together with copies of all papers in support of his or her position. On September 9, 2020, the parties informed the Court that they reached a settlement and submitted a joint motion for preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement. The settlement provides for a total monetary payment of $79,570.38, which includes attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement amount was reached after individually calculating each putative class member's unpaid wages using a methodology designed to be as accurate as possible. On October 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this class and collective action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin state law. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3di7t8Z at no extra charge.[CC] BAIDU INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") 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-04660, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Baidu securities between April 8, 2016 and August 13, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Shareholder who purchased Baidu securities during the class period, had until October 19, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint them 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. Baidu purports to provide Internet search services in China and internationally. It operates through two segments, one of which is iQIYI. The iQIYI segment provides online entertainment services, including original and licensed content, membership services, and online advertising services. In November 2012, Baidu obtained the controlling interest in what was then named Qiyi.com, Inc. (now iQIYI, Inc.) ("iQIYI"). In early 2018, iQIYI held its initial public offering and was listed on the NASDAQ exchange. Baidu is still the majority owner of its subsidiary, iQIYI. 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) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business condition of iQIYI; (ii) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On May 16, 2019, during after-market hours, Baidu issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of the fiscal year 2019 (the "1Q19 Press Release"). That press release reported, among other results, that Baidu had recorded its first GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) loss for the first time in 15 years. Specifically, for the first quarter of 2019, Baidu reported an operating loss of RMB936 million ($139 million), compared to an operating income of RMB4.6 billion for the first quarter of 2018. Baidu attributed these results, in part, to content costs of RMB6.2 billion ($917 million), representing an increase of 47% year over year, which the Company advised was "mainly due to increased investments in iQIYI content." On the same date, also during after-market hours, Baidu hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's first quarter 2019 results (the "1Q19 Conference Call"). On that call, Defendant Yu explained that Baidu's "total revenues reached CNY 24.1 billion, up 15%, or 21%, excluding spinoff revenue of CNY 1.1 billion," but, "[a]t the same time, [the Company] incurred net loss of CNY 327 million due to [inter alia] . . . increased loss from iQIYI," noting that "[c]ontent cost was up 47% to CNY 6.2 billion, mainly due to iQIYI's increased investment in content." Following the 1Q19 Press Release and the 1Q19 Conference call, Baidu's ADSs fell $25.39 per share, or 16.52%, to close at $128.31 per share on May 17, 2019. Despite this decline in Baidu's ADS price, the Company's shares continued to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the remainder of the Class Period as a result of Defendants' continued misstatements and omissions related to iQIYI. For example, on March 13, 2020, Baidu filed with the SEC its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2019 on a Form 20-F signed by Defendant Y. Li (the "2019 20-F"). Attached to the 2019 20-F were SOX certifications signed by Defendants Y. Li and Yu attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. 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. [GN] BAR 20: Court Certifies Settlement Class and FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved employees" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. v. BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal..), the Court entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2. certifying the proposed class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective for settlement purposes; 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, David G. Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Eric B. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, as class counsel for settlement purposes; 4. appointing the named plaintiffs, Jose Maciel and Elvis Bonilla as class representatives for settlement purposes; 5. approving Simpluris as the settlement claims administrator; 6. approving proposed notice and claim forms in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 7. approving proposed settlement on a preliminary basis; and 8. scheduling hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement for April 12, 2021 2 at 1:30 pm before the undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). The Court said, "When the court conditionally granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Net Settlement Amount was calculated to be $249,750.00 and the amount that the average Class Member could expect to receive under the Settlement was $840.90. Because the Fifth Amended Settlement Agreement includes a Settlement Administrator bid that has increased by $3,800.00, the new Net Settlement Amount is $245,950.00. Accordingly, the average Class Member can now expect to receive approximately $828.00 under the Settlement. Although the court noted in its order conditionally granting preliminary approval that the recovery rate was at the low end of the range of percentage recoveries to be found reasonable, the court does not find the new Net Settlement Amount's slight deviation to be significant. Moreover, the court has previously also determined that the low recovery rate did not justify the quick redistribution of unclaimed funds to a cy-pres beneficiary and thus directed the parties to restructure the Settlement so that any unclaimed funds will be redistributed in a second, pro rata payout to the Class Members who claimed their awards after the first distribution of funds. The Settlement now reflects this change. Accordingly, the court approves the Settlement amount reflected in the proposed Fifth Amended Settlement Agreement." A copy of the Court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dz9Eoy at no extra charge.[CC] BECHT ENGINEERING: Tolling Limitations for Putative Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW, INDIVIDUALLY § AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs Jon M. Costellow, John M. Triplett, Carl Hebert, and Bruce Hallman ask the Court, in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification, to include an order tolling limitations for members of the "putative class" as of July 1, 2020, the date Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Conditional Class Certification, through the deadline members of the putative class are permitted to file their written Consent to join. The Plaintiffs contend that at this juncture, the Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Notice to the Putative Class is fully briefed and pending. However, the statute of limitations continues to run against those members of the putative class who have not received Notice informing them of, (1) the existence of this lawsuit and Fair Labor Standards Act violations associated with the Single Rate Pay System, (2) their rights to join this lawsuit, and (3) the procedure they must follow to join this lawsuit. Equitable tolling will help insure that the putative class -- who are completely unaware of this lawsuit -- are afforded the opportunity to join this lawsuit and recover overtime wages they should have been paid in the first place, the Plaintiffs added. Becht provides technical excellence in Engineering Solutions, Plant Services, Training & Software Tools to worldwide clients. A copy of the Plaintiff's opposed motion for equitable tolling is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31kysvG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Frasher, Esq. John Werner, Esq. REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, LLP 801 Laurel Street P.O. Box 26005 Beaumont, TX 77720-6005 Telephone: (409) 838-1000 Facsimile: (409) 833-8236 BIOMARIN PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("BioMarin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) securities between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). BioMarin investors have until November 24, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On August 19, 2020, the Company announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding BioMarin's Biologics License Application ("BLA") for valoctocogene roxaparvovec. Therein, the FDA determined that the "differences between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2) and the Phase 3 study limited its ability to rely on the Phase 1/2 study to support durability of effect." As a result, the FDA recommended that BioMarin "complete the Phase 3 Study and submit two-year follow-up safety and efficacy data on all study participants." On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or 35%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without further data; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased BioMarin securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 24, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased BioMarin securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] BIOMARIN PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("BioMarin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) securities between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). BioMarin investors have until November 24, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your BioMarin investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/biomarin-pharmaceuticals-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. BioMarin is a biotechnology company that develops and commercializes therapies for people with serious and life-threatening rare diseases and medical conditions. The Company's product candidates include, as well as others, valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an investigational adeno-associated virus ("AAV") gene therapy, which is in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of patients with severe hemophilia A. On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's Biologics License Application ("BLA") for valoctocogene roxaparvovec. Therein, the FDA concluded that the "differences between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2) and the Phase 3 study limited its ability to rely on the Phase 1/2 study to support durability of effect." As a result, the FDA recommended that BioMarin "complete the Phase 3 Study and submit two-year follow-up safety and efficacy data on all study participants." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or 35%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the disparities between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 24, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BioMarin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-06719, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired BioMarin securities between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased BioMarin securities during the class period, you have until November 24, 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. BioMarin is a biotechnology company that develops and commercializes therapies for people with serious and life-threatening rare diseases and medical conditions. The Company's product candidates include, among others, valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an investigational adeno-associated virus ("AAV") gene therapy, which is in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of patients with severe hemophilia A. Based on BioMarin's Phase 1/2 study results, the investing and medical community viewed valoctocogene roxaparvovec as a likely candidate for becoming the first gene therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for hemophilia in the U.S. In May 2019, BioMarin announced the interim results from its Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults suffering from severe hemophilia A. The results, although showing the treatment's effectiveness, disappointed the market because they indicated a reduction in durability of effectiveness from the results shown in the Phase 1/2 results. That is, under the Phase 3 results, it was not clear whether valoctocogene roxaparvovec's effectiveness would last as long as indicated in the Phase 1/2 study, and thus, whether valoctocogene roxaparvovec would be a single treatment, or one requiring more than one treatment over the life of a patient. These concerns echoed those that first arose in 2018, after the Company reported a disappointing two-year update from the Phase 1/2 study, which showed factor VIII levels waning over time. Apparently dismissing these concerns, in December 2019, BioMarin submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults with hemophilia A based on the interim analysis of the ongoing Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, as well as three-year data from the Company's Phase 1/2 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin also announced that the European Medicines Agency ("EMA") validated the Company's Marketing Authorization Application ("MAA") for valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults with severe hemophilia A, with the MAA review to commence in January 2020 under accelerated assessment. 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) differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA to the Company's BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin advised investors that in the CRL, "the FDA introduced a new recommendation for two years of data from the Company's ongoing 270-301 study (Phase 3) to provide substantial evidence of a durable effect using Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) as the primary endpoint" and "recommended that the Company complete the Phase 3 Study and submit two-year follow-up safety and efficacy data on all study participants." In explaining the new recommendation, the "FDA concluded that the differences between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2) and the Phase 3 study limited its ability to rely on the Phase 1/2 study to support the durability of effect." On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or 35.28%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] BOB'S DISCOUNT: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Espinal" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O. CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO, and WELLINGTON TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, XPO LAST MILE, INC., ABS CORPS., AND JANE & JOHN DOES, Case No. 2:17-cv-02854-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Vazquez said, "No later than October 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs shall file a submission on the docket demonstrating the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. And no later than November 4, 2020, the Defendants shall file a response to the Plaintiffs' submission as to subject-matter jurisdiction." Bob's Discount is an American furniture store headquartered in Manchester, Connecticut. Bob's Discount was founded in 1991 with its first store in Newington, Connecticut and is ranked 12th in sales among United States furniture stores according to Furniture Today's list of Top 100 Furniture Stores. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/346ZbOa at no extra charge.[CC] BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK) between May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Braskem investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Braskem class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (2) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (3) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable; (4) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 26, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. 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. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] BTU: Levi & Korsinsky LLP Reminds of November 27 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of BTU. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BTU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/peabody-energy-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=9759&wire=1 BTU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 - October 28, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/peabody-energy-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=9759&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Peabody Energy Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (b) the Company failed to follow its own safety procedures; (c) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown; (d) the Company's low-cost plan to restart operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental risks; (e) The Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate, would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; and (f) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] C-CUBED GROUP: Gabrielian Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- KASPAR GABRIELIAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. C-CUBED GROUP, INC. (D/B/A C-CUBED) and ANTHONY CHAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-08575 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. He adds that the Defendants' conduct extended beyond him to all other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff is employed as a security guard of the Defendants C-Cubed Group, Inc. and Anthony Chan. The Defendants own, operate, or control a private security company, located at 44 Monroe St., No. A3, New York under the name "C-Cubed".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. COG Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9759&wire=1 Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG) COG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 13, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9759&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] CABOT OIL: Zhang Investor Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG) between October 23, 2015 and June 12, 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=cabot-oil-gas-corporation&id=2376 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 13, 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) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (4) Cabot continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (5) 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] CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Long-Term Care Scandal ------------------------------------------------------ Keith Leslie, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that it's clear Ontario needs a public inquiry to determine why governments did nothing substantive to address a chronic shortage of long-term care workers that existed long before COVID-19 killed over 1,850 residents and staff. We can't depend on Premier Doug Ford's commission of inquiry to dig into government inaction that allowed the staffing shortage to become a crisis or examine the role of private corporations that take profits out of the publicly-funded LTC sector. Thanks to a proposed class action suit filed by residents' families, we now know the Ontario government does not guarantee the health and safety of 78,000 LTC residents. In its statement of defence, the province denied anyone in the class action suffered loss or damages, and if they did, it's the operator's responsibility. The Ministry of Long Term Care funds, licences and provides "regulatory oversight" of the homes, but says they are "independently run and operated and oversee their own staffing." I guess that explains why Liberal and Tory governments failed to act, despite knowing for years that LTC homes were in dire need of personal support workers. Repeated warnings from residents' families, staff unions and health advocates fell on deaf ears. Ontario was slow in the pandemic to restrict LTC staff to working in just one home, knowing most were part-time or on contract and had taken jobs at two or more homes to make ends meet. The delay daily pierced Ford's promised "iron ring" of protection around Ontario's 623 nursing homes, making it easier for COVID-19 to spread. The staff shortage was so severe in some homes the army was called in, and as we learned, discovered a horror show of warehoused seniors, laying unattended for hours, often in soiled clothing, with filthy living conditions and cockroach infestations. An Ontario Health Coalition survey of LTC staff in July found 95 per cent reported their nursing home was short-staffed and that residents were going without regular showers or baths. So what do we get from our government? Photo-ops and promises to build more LTC homes, which are needed, but Ford is offering millions of dollars in new bonus incentives for developers to get shovels in the ground quickly. But what about staffing them? A five-month government study concluded in July that the province should "urgently address the staffing crisis in long term care." The crisis won't improve if we let the private sector, which already controls nearly 60 per cent of LTC homes in Ontario, operate the new ones, taking an even bigger slice of the "market." Caring for our parents and grandparents who can't look after themselves shouldn't be left to private corporations that want only to maximize profits. Some older non-profit and municipally-run homes may not sparkle and shine or have all the latest technology, but anecdotally at least, some families feel they provide their loved ones with more and better personal care. Researchers say it's because the non-profits have more staff. There's no denying the close ties between private LTC corporations and Ontario's Progressive Conservatives, with former premiers Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and Bill Davis all taking paid appointments to their boards. Several former Ford staffers now lobby for LTC corporations. There's nothing in a Ford-appointed commission of inquiry to instil any confidence that the government and its corporate friends will truly be held to account for what happened when COVID-19 ravaged long term care in Ontario. Hopefully the courts will determine the truth. [GN] CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Assistant Managers Seek Class Status ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGALI MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; and SUMMIT RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01017-WJM-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting his motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of: "all exempt "Assistant Managers" who worked for Capstone Restaurant Group in the United States at any time between April 10, 2017 and December 31, 2019 and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more workweek (the "AM Collective")." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and all other similarly-situated Assistant Managers (AMs) overtime compensation between April 10, 2017 and December 31, 2019, in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, he alleges that the class were improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a work week. He adds that the Defendant's violations were deliberate, and its exemption policy was uniformly applied in order to reduce restaurant labor costs. Capstone owns and operates approximately 300 franchised restaurants across 16 states, including in Colorado. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31hwTik at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative AM Collective, are: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1000 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Court Denies Certification of Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Timothy Pavloff, et al. v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp., Case No. 5:20-cv-00363-PA-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order denying certification of two classes: California Resident Class: "All California-based (resident) truck drivers or helpers (team driver 2) subject to the unlawful sleeper berth deductions or other California-based minimum wage violations as described herein within the United States at any time starting four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until trial of this action" and Non-California Resident Class: "All non-California resident drivers or helpers (team driver 2) who performed work in California for at least one full day from 4 years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present." The Court said the Plaintiffs' evidence only shows possible class membership. But evidence of possible class membership is not evidence of actual numerosity. Thus, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to show that Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)'s numerosity requirement is met. The Plaintiffs have also failed to present a single question of law or fact common to the proposed classes. The Court finds as well that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the proposed classes. Lastly, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy any of the requirements of Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs are employed as long-haul truck drivers for Cardinal. The Plaintiffs allege that "for any given 24-hour shift, Department of Labor regulations prohibit the Defendant from excluding more than 8 hours from compensation for the time that a driver spends in a truck's 'sleeper berth.'" Cardinal Logistics provides transportation and logistic services. The Company offers contract carriage, bulk transport, jobsite delivery, life science logistics, temperature controlled carriers, supply chain consulting, warehousing, and inventory management services. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k0VgYR at no extra charge.[CC] CBS TV: Class Status Sought in Female Reporters' Equal Pay Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILVA HARAPETI, v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-22995-KMW (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action of: "current and former female news reporters and news producers who worked for Defendants nationwide in the last three years prior to the Plaintiff's discovery of unequal pay and who were paid less than their male counterparts"; 2. compelling expedited production by the Defendant, within 15 days of Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last-known home addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and social security numbers -- who was employed by the Defendant, performed services on Defendant's behalf, and/or performed services which benefited Defendant in any way, at any time for the past three years, and who was a female employee classified and/or described by the Defendant as a news reporter or news producer or the like (the Proposed Collective); 3. requiring the Defendant, in light of the relatively large number or persons in the Proposed Class, to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the list both by hard copy and electronically -- in an Excel spreadsheet with each person listed alphabetically form "A" to "Z" and with each person's last-known home address, telephone Social Security numbers are requested because they are the surest means of locating persons whose addresses, phone numbers, or e-mail addresses have changed. People often cannot be located at the address, phone number, or e-mail address that the employer last kept on record.; 4. authorizing the Plaintiff counsel's mailing of a Court- approved Notice to all such persons about their right to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit; 5. requiring that the parties' counsel confer on the contents of the Notice in the event that the Court would prefer that the parties stipulate to the use of a Notice in this or a different form and, if the parties' counsel are unable to agree on the form, they are to submit the disputed issues to this Court for resolution and such submissions shall occur no less than 15 days after the entry of the Order; and 6. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-collective action mail and via e-mail; 7. directing the Defendant to post at all of its business locations located within its branches; 8. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the instant action; and 9. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form. This is a collective action to enforce the provisions of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). The Lead Plaintiff, Silva Harapeti, and other similarly situated individuals performed work for Defendants as female news producers and reporters. The Plaintiff began work for the Defendant on 2011 until March 16, 2018 when her employment ended. On May 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that she and the other female who worked for Defendant nationwide were paid less than their male counterparts. CBS Television Stations is a division of the CBS Entertainment Group unit of Viacom CBS that owns and operates a group of American television stations. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m0x35r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Mineral Interest Owners Seek Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 20-33233 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all unleased mineral interest owners in Louisiana whose mineral interests are contained in force pooled units operated by Chesapeake." The mineral interests of the named plaintiffs in the Hudson Case are contained in force pooled units operated by Chesapeake in DeSoto and Caddo Parishes, Louisiana. The Movants own unleased mineral interests in Louisiana which Chesapeake operates. Chesapeake deducts post-production costs from the Movants' share of production in violation of the Louisiana statutory scheme for compensating unleased mineral interests, says the complaint. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has expressly ruled that Chesapeake's practice does not comply with Louisiana law. Movants' claims implicate, upon information and belief, more than a thousand unleased mineral owners, and Movants' claims can reach back in excess of ten years under the applicable prescriptive period. Before the Defendant's bankruptcy cases were filed, Movants asserted a putative class action pursuing claims against Debtors before the Western District of Louisiana, and Movants have also filed a motion for relief from stay and motion for adequate protection related to those claims. A copy of the Hudson, et al.'s motion to certify class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33V4Xm9 at no extra charge.[CC] CINTAS CORPORATION: Landeros Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled PORFIRIO LANDEROS, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3, CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, CINTAS CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., CINTAS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV35571, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 28, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09931 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay rest and meal period premiums, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon separation, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Cintas Corporation No. 3 is a retailer of specialized lines of apparel and accessories based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Cintas Corporation No. 2 is a company that provides corporate identity uniforms, with its principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Cintas Corporate Services, Inc. is a company that designs and manufactures corporate identity uniform programs, with its principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Cintas Corporation is a company that designs, manufactures, and implements corporate identity uniform programs, with its principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael W. Kelly, Esq. Marisol C. Mork, Esq. Lilah J. Sutphen, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 E-mail: michael.kelly@squirepb.com marisol.mork@squirepb.com lilah.sutphen@squirepb.com CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Seeks Class Status for TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CANIZALES CONDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY COMPASSIONATE CAREGIVERS, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05302-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "individuals to whom CCC sent text messages"; and 2. granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery to identify members of the Class and determine the amount of damages they are entitled to prior to the entry of final judgment. This action arises out of the Defendant City Compassionate Caregivers' practice of sending unsolicited text messages en masse to consumers and presents a textbook case for class certification. CCC, a company that sells cannabis products through retail stores, sent unsolicited text messages to thousands of consumers to market its cannabis products. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent its text messages to Plaintiff and the putative Class members' cellular telephone numbers, from a single source, using automatic dialing equipment, without obtaining statutorily compliant prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GXdprX at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 L INDBROOK D RIVE Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Borup Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Timothy C. Borup, v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI Group, Case No. 0:18-cv-01647-PAM-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a class consisting of: "all individuals who were classified as independent contractors while performing work" for HCI "and who provided at-the-elbow training or support services for EHR [Epic] systems or software, without regard to specific job title." The Court said, "Borup's Motion is untimely under the operative scheduling order, but even if timely, Borup is not entitled to represent the collective set forth in his Motion." The Plaintiff Timothy Borup worked for CJS Solutions in May 2018. He had recently graduated from medical school and HCI hired him to assist physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers at the Mayo Clinic with the transition to Epic, a new patient-management software system. Individuals who perform these duties for HCI are known as at-the-elbow, or "ATE" consultants. In May 2017, a year before Borup's employment and after defending numerous lawsuits regarding compensation for ATEs, HCI reclassified most ATEs as employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). HCI did not, however, reclassify individuals who, like Borup, were medically trained. Borup filed this lawsuit in June 2018, contending that HCI's refusal to classify medically trained individuals as employees violates both FLSA and Minnesota's wage hour laws. CJS Solutions, doing business as The HCI Group, provides IT consulting services. The Company offers IT system implementation and training, integration, infrastructure management, cloud migration, testing, and cyber security services. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/376VYzX at no extra charge.[CC] CLICK MAIL: Gutierrez-Zapata Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JENIFER GUTIERREZ-ZAPATA, and other similarly situated individuals, v. CLICK MAIL CORP, DIEGO FERREIRA and LINDA FERREIRA, Case No. 1:20-cv-24158-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2020), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that she worked an average of 60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed as a warehouse worker and then customer service representative performing the same or similar duties as that of those other similarly situated warehouse workers, customer service representatives and office workers whom she observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. She worked from June 16, 2018 to Agusut 31, 2020. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages of $12,970.125 and liquidated damages of $14,554.80. A total damages of $29,109.60 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Click Mail Corp. a freight shipping trucking company from Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha Blye, Esq. Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com yramirez@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com COAST PROFESSIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Terminated ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kaykov v. Coast Professional, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06442 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A Matsumoto entered an order terminating the Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Attorneys' Fees. The motions have been superseded by the order adopting the parties' agreement on June 26, 2020. This Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arises out of a letter Coast sent the Plaintiff to collect on his debt to Touro College and University System. In pertinent part, the Letter states: "Because of interest or other fees that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater". The Plaintiff asserts this statement was false for any accounts in which Touro had not instructed Coast to add interest or fees. Coast had several colorable defenses, including that the Interest/Fee Disclosure did not violate the FDCPA because Touro accounts are subject to fees, and the statement that the account may increase due to interest or fees was, therefore, accurate. Coast Professional is a top performing collection agency that focuses on the collection of government and higher education debt.[CC] CONTRA COSTA, CA: Young Suit Seeks to Certify Detainees Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL YOUNG, EDDIE WILLIAMS, AND GALE YOUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, Case No. 5:20-cv-06848-N (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for entry of an Order: 1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2); 2. certifying a Plaintiff Class of: "all individuals who are now, or in the future will be, detained in a Contra Costa County jail"; 3. certifying Plaintiffs Gabriel Young, Eddie Williams, and Gale Young as representatives of the Plaintiff Class, and their counsel of record as counsel for the Plaintiff Class. This lawsuit is about the treatment of, and conditions of confinement for, the Plaintiffs and all people who are or in the future will be incarcerated in Contra Costa County jails. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the County's policies and practices, including its failure to provide inmates with access to adequate medical, dental, and mental health care, and its failure to provide accommodations and equal access for people with disabilities, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff Gabriel Young is a 36-year-old pre-trial detainee with serious mental health needs who has been housed at both Martinez Detention Facility and the West County Detention Facility. The Defendant County of Contra Costa operates three jail facilities, the Martinez Detention Facility, the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, and the Marsh Creek Detention Facility that as of September 24, 2020, incarcerated 785 people. By law, the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office is responsible for the care, treatment, well-being, and safekeeping of people incarcerated in the Jail. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3diSzze at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are: Donald Specter, Esq. Sara Norman, Esq. Corene T. Kendrick, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com snorman@prisonlaw.com ckendrick@prisonlaw.com COSTA LINDA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ NELSON A. MARTINEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, v. COSTA LINDA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24086-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2020), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that while he is employed by the Defendant, he worked on some weeks an average of 65 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. Specifically, from October 5, 2017 through July 21, 2020 (146.71 compensable weeks), he worked overtime 146.71 weeks, he adds. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Costa Linda Condominium Association is a Florida not for profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha Blye, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC www.saenzanderson.com 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Adventure, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com COUCH BRAUNSDORF: Simoni Class Action Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SIMONI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COUCH BRAUNSDORF INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. MON-L-002871-20 (Filed Sept. 14, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 14, 2020. The Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-14398 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class against the Defendant for alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Couch Braunsdorf is an insurance broker/agent that offers a wide range of insurance and services for personal, commercial, life, health, financial planning, professional liability, and title.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Stephen J. Simoni. Esq. SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES C/O JARDIM, MEISNER & SUSSER, P.C. 30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 100 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Attorneys for the Defendant Couch Braunsdorf Insurance Group, Inc., are: Matthew J. Fedor, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7000 Facsimile: (973) 360-9831 E-mail: Matthew.Fedor@faegredrinker.com COULTER VENTURES: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al., v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC DBA ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order: 1. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of: "all current or former non-exempt employees in Defendants’ warehouse, customer service, and/or manufacturing divisions and employed during the past three years who were paid from the beginning of their shift until the end of their shift despite being clocked in more than seven minutes prior to their shift and/or remaining clocked in more than seven minutes after their scheduled shift end time and/or who were paid a flat per diem amount while working at off-site events on behalf of Defendants regardless of the number of hours worked each day"; 2. denying as moot the Defendants' Motion for Sur-Reply as this Motion is responsive to the now moot Motion for Conditional Certification; and 3. granting the Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court said, "The pending Motion for Class Certification relates to a complaint that is no longer operative for the purposes of this litigation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot and the Plaintiff is directed to file a new Motion for Class Certification within 30 days, in light of the new operative complaint." Mr. Braun brought the collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Payment Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages stemming from the Defendants' alleged common business practices of: (1) requiring employees to perform integral, indispensable work before and after their paid shifts; and (2) paying employees a flat per diem rate rather than an hourly wage while they were working at off-site events, regardless of the number of hours worked each day. Mr. Braun worked in the Defendants' assembly department from September 27, 2019 through October 15, 2019, and then in Defendants’ warehouse department from October 16, 2019 through December 6, 2019. Coulter Ventures, doing business as, Rogue Fitness, retails athletics equipment. The Company offers bars and plates, strength equipment, rigs and racks, gears, straps, wraps, and gymnastics products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33NCvT1 at no extra charge.[CC] COUNT FINANCIAL: Piper Alderman Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that law firm Piper Alderman has filed a class action against Count Financial, alleging the former Commonwealth Bank-owned (CBA) advice firm failed its clients on several counts. The lawsuit will allege that the firm breached the Corporations Act by failing to ensure adviser remuneration was free from conflict, act in clients' best interest when giving advice and to provide services where fees were charged. "These claims have the prospect of recovering significant sums of money for a large number of individuals," Partner Martin del Gallego said. CBA says it has been notified of the legal proceedings in the Federal Court against the former subsidiary, which was sold last year for $2.5 million to listed adviser group CountPlus. The bank says the class action relates to commissions paid to Count Financial and its authorised representatives for financial products including life insurance and certain obligations to provide ongoing advice from August 21 2014 to August 21 this year. "As previously announced, CBA will continue to support and manage customer remediation matters arising from past issues at Count Financial," the bank says in a statement. CBA says it has given an indemnity of $300 million to CountPlus for past conduct remediation. As part of the sale agreement last year, CBA provided up to a maximum of $200 million in indemnity to cover remediation costs and the limit was raised in July to $300 million. CountPlus has said the potential for further increases to the indemnity limit remains under certain triggers relating to the failure rate for fee for no service and inappropriate advice. [GN] CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Michigan on behalf of those who acquired Credit Acceptance Corporation ("Credit Acceptance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CACC) securities during the period from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 1, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Credit Acceptance used high-risk loans to top off loan pools that it packaged and securitized. The Company made subprime loans at high interest rates to borrowers it knew could not repay them. The Company's hidden finance charges raised the interest rate of these loans above the usury rate ceiling set by state law. The Company used aggressive and illegal measures to collect debt from its defaulted borrowers. 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 Credit Acceptance, investors suffered damages. If you acquired Credit Acceptance securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Credit Acceptance Corporation ("Credit Acceptance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CACC), and certain of its executive officers, (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock between November 1, 2019 and August 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Credit Acceptance common stock during the Class Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than December 1, 2020. You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), a Director of Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Credit Acceptance provides financing programs, and related products and services to independent and franchised automobile dealers in the United States. These programs are offered through a nationwide network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing, as 95% of Credit Acceptance's loans are considered subprime. On August 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General ("Mass AG") filed a lawsuit against Credit Acceptance alleging that the Company has, for years, been making unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well. In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG lawsuit, Credit Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020. Saxena White has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Credit Acceptance and certain of its executive officers asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and adherence to the appropriate laws and regulations. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii) that Credit Acceptance was making high-interest subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay; (iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v) that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and adherence to appropriate laws and regulations were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 206-6708 Fax: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN] CSA LA: Latinsky Suit Alleges Retaliation, Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- ALINA LATINSKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSA LA, LLC, doing business as CannaSafe; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV41159 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful termination and retaliation in violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The Plaintiff was employed as an account manager by the Defendants on or about March 9, 2020 until her termination on June 11, 2020 because of her posts and/or the content of her posts on Facebook concerning the death of George Floyd, an African American man killed during an arrest after a store clerk alleged he had passed a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis, at the hands of law enforcement on May 25, 2020. CSA LA, LLC, doing business as CannaSafe, is a cannabis testing laboratory in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marina Kats Fraigun, Esq. FRAIGUN LAW GROUP 15250 Ventura Boulevard Penthouse 1220 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 981-1800 Facsimile: (818) 981-1484 E-mail: mfraigun@fraigunlaw.com DELAWARE: Certification of COVID-19 Positive Inmates Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned DION GIBBS, et al., v. GOVERNOR JOHN CARNEY, CLAIRE DeMATTEIS, COMMISSIONER; TRUMAN MEARS, SCI WARDEN; and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01301-CFC (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 at SCI while serving their Level 5 sentences between June of 2020 throughout July 2020"; 2. appointing Dion Gibbs as class representative; and 3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated their and Class members' constitutional rights by failing, at first instance, to require and then appropriately implement adequate safeguards to prevent and control the spread of COVID-19 throughout SCI. The Delaware Department of Correction is a state agency of Delaware that manages state prisons. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nHzn2S at no extra charge. Mr. Gibbs appears pro se.[CC] DELOITTE MANAGEMENT: Worker Misclassification Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aidan Macnab, writing for Law Times, reports that with the COVID-19 economic downturn and in the wake of Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller and the Foodora Labour Relations Board decision, many gig-workers are questioning their legal rights, and these and other factors have led to a string of class actions for Monkhouse Law Employment Lawyers, says Alexandra Monkouse. "We've seen a number of catering companies coming under scrutiny and temporary employment agencies also coming under scrutiny, because people wonder if they haven't been short-changed," says Monkhouse, a former tax lawyer at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, who joined Monkhouse Law in 2019. The rise of the gig economy and the Uber and Foodora decisions have highlighted the still-arguably-fuzzy distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. In the last year, Monkhouse Law has initiated more than 10 class actions arguing for minimum employment standards and against the "misclassification" of employees as contractors, Monkhouse says. One example is the ongoing action against Deloitte Management Services, on behalf of workers performing document review and e-discovery services. The suit alleges the class members were misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to employment standards minimums and statutory deductions. In June in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, the Court ruled the arbitration clause in Uber's contract with its drivers was invalid. The clause required disputes between driver and company to be dealt with in the Netherlands, for a US$14,500 fee. As a result of the ruling, a class action brought by drivers will be heard in Ontario. The drivers argue they are employees rather than independent contractors and should therefore be entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act. After Foodora food delivery couriers held a vote to join the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the company challenged their employment status which determines their eligibility to unionize. But on Feb. 25, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the couriers were dependent contractors and allowed to unionize. But it was a pyrrhic victory, as Foodora declared bankruptcy soon after. "The Foodora situation also kind of outlines the risk of unionization . . . it was a sour victory, I would say for gig economy workers," says Monkhouse. As another sign of the winds shifting in favour of gig-workers, Monkhouse adds that, over the last year, she has also seen the Canada Revenue Agency intensifying scrutiny of companies for misclassifying their employees under the Income Tax Act. One example, says Monkhouse is the 2019 Tax Court decision in AE Hospitality Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue. The court dismissed AE's appeal and confirmed that a group of caterers deemed independent contractors by AE were employees. "What I see is that judges now are a lot more sensitive to the idea that as somebody who is in an independent contractor agreement might actually be an employee," says Monkhouse. These trends -- plus COVID-19 and recent changes to employment insurance -- may push lawmakers to take action and more clearly define what an employee is, in legislation, she says. In Ontario, who qualifies as an employee is determined by caselaw, not through a clear legal definition in the Employment Standards Act, says Monkhouse. Currently, caselaw defines an employee through the Sagaz test, based on a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada case 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. The determining factors are: whether the worker has their own equipment, whether the worker hires their own helpers, the extent of financial risks taken by the worker, the degree of responsibility for investment and management held by the worker and the opportunity the worker has to profit from the performance of their tasks. "We could just change the test in the court and then things would move forward… the court could decide to push the needle forward or the legislature could decide to proceed forward. Because there isn't a real recognition of what an employee is under the Employment Standards Act," Monkhouse says. [GN] DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. DELTA GALIL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, PENNSYLVANIA VF CORPORATION a Pennsylvania corporation., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-07796-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 4, 2021, for an order: 1. certifying a plaintiff class and subclasses as follows: "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by the Defendants in California including direct hires and staffing company employees who worked at Defendants' facilities at any time on or after June 13, 2013 through the date of class certification"; Security check Sub-Class "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by the Defendants in California including direct hires and staffing company employees who worked at the Defendants' facilities and were required to go through security checks off-the-clock when entering or leaving the premises, at any time on or after June 13, 2013 through the date of class certification"; Meal Break Sub-Class "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by the Defendants in California including direct hires and staffing company employees who worked at the Defendants' facilities and worked a shift in excess of five hours, at any time on or after June 13, 2013 through the date of class certification"; Rest Break Sub-Class "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by the Defendants in California including direct hires and staffing company employees who worked at the Defendants' facilities and worked a shift in excess of three and one half hours, at any time on or after June 13, 2013 through the date of class certification"; and Regular Rate Sub-Class "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by the Defendants in California who received a bonus under VF Performance Bonus Plan and worked overtime during the bonus period, at any time on or after June 13, 2013 through the date of class certification"; and 2. appointing himself Francisco Figueroa as representative of the proposed classes; and 3. appointing Shaun Setareh, and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). In this putative wage and hour class action, the Plaintiff seeks to certify claims for (1) failure to pay wages for off the clock work performed as a result of security checks when employees enter and/or left the facility, (2) the Defendant's failure to provide lawfully compliant meal and rest breaks under California law, (3) and failure to pay the regular rate of pay for overtime compensation. Delta Galil is an Israeli textile firm headquartered in Tel Aviv with plants around the world. The owner is Isaac Dabah. Delta Galil Industries had an annual turnover of over $1,079 million. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j7BY2L at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff is: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com DENVER, CO: Provisional Certification of Two Classes Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENVER HOMELESS OUT LOUD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02985-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting provisional certification of the following classes of individuals contemporaneously with providing interim relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 as set forth in the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction: 1. All involuntarily unhoused individuals living in Denver, Colorado during the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2. All persons in the City and County of Denver whose personal belongings may in the future be taken or destroyed without due process on account of Denver's, and/or its officials' and representatives', decision to clear away an encampment of unhoused person(s) by seizing and/or discarding the property found there without adequate notice. Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating to the Old West era. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for provisional class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3105PDX at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: David A. Lane, Esq. Darold W. Killmer, Esq. Andy McNulty, Esq. Reid Allison, Esq. KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-1000 Facsimile: (303) 571-1001 E-mail: dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com rallison@kln-law.com DIESTEL TURKEY: Misrepresents Turkey Products, Donovan Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DONOVAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH, Case No. 3:20-cv-07125-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2020), is a consumer class action against Defendant which markets and sells premium-priced turkey products nationwide through retailers such as Whole Foods and Amazon.com. The Plaintiff contends the Defendant exploits the growing consumer demand for non-factory farmed, humanely raised animal products through misrepresentations that are intended to induce consumers to pay significant premiums for Diestel's Turkey Products that consumers reasonably believe come from turkeys that were "thoughtfully raised" on the Diestel family's Sonora Ranch. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations about its turkey products from the Sonora Ranch, consumers paid more for Diestel Turkey Products and suffer harm in the form of paying a higher price for them than they would have paid if they had known that Diestel turkeys were raised at the agro-industrial Offsite Facilities. The label of each Diestel turkey product and Diestel's online advertising uniformly state that Diestel's turkeys originate from its idyllic, family-run turkey ranch in Sonora, California, where turkeys are represented to be "thoughtfully raised on sustainable family farms with plenty of fresh air and space to roam [and] are given individual care and a wholesome diet." To further bolster its representations that its turkeys are from its Sonora Ranch, not from typical industrial farms, the Defendant also represents that its turkeys are raised in conformance with the highest animal welfare standards under the Global Animal Partnership ("GAP") Animal Welfare Certified program. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for the Defendant's false and misleading representations regarding its turkey products. The Defendant's misrepresentations constitute violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff Robert Donovan is/was a resident of Arcata, California. He purchased Diestel Turkey Products for more than 10 years in various locations throughout the United States, including in northern California at the North Coast Coop in Arcata, California in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Diestel Turkey Ranch sells its Turkey Products in California and across the country online (through its website and Amazon) and through major retailers like Whole Foods Markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Law, Esq. COOPER AND SCULLY, PC 505 Sansome No. 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-9700 Facsimile: (415) 391-0274 E-mail: alan.law@cooperscully.com - and - Gretchen Elsner, Esq. ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC 314 South Guadalupe Street Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 303-0980 E-mail: Gretchen@ElsnerLaw.org - and - Timothy L. Sifers, Esq. THE POTTS FIRM, LLP 1901 W. 47th Place, Suite 210 Westwood, KS 66205 Telephone: (816) 931-2230 Facsimile: (816) 931-7030 E-mail: tsifers@potts-law.com DIY MEDIA: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says ---------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DIY MEDIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08552-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, www.bookbaby.com, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a book publishing company that owns and operates www.bookbaby.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com DOLLAR TREE: Final Settlement Approval Sought in Snipes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, residing in San Joaquin County, California, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and Does 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Parties request final approval of their Settlement as being fair, adequate, reasonable and in the best interests of the California Class as a whole. The Settlement establishes a Maximum Settlement Amount of $2.5 million to resolve the wage-and-hour class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and approximately 2,774 other employees of the Defendant. As described in the Plaintiff's preliminary approval papers, the Settlement is the product of litigation by the Parties that began in April 2015 and has continued for over five-and-a-half years, and included extensive discovery, multiple depositions, motion practice, and appellate work, all of which allowed the Parties to fully assess the asserted claims and defenses. The Settlement was reached only after two mediations, extensive post-mediation negotiations, and mutual assent to a mediator's proposal. The Court preliminarily approved the subject Settlement amount as being fair and reasonable, preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel, and approved Plaintiff's proposed Notice Plan and corresponding notice documents. In particular: (i) None of the Settlement Class Members objected to the Settlement; and (ii) Only seven out of the 2,774 Settlement Class Members, or 0.25% of the Settlement Class Members, opted out of the Settlement. The fixed-sum Settlement further represents a considerable monetary recovery on behalf 26 of the Settlement Class Members, with the average Settlement Class Member estimated to receive $564.19 and the highest Settlement Class Member receiving $3,565.13, the parties tell the Court. A copy of the Motion for final approval of stipulation of class settlement and release is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33PG7E5 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Class Members and all Aggrieved Employees, are: S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Jared Hague, Esq. Brady Briggs, Esq. SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C. 5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 2013 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 325-0500 Facsimile: (559) 981-1217 E-mail: brett@suttonhague.com jared@suttonhague.com brady@suttonhague.com DTE PIPELINE: Page Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON PAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DTE PIPELINE COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01345-DSC-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice to be sent to: "all Inspectors paid a day rate who performed work on behalf of DTE Pipeline Company at any time in the past 3 years (Putative Class Members). 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. authorizing a reminder notice; 4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact Putative Class Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice forms return as undeliverable; 6. directing DTE to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days; and 7. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the case. DTE pipeline owns and manages a network of natural gas transmission pipelines serving regions, including the Midwest, Northeast and Ontario regions. A copy of the Page's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dtxWjW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Sale Reps Litigation Wins Class Status -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANOLEE SIDBURY, and all others similarly situated, v. DUN & BRADSTREET EMERGING BUSINESSES CORP. and DUN & BRADSTREET CREDIBILITY CORP., Case No. 1:19-cv-00865-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order: 1. granting Sidbury's motion for conditional certification and conditionally certifying a class of: "all Inside Sales Representatives employed by the Defendant Dun & Bradstreet Emerging Businesses Corp., Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. or Avention, Inc. in the job titles of: Account Manager -- EB, Credit Advisor (Existing) -- EB, Credit Advisor (NCA) -- EB, Sr Account Manager -- EB, Acquisition Sales Representative, Hoovers -- Account Manager (Premier), Hoovers -- Acquisition Rep Chat, Hoovers -- Acquisition Rep Webforms, Inside Sales Relationship Manager I, Inside Sales Relationship Manager II, Inside Sales Specialists -- S&MS National Accounts, Small Biz RM Corp Accts, Small Biz -- Tele RM I Corp Accts, Small Biz-S&MS New Biz Specialist Corp Accts, Small Business -- NCA Rep Emerging, Small Business - NCA Rep EB, Small Business -- NCA Representative or Small Biz - Prime RM Corp Accts who rejected the settlement of their overtime claims in the case of Matise v. Dun & Bradstreet Case No. 1:18-cv- 00725-LY, in the Western District, Austin Division"; 2. directing the Defendants to provide Sidbury's counsel with a complete and accurate list of names, last known addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class members on or before October 27, 2020; 3. directing the parties to confer about the form and content of class notice, as well as a proposed schedule for issuing that notice, receiving responses, and briefing for decertification. 4. directing the parties to submit a joint proposed class notice and schedule on or before October 27, 2020. If the parties cannot agree on the class notice or schedule, they shall submit a joint advisory on or before October 27, 2020, in which they describe the areas of their disagreement. The Defendants argue that the potential class members are unlikely to join this litigation because they previously declined to join Matise, have since been paid their backpay, and have less liquidated damages available to them now than they did during Matise. In response, Sidbury argues that declining to join the Matise settlement should have no bearing on whether potential class members may pursue their liquidated damages claims as a class. The Court agrees, noting that "[i]ndividuals may have myriad reasons for not wishing to opt-in to a lawsuit against their employer ranging from fear of retaliation to sheer inertia." For instance, Sidbury suggests that potential class members may have declined to join the Matise settlement out of fear of retaliation from their employers, but class members have now seen that participants "in the Matise settlement have not suffered retaliation from the Defendants." Regardless of their reasons for declining to opt in to the Matise settlement, the Court says potential class members should have the opportunity to bring their claims for liquidated damages. The Matise settlement left class members who had opted out of the settlement the opportunity to bring claims in the future. Further, just because the Defendants have paid potential class members' backpay does not mean that additional claims for liquidated damages, also possible under the FLSA, are precluded. For the reasons given, the Court finds Sidbury's proposed class, applied only to liquidated damages, should be conditionally certified. The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act action concerning overtime compensation for employees of the Defendants. Sidbury alleges she and similarly situated employees, "inside sales representatives," were only paid overtime based upon their hourly rates, which incorrectly did not include commissions, cash awards, and other non-discretionary compensation. Sidbury alleges the Defendants' "common practice, policy or plan regarding employee wages and hours" resulted in underpayment of overtime compensation and that Defendants "repeatedly and willfully" violated Sections 7 and 15 of the FLSA. Dun & Bradstreet is located in Malibu, California, and is part of the Finance & Insurance Sector Industry. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/350C0UV at no extra charge.[CC] EASTMAN KODAK: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminded investors of the October 13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE: KODK) securities between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On July 27, 2020, Kodak issued a statement to media outlets based in Rochester, New York, where it is headquartered, on the imminent public announcement of a "new manufacturing initiative" involving the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and the response to COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's initial statement about the deal, the Company claimed this information was released inadvertently. On July 28, 2020, media reported that Company had won a $765 million government loan from the DFC under the Defense Production Act ("DPA") to produce pharmaceutical materials, including ingredients for COVID-19 drugs. On August 1, 2020, Reuters reported new details of an "unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Kodak's Chief Executive Officer, Jim Continenza, which "occurred because of an understanding" between Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public." On this news, Kodak's shares fell $6.91 per share, or 32%, to close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Over the next several days, several articles reported the Congressional and regulatory scrutiny regarding the option grants and the DFC loan. On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "On July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns. We will not proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared." On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%, to close at $10.73 per share on August 10, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James Continenza, and several other Company insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received the $765 million loan, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this material non-public information, Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became public. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kodak securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 13, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] EASTMAN KODAK: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of the Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK) between July 27, 2020 and August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 13, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kodak investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kodak class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1914.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 materially false and/or misleading statements as they misrepresented and failed to disclose material information pertaining to Kodak's business and operations, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose that Kodak had granted several insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this material non-public information, Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of Kodak shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase once news of the loan became public. As a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about Kodak's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. As a result of this fraudulent scheme, defendants artificially inflated the Company's stock price throughout the Class Period and made investment decisions based on material, nonpublic information derived from their positions at Kodak. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 13, 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-1914.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] ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JOHN BROUSSARD, Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and for all those similarly situated, v. ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE POWERTRAIN USA, Case No. 7:19-cv-00841-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional class certification and approving judicial notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for the following class: "all individuals who worked for Defendant as a Process Engineer at any time from December 13, 2016 to the present who believe they were misclassified as exempt." The Plaintiff filed his Collective and Class Action Complaint on December 13, 2019, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant answered on February 12, 2020, denying the allegations. The parties have been in contact on multiple occasions and agree, based on current information, that the putative Plaintiffs in this matter are similarly situated within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.section 216(b) and believe this matter is appropriate for collective action status and judicially approved notice to Putative Plaintiffs. The parties further agree that Putative Plaintiffs all worked for Defendant during the relevant time period as Process Engineers, and all were affected similarly by the various policies and practices that form the basis of the matters at issue in this litigation, the complaint says. Eldor provides auto parts. The Company offers carbon dioxide reduction, electrification, urban e-mobility, alternative energy sources, and energy production services for automobiles. A copy of the joint motion for conditional collective certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iODyGz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Butler Royals, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com - and - Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq. N. Winston West, IV, Esq. Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. Monica L. Mroz, Esq. STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: 540-283-0802 E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com leigh@strelkalaw.com winston@strelkalaw.com brittany@strelkalaw.com monica@strelkalaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Eldor are: Thomas M. Winn, Esq. Leah M. Stiegler, Esq. WOODS ROGERS PLC 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 983-7600 Facsimile: (540) 983-7711 E-mail: winn@woodsrogers.com lstiegler@woodsrogers.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Gregory A. Hurst. On or about June 17, 2020, Gregory A. Hurst filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. Enphase said, "We dispute all allegations, intend to defend the matter vigorously and believe the claims are without merit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform. The company revolutionized the solar industry with our microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont, California. EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Customer Data Settlement Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal from the order granting final approval of the settlement in the consumer class action suit entitled, In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800, is pending. In fiscal 2017, the company experienced a cybersecurity incident following a criminal attack on its systems that involved the theft of certain personally identifiable information of U.S., Canadian and U.K. consumers. Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class actions and other lawsuits were filed against the company typically alleging harm from the incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The company was also subject to investigations and inquiries by federal, state and foreign governmental agencies and officials regarding the 2017 cybersecurity incident and related matters. Most of these lawsuits and government investigations have concluded or been resolved, including pursuant to the settlement agreements, while others remain ongoing. The Company's participation in these settlements does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability, and the Company does not admit fault or liability. On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the company entered into multiple agreements that resolve the U.S. consolidated consumer class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (the "U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation"), and the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the "MSAG Group") and the NY Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) (collectively, the "Consumer Settlement"). Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund (the "Consumer Restitution Fund") to provide restitution for U.S. consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident as well as to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million), settlement administration costs and notice costs. The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125.0 million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover certain unreimbursed costs and expenditures incurred by affected U.S. consumers in the event the $380.5 million in the Consumer Restitution Fund is exhausted. The Company also agreed to various business practice commitments related to consumer assistance and its information security program, including conducting third party assessments of its information security program. On January 13, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. District Court overseeing centralized pre-trial proceedings for the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and numerous other federal court actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident (the "MDL Court"), entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in connection with the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation. The MDL Court entered an amended order granting final approval of the settlement on March 17, 2020. Several objectors have appealed the final approval order. Equifax said, "Until the appeals are finally adjudicated or dismissed, we can provide no assurance that the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation will be resolved as contemplated by the settlement agreement. If the MDL Court's order approving the settlement is reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that we would not be able to settle the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation on acceptable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EQUIFAX INC: Consumer Class Suits in Georgia State Court Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action suits pending before the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia remains stayed. Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases were transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case. These cases remain stayed pending final resolution of the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGIES: Compton Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS COMPTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio's Recordkeeping laws. Mr. Compton worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the Defendant in a maintenance position beginning in August 2017 until August 2020. He primarily performed non-exempt duties for the Defendant. ET fabricates and designs steel, stainless and aluminum parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 704-0546 Facsimile: 614 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com EVOLUS INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Dec. 15 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) from February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges violations of the federal securities laws. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, Evolus is a medical aesthetics company that develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the treatment of aesthetic concerns. Evolus' sole product is Jeuveau™, a purified botulinum toxin used to improve the appearance of moderate to severe frown lines. Evolus directly competes with Botox®, which is manufactured by Allergan plc and Allergan Inc. (collectively, "Allergan") and distributed by Medytox Inc. ("Medytox"). Botox® has been the gold standard of the industry since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") more than two decades ago. On January 30, 2019, Allergan and Medytox filed a complaint against Evolus in the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), accusing Evolus of having developed Jeuveau™ by using trade secrets stolen from Medytox. The Complaint alleges that Evolus made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that: (1) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau™ originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (2) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau™; (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau™; (4) which in turn seriously threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau™ in the United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated from the sale of Jeuveau™ were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox. On July 6, 2020, Judge David Shaw of the ITC issued a preliminary ruling, siding with Allergan and Medytox and recommending a 10-year ban on Jeuveau™ imports to the United States. On this news, Evolus' shares fell from $37% over the course of two days, to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than December 15, 2020. Any member of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Evolus' common stock from February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is titled Malakouti v. Evolus, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-08647 (S.D.N.Y.). [GN] EVOLUTION DOMINICAN: Underpays Hair Stylists, Ordonez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ NORMA ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTION DOMINICAN HAIR STYLE SALON CORP. (D/B/A EVOLUTION DOMINICAN HAIR STYLE) and ROMA REYES, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05127 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours premium, failure to provide accurate employment records, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a hair stylist at Evolution Dominican Hair Style in Elmont, New York from approximately January 2018 until on or about September 20, 2020. Evolution Dominican Hair Style Salon Corp., d/b/a Evolution Dominican Hair Style, is an owner and operator of a beauty salon located at 1509 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EXCEL OF UTICA: Faces Sanders Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDAN SANDERS, FRANCISCO QUINONES, AND VITALIYA DRACH, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXCEL OF UTICA INC., EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS INC., EXCEL OF PITKIN INC., EXCEL OF WHITE PLAINS INC., RAVLEEN SETHI, PRANEET SAHNI, and KAWALJEET SAHNI, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05139 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours premium, failure to provide accurate wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages during employment. Plaintiff Sanders was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate in New York from about January 17, 2020 to about March 20,2020. Plaintiff Quinones was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate in New York from November 2019 to March 23, 2020. Plaintiff Drach was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate in New York from about May 2019 and stopped working on or about July 2020. Excel of Utica Inc. is an operator of wireless telecommunications establishments, with its business address located at 70 W Suffolk Ave., Central Islip, New York. Excel Communications Inc. is an operator of wireless telecommunications establishments, with its business address located at 70 W Suffolk Ave., Central Islip, New York. Excel of Pitkin Inc. is an operator of wireless telecommunications establishments, with its business address located at 70 W Suffolk Ave., Central Islip, New York. Excel of White Plains Inc. is an operator of wireless telecommunications establishments, with its business address located at 70 W Suffolk Ave., Central Islip, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminded investors in Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) of the October 26, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you invested in Fastly stock or options between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/FSLY. There is no cost or obligation to you. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Richard Gonnello, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor Telephone: (877) 247-4292 (212) 983-9330 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all those who purchased Fastly securities between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc. et al, No. 20-cv-06024 was filed on August 27, 2020. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Specifically, on August 5, 2020, after market close, the Company hosted an earnings call for its Q2 2020 results. On the call, Company CEO Joshua Bixby revealed for the first time that "ByteDance, the operator of TikTok[,] was our largest customer in the quarter." Bixby also suggested on the call that ByteDance was a significant customer in Q1 as well, stating that "over the last six months, [TikTok] represents just about 12% of revenue, trailing 6 months ending June 30." On this news, Fastly's stock fell from a closing price of $108.92 per share on August 5, 2020 to $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020-a $19.28 or 17.70% drop. That same day, August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that would take effect in 45 days and prohibit any U.S. company or person from transacting with ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company. On this news, Fastly's shares continued to decline, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Fastly's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] FG DINER: Aguilar-Platon Seeks OT Premium Pay --------------------------------------------- JOSE AGUILAR-PLATON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FG DINER INC. d/b/a TRIPLE CROWN DINER, ATHANASIOS FATSIS, and ANDRE GOUNARIS, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-04860 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pay owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff Jose Aguilar-Platon was employed by the Defendants as a busser at Triple Crown Diner from May 2016 through the present. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid minimum wage for all hours worked and was not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. From the beginning of the Aguilar Employment Period through December 2018, he typically worked six days per week, with most Wednesdays off. During this time period, he was required to work from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm and sometimes later, for a total of 60 hours per week. Despite the fact that he sometimes worked shifts in excess of 10 hours, particularly between 2016 and 2018, he was not paid spread-of-hours premiums for such days, says the complaint. The Defendants have owned, operated and managed Triple Crown Diner, located at 248-27 Jericho Turnpike, Bellerose, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC www.peltongraham.com 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: graham@peltongraham.com FILTERS FAST: Powers Sues Over Breach of Customers' Financial Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANGER POWERS and ROBERT LEGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FILTERS FAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00982-slc (W.D. Wis., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and the Maryland Personal Information Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to enforce adequate data security measures and adequately monitor its Website and checkout system, which led to data breach between July 15, 2019 and July 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that cybercriminals were able to infiltrate Filters Fast's computer systems, install malicious code to the Website, and steal the personal information and financial data of millions of unsuspecting customers across the country due to the Defendant's negligent failure to meet industry standards of cyber security. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and malpractices, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered harm including: (i) had their payment data compromised and their privacy rights violated, (ii) were exposed to the increased and substantial risk of fraud and identify theft, (iii) lost control over their personal and financial information, and (iv) were otherwise injured. Filters Fast, LLC is a company that offers a variety of filtration products, with its principal place of business located at 5905 Stockbridge Dr., Monroe, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com - and – William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fluidigm Corporation. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. FLDM Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fluidigm-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9759&wire=1 Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:FLDM) FLDM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019 - November 5, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 20, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fluidigm-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9759&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fluidigm Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Fluidigm Corporation ("Fluidigm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLDM) between February 7, 2019, and November 5, 2019(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Fluidigm securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit FLDM Shareholder Class Action 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 false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 5, 2019, after the market closed, Fluidigm reported that third quarter 2019 revenue declined 8.5% year-over-year primarily due to mass cytometry instrument sales. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.60, or 51% to close at $2.51 per share on November 6, 2019. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 20, 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 Fluidigm securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fluidigmcorporation-fldm-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-312/apply/ contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C)2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Mixon Seeks Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WADE MIXON, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00018-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting his motion for conditional certification; and 2. in the alternative, granting his motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. After Plaintiff Mixon filed this lawsuit, 147 Opt-In Plaintiffs joined this case. The Plaintiffs contend that they were denied overtime wages as a result of Fluor's policy to pay them straight time for overtime rather than time and one half their regular rates of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fluor Corporation is an American multinational engineering and construction firm headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is a holding company that provides services through its subsidiaries in the following areas: oil and gas, industrial and infrastructure, government and power. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Q0HnT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713 523 0001 Facsimile: 713 523 1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com GEICO: Jonathan Shafner to Serve as GC Amid COVID-19 Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Bantz, writing for Property Casualty 360, reports that a familiar face in GEICO's legal department is taking over as general counsel as the company and several other large insurers face lawsuits related to alleged insufficient auto policy discounts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jonathan Shafner takes over as GEICO and other large insurers face lawsuits alleging inadequate auto policy discounts during the pandemic. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Golson Class Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as KATHERINE GOLSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00632, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 28, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-14382-JEM to the proceeding. The case arises from oil consumption issues concerning certain 2013 model year Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain vehicles manufactured by the Defendant. General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturing company, with its principal place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony K. Knipp, Esq. Thomas J. Golson, Esq. 700 West 74th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 932-5532 E-mail: aknipp@amk-law.com tgolson@amk-law.com GILEAD SCIENCES: KPH Alleges Monopoly of cART Regimen Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------- KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; and E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-06961 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2020), is a class action complaint brought by KPH Healthcare on behalf of itself and a class of Direct Purchasers of combination antiretroviral therapy ("cART") regimen drugs during the period from December 17, 2004, until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease. The Plaintiff contends Gilead has acquired and maintained a monopoly in the market for cART regimen drugs. Gilead enlisted its co-conspirators to extend patent protection for its drugs, delay entry of generic competition, and charge supracompetitive prices for cART regimen drugs. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' and non-party co-conspirators engaged in unlawful contracts, combinations, and restraints of trade in the market for cART regimen drugs and unlawful monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Members of a putative Direct Purchaser Class paid more for cART regimen drugs than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges for their cART regimen drugs requirements. Combination antiretroviral therapy regimen drugs are commonly used to treat patients with human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"). HIV can result in Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") and death. KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. is a national provider of pharmaceutical and health care services. Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Foster City, California that researches, develops and commercializes drugs. The company focuses primarily on antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and influenza. Bristol Myers is an American pharmaceutical company, headquartered in New York City. Bristol Myers Squibb manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and biologics in several therapeutic areas, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hepatitis, rheumatoid arthritis and psychiatric disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick B. Clayton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 3708 Clay Street San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 751-4193 Facsimile: (415) 788-0706 E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Karen S. Halbert, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. William R. Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 1910 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com GINA GROUP: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YEYOON JUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GINA GROUP INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-08624-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to a collective consisting of certain individuals fitting all of the following criteria: a. Individual employed by Defendant at any point between September 17, 2016 through the present in New York State; b. Individual employed by Defendant as a designer; c. Individual who received compensation from Defendant on a salary basis; and d. Individual who did not receive any overtime premium. 2. directing the Defendant to provide a list of potential members of the collective; 3. approving of the proposed form of Collective Action Notice and Reminder Notice; and 4. permitting himself and/or its counsel to distribute the Notices to the members of the Collective; (v) directing the Defendant to post the Collective Action Notice at the Defendant's place of business. Gina Group manufactures, retails, and distributes hosiery and accessories. The Company offers tights, pantyhose, and socks, as well as intimate apparel, footwear, cold weather gear, and fashion accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's [proposed] order conditionally certifying FLSA collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jdVCdb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seokchan Kwak, Esq. KIM, CHO & LIM, LLC 460 Bergen Boulevard, Suite 305 Palisades Park, NJ 07650 Telephone: (201) 585-7400 Facsimile: (201) 585-7422 E-mail: seankwak@kcllawfirm.com GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO) Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020 initial public stock offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/ BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN) Class Period: 2/28/2020 - 8/18/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 24, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-bmrn/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel No: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 10 Deadline ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL) between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important November 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GOL investors under the federal securities laws. To join the GOL class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1912.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) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2) there was substantial doubt as to GOL's ability to continue to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant time. 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 10, 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-1912.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.[GN] GOOGLE LLC: Bentley Sues Over Pricing in App Store -------------------------------------------------- DIANNE BENTLEY, JENNIFER GRACE, ADAN MOYA, CORESA TRIMBLE, and ROBERT WING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED, GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED, GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED, and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-07079 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2020), is an antitrust class action arising out of Google's unlawful conduct concerning the Google Play Store, Google's store for the distribution and sale of billions of applications ("apps") and in-app purchases running on Android smartphones and other mobile devices utilizing the Android operating system. The Plaintiffs contend that through its acquisition and maintenance of an unlawful monopoly, and its anticompetitive contractual restrictions imposed on app developers, Google has forced consumers to pay supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases on the Google Play Store. The Plaintiffs add that although Google has publicly acknowledged "that developers should have a choice in how they distribute their apps and that stores should compete for the consumer's and the developer's business," its unlawful conduct has prevented such choices and foreclosed competition, to the enormous detriment of consumers throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for injuries sustained from Google's unlawful conduct, and injunctive relief enjoining Google from continuing its anticompetitive conduct. The Plaintiffs purchased application(s) and/or made an in-app purchase(s) through the Google Play Store during the relevant statutory period. Google is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Azar, Esq. Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq. Robert A. Wallner, Esq. Elizabeth McKenna, Esq. Blake Yagman, Esq. Michael Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 16755 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: 212-594-5300 Facsimile: 212-868-1229 E-mail: dazar@milberg.com pwedgworth@milberg.com rwallner@milberg.com emckenna@milberg.com byagman@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com GOOGLE LLC: Canadian Lawyers File Class Actions Over Privacy Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ananya Varma, writing for Republic World, reports that tech giant Google is under massive heat in Canada after the lawyers of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec filed separate class-action suits against it for 'unlawfully collecting profits from its user's personal information.' The suit against Google and its parent company Alphabet alleges that the company collects its user's personal information from their devices without their consent to 'build profiles' of nearly every internet user in Canada, IT World Canada reported. It also alleges that it uses this data and data collected through other mediums such as Google Services, Google Ads, and Google Analytics to make 'unlawful profits'. "There is no reason Canadians should tolerate what we say is extensive surveillance of their daily online activities, especially because Canada has laws specifically intended to protect them from such actions," said Luciana Brasil, from Branch MacMaster LLP in a press release. The data collected by Google's services, Google Ads and Analytics, is actively used to track and trespass the user's preferences and contents including sending code to their computers, tablets, or smartphones when they visit these sites or services. Google does not stop there, the suit alleges that even the data of even those users which have no relations with Google's services such as the Chrome browser or Gmail is collected by the company via the sites that either allow or use Google Analytics or Google Ads. According to the press release, nearly 50 per cent of global websites have Google's services as well as Google Ads and Analytics, installed, therefore personal information of a user who does not engage in Google services is also ultimately collected via these sites. "So my computer is being told to do something by somebody with whom I have had no relationship without my knowledge and without any opportunity to give consent. That to me is such a clear case," said Luciana Brasil to IT World Canada. All three suits are filed on the grounds of the alleged privacy violations of their respective provincial laws as well as Canada's federal privacy law. It is still undecided whether the three suits would be merged together at a later stage. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Plaintiff Replaced at Lawyer's Behest -------------------------------------------------------------- McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that Warner was a proposed class action commenced on behalf of users of Android smartphones against Google. Similar actions were filed in Ontario and Quebec. The parties reached a settlement agreement, but the BC plaintiff (Mr. Warner) and his counsel disagreed about how to implement it. Each ultimately applied to replace the other. The court allowed proposed class counsel's application to replace Mr. Warner with a different plaintiff. The court found that Mr. Warner's proposal for implementing the settlement would have conferred an improper collateral benefit on him personally, such that he was not qualified to be a representative plaintiff. The court also held that, even before certification, proposed class counsel owes duties to proposed class members. Those obligations modify the duty of loyalty proposed class counsel owes to the plaintiff. The judgment demonstrates the significant control plaintiff-side counsel have over the conduct of a proposed or certified class action. Background The BC action was filed by two law firms acting as co-counsel (collectively, "Klein"). Mr. Warner was the proposed representative plaintiff in the BC action. As part of the national settlement, Google was to pay $1,000,000 by way of a cy-près donation. The recipient was to be determined by mutual agreement of the parties and subject to court approval. Mr. Warner wanted the donation to benefit an American non-profit. Mr. Warner had drafted a letter characterizing the payment as a donation by him to the non-profit largely made for a specific purpose. Google and the plaintiffs from other provinces proposed donating the money to the respective provincial law foundations, which is common practice in a cy-près donation. Mr. Warner refused to accept this agreement and suggested that Klein find a new plaintiff. Klein found a suitable candidate and filed an application to replace Mr. Warner. Klein argued that, following the settlement, Mr. Warner was not fairly and adequately representing the interests of the class. Mr. Warner opposed the application and filed an application to replace Klein as class counsel. Mr. Warner argued that Klein had disregarded his instructions. Klein's Application to Replace Mr. Warner Klein's application to replace Mr. Warner succeeded. Justice Tucker held that a plaintiff cannot give instructions regarding a cy-près donation that are tainted by an improper purpose. The draft donation letter written by Mr. Warner to the non-profit suggested Mr. Warner may have receive a personal benefit because of the donation. Justice Tucker found that although the personal benefit would have been collateral, a collateral benefit is sufficient to establish improper use. Further, there was no evidence that any other party would have agreed to a donation to the non-profit, so pursuing that position would have resulted in meritless delay. Mr. Warner's Application to Replace Klein Mr. Warner's application to replace Klein failed. Justice Tucker found that Klein did not breach any duty owed to Mr. Warner. Justice Tucker accepted that Klein owed Mr. Warner a duty of loyalty, but held that it was modified from the traditional duty of loyalty in solicitor-client relationships because, even before certification, proposed class counsel owes duties to proposed class members. Further, Justice Tucker found that there was no reason to replace Klein and that doing so would cause unnecessary cost and delay, to the prejudice of class members. Justice Tucker went on to certify the action for the purposes of settlement. [GN] GRUBHUB INC: Restaurants Sue Over Unauthorized Use of Names, Logos ------------------------------------------------------------------ LYNN SCOTT, LLC; THE FARMER'S WIFE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRUBHUB INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The case arises from the Defendant's decision to add the names and logos of restaurants, including the Plaintiffs, to its platform without permission. The Defendant's unauthorized use of unaffiliated restaurants' names and logos misleads consumers, who reasonably believe the restaurants have partnered with Grubhub and will be working cooperatively with Grubhub to provide them with accurate, reliable, and timely service. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek injunctive relief prohibiting Grubhub from including unaffiliated restaurants on its platform or requiring Grubhub to take appropriate affirmative steps to avoid customer confusion. Lynn Scott, LLC, is a restaurant owner with its principal office in Durham, North Carolina. The Farmer's Wife, LLC, is a restaurant owner with its principal place of busines in Sebastopol, California. Grubhub Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local restaurants, with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and – Steven M. Tindall, Esq. Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq. Alex J. Bukac, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com gam@classlawgroup.com ajb@classlawgroup.com HALLSONS OF LEBANON: Neal Seeks Approval of Class Notice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michele Neal, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. Hallsons of Lebanon, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00672-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order authorizing her to send notice of the pendency of this action to her similarly-situated co-workers: "all current and former LaRosa's delivery drivers who worked at any location owned and/or operated by Defendants Hallsons of Lebanon, Inc., Hallsons Enterprises Inc., and/or Robert Hall, Jr. between the date three years prior to filing of the Class Action Complaint and the date of the final judgment in this matter." This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at the Defendants' LaRosa's stores. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked, both while making deliveries and while working inside the restaurant, they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hallsons of Lebanon Inc (trade name Rosas Lebanon) is in the Pizzeria, Chain business. A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35e72bU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com HARD TACK INC: Corbin Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Campaign --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH JILL CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HARD TACK, INC., a Florida corporation, DEALER RENEWAL SERVICES, a Florida company, and ROYAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-81887-RS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020), is a class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that to increase the sales volume and profits of their vehicle service contracts, the Defendants and/or their authorized sales agents repeatedly called thousands of consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA. She adds that when she and the Class members answered their phones, they heard silence for several seconds, followed by a distinct "click" sound before being transferred to a live agent, evidencing that the use of an automatic telephone dialing system was used to place the unwanted calls. The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's personal cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA, thereby invading her privacy. Ms. Corbin resides in Royse City, Texas. The Defendants are companies that engage in the marketing, sale, and finance of vehicle service contracts to consumers across the country. Hard Tick and DRS are sales agent, vendor, and/or dealer for the product and services promoted by the Defendants through the use of the unlawful telemarketing campaign.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com mpascucci@justiceearned.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com HAYS FOOD: Welch Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN WELCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAYS FOOD TOWN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00339-JM (E.D. Ark., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated hourly-paid employees appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid employee at the Defendant's store in Paragould, Arkansas. Hays Food Town, Inc. is an operator of grocery store chains in Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris W. Burks, Esq. Brandon M. Haubert, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com brandon@whlawoffices.com HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Handloser Suit Seeks to Certify Applicants Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY HANDLOSER and CERAFIN CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. and HCL AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-01242-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 21, 2021 for an order: 1. certifying proposed applicant class for phase one: "all individuals who: (a) are United States citizens, not of South Asian race, and not of Indian national origin; (b) who sought a position; (c) with HCL Technologies Limited or HCL America, Inc.; (d) in the United States; (e) between March 7, 2015 and the date of class certification; and (f) were not offered employment"; 2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and 3. appointing Kotchen & Low LLP as counsel for the class. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants engage in a systematic pattern and practice of discrimination against U.S. citizens, non-South Asians, and non-Indians in hiring and staffing decisions across the United States, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981. HCL also maintains employment practices that have a disparate impact on non-South Asians and non-Indians in hiring and staffing decisions across the U.S. Because the Plaintiffs satisfy all necessary elements, class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), or, in the alternative, Rule 23(c)(4). HCL is an Indian multinational information technology services and consulting company headquartered in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30W9faM at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class are: Daniel Low, Esq. Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com lgrunert@kotchen.com HDFC BANK: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against HDFC Bank Limited ("HDFC or the "Company") (NYSE: HDB) 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-04140, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired HDFC Bank securities between July 31, 2019, and July 10, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Bank and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased HDFC securities during the class period, you have until November 2, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai. HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking, Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans. Revenues generated from HDFC Bank's auto and commercial vehicle loans are reported as part of the Bank's Retail Banking segment. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bank's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation; and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 13, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Economic Times published an article titled "HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit." That article reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations involving the unit's former head." On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on July 13, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] HOUSTON BAPTIST: Hicks Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA HICKS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:17-cv-00629-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certify a class of: "all persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present: (a) Monarch or Sextant Marketing called to solicit to enroll in an HBU degree program; (b) on the person’s cellular telephone number; (c) using the Five9 Virtual Call Center system; (d) whose cellular telephone number was obtained by Meteor Learning exclusively through a public records request under Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA); and (e) who did not enroll in an HBU degree program"; 2. appointing Ms. Hicks to serve as the class representative; 3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. to serve as class counsel; and 4. directing Ms. Hicks to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a reasonable time. Ms. Hicks alleges the Defendant and its vendors obtained her cellular telephone number and the cellular telephone numbers of more than 4,500 other people in the exact same way (through public records requests made under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. section 1232g), and then called them more than 25,000 times for the exact same reason (to recruit them for an HBU degree program), using the exact same dialing system (the Five9 Virtual Call Center). HBU is a Texas university and Meteor Learning is a for profit "education services business." Houston Baptist University is a private Baptist university in Sharpstown, Houston, Texas. The university was founded in 1960. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34PJNFa The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26 th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com - and - Ted Johnson, Esq. TED LEWIS JOHNSON Greensboro, NC 27435 Telephone: (336) 252-8596 E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com HOUSTON INSPECTION: Curtis Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders --------------------------------------------------------- RAY GENE CURTIS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. HOUSTON INSPECTION FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03515 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant was legally required to pay him and his similarly situated Coworkers overtime pay for all hours that they worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 in any workweek. He worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that he worked for the Defendant. Members of the Class worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that they worked for the Defendant. But the Defendant did not pay him a half-time premium for any of the overtime hours that he worked for them. Mr. Curtis worked for Houston Inspection as a welding inspector from January 2019 until June or July 2019. His duties included inspecting welds, conducting weld tests, and observing welders as they welded along a pipeline right-of-way. Houston Inspection Field Services supplies energy companies with field service personnel on a temporary or permanent basis for a wide variety of positions across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713 868-3388 Facsimile: 713 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com IBEX LIMITED: Consolidated Class Suit in Tennessee Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ IBEX Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the consolidated class action suit against the company in a district court in Tennessee has been dismissed pursuant to an Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. A case was filed in November 2014 in the US District Court of Tennessee as a collective action under the US Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Tennessee law, alleging that plaintiffs were forced to work without being paid for the "off the clock" time. In December 2014, a similar FLSA collection action case was filed against IBEX Global Solutions in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. In February 2015, the two cases were consolidated in Tennessee (the "Consolidated Action") and plaintiffs agreed to submit all claims to binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Presently, there are approximately 3,500 individuals who have opted into the FLSA class action claims, and there are pending wage and hour class action claims under various state laws ("Rule 23 Claims") involving approximately 21,000 potential class action claimants. In April 2019, the parties engaged in a Mediation. On June 14, 2019, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was approved by the arbitrator on June 19, 2019. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all claimants under both the FLSA and the Rule 23 Claims were required to fill out and send a claim form to the Third-Party Administrator within the claim period ending on October 15, 2019 in order to receive funds under the settlement. Subsequent to June 30, 2019, Ibex funded $3.4 million toward the settlement fund provided under the Settlement Agreement. This amount covered 100% of the possible claims under the FLSA, as well as plaintiffs' attorney fees, administration costs and service awards. These amounts exclude any amounts for the Rule 23 Claims. Any funds not claimed pursuant to the FLSA portion of the settlement will revert to Ibex. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, there is $2.2 million allocated to the settlement of claims for the Rule 23 class members. The exact amount of recovery with respect to the Rule 23 Claims depends upon the claim forms properly and timely returned to the Third-Party Administrator. The claim period closed on October 15, 2019 and as of that date, claim forms properly and timely returned for the Rule 23 Class Members accounted for $1.2 million of the $2.2 million allocated funds for the Rule 23 class. On November 7, 2019, the parties appeared before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator approved the Final Order. On November 20, 2019, payment was made by the Company to the Qualified Settlement Fund in the amount of $1.2 million for payment in full of all Rule 23 Claims and any Company tax obligations for payments to such individuals, and the matter is effectively closed. On July 15, 2020 this matter was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to an Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. IBEX Limited is a customer experience company delivering solutions to help the world's preeminent brands more effectively engage with their customers. The Company offers digital marketing, out-sourced sales and support, brand management, and customer lifestyle experience solutions. IBEX serves clients worldwide. The company is based in Washington, DC. INDY TRANSPORT: Faces Horta Wage & Hour Suit -------------------------------------------- MATTHEW E. HORTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INDY TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02659-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., Oct. 13, 2020), alleges class-wide wage and hour and overtime violations committed by Indy Transport against the Plaintiff Horta and his fellow dump truck drivers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Indy Transport has been systematically underpaying wages and overtime wages to Horta and similarly situated dump truck drivers by failing to pay on a continuous workday basis, and by failing to include work hours it calls "Non-Prod Time" as work hours included in the determination of whether or not dump truck drivers worked overtime (more than 40 hours) in a work week Indy Transport is a dump truck business. Horta worked for Indy Transport from its Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana yard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Aaron J. Williamson, Esq. WILLIAMSON CIVIL LAW, LLC 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 434-0370 Facsimile: (765) 204-7161 E-mail: aaron.williamson@wcivillaw.com INTEL CORP: Argument on Motion to Dismiss Set for December ---------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that argument on the motion to dismiss filed by the company in the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon is scheduled for December 2020. In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (now commonly referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many types of microprocessors, including the company's products. As is standard when findings like these are presented, the company worked together with other companies in the industry to verify the research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for impacted technologies. On January 3, 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address the vulnerabilities were made widely available. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Intel and, in certain cases, its current and former executives and directors, in U.S. federal and state courts and in certain courts in other countries relating to the Spectre and Meltdown security vulnerabilities, as well as other variants of these vulnerabilities that have since been identified. As of October 21, 2020, consumer class action lawsuits relating to the above class of security vulnerabilities publicly disclosed since 2018 were pending in the U.S., Canada, and Israel. The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the U.S., numerous individual class action suits filed in various jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. In March 2020, the court granted Intel's motion to dismiss the complaint in that consolidated action but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2020, which Intel moved to dismiss in July 2020; argument on the motion is scheduled for December 2020. In Canada, in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled. In a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, the court has stayed the case until January 2021. In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Haifa. In the first case, the District Court denied the parties' joint motion to stay filed in January 2019, but to date has deferred Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint. Intel filed a motion to stay the second case pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding in the U.S., and a hearing on that motion has been scheduled for November 2020. Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief. Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from those matters." Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California. J.P. MORGAN: 7 Spoofing Class Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------ In seven securities class action lawsuits against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et al., the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order: 1. appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Kirby McInerney, LLP as interim lead co-counsel for the putative class; and 2. consolidating the seven securities class action lawsuits. 3. denying the motions by NLG/Kessler for appointment as interim lead counsel. The seven class action lawsuits are captioned as: "BREAKWATER TRADING LLC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JP MORGAN CLEARING CORP., JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 20-Civ-3515-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; "JOHN GRACE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and JOHN DOES 1- 25, Case No. 20-Civ-4523-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; "ENDEAVOR TRADING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), J.P. MORGAN FUTURES INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 20-Civ-5285-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 20-Civ-5298-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; "CHARLES HERBERT PROCTOR, III and SYNOVA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1- 50, Case No. 20-Civ-5360-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; "BUDO TRADING LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 20-Civ-5772-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)"; and "THOMAS GRAMATIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 20-Civ-5918-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)." "Here all parties consent to the consolidation of the above actions. The Court finds that any prejudice is far outweighed by the benefits in terms of judicial economy that would result from consolidating the actions. Accordingly, the Court grants the motions to consolidate the seven actions," Judge Engelmayer said. The putative class action complaints allege that the defendants engaged in "spoofing" of the treasury futures market in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act. Spoofing is a form of trading manipulation that creates a false sense of supply or demand in a market, with the aim of affecting futures prices. JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. A copy of the Court's opinion and order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k1k96K at no extra charge.[CC] JC COMMERCE: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says ------------------------------------------------------ FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JC COMMERCE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08556 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, www.pickyourplum.com, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a clothing and home products company that owns and operates www.pickyourplum.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in TRACLEER(R) Antitrust Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the appeal made by the plaintiffs in the class action suit related to TRACLEER(R) is still pending. In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively Actelion) in United States District Court for the District of Maryland and United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of TRACLEER(R). TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the product. In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the Court granted Actelion’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: AWP Suit in New Jersey Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative Average Wholesale Price (AWP) related suit in New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries (the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels. The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP Defendants were ultimately dismissed. The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved through court order or settlement. The case brought by Illinois was settled after trial. In New Jersey, a putative class action based upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson and ALZA Corporation. All other cases have been resolved. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss ERISA-Related Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the motion to dismiss litigation related to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) remains pending. In January 2019, two Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. In September 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion but granted leave to amend. In June 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in July 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the securities class action against the company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder. In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result. Plaintiff is seeking damages. In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint. Discovery is underway. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Remicade Antitrust Litigation Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases. A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that Janssen Biotech, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., related to ZYTIGA(R). In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of indirect purchasers of ZYTIGA(R). Several additional complaints were filed thereafter in Virginia and New Jersey. The indirect purchaser complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states and the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry and seek damages. The Virginia cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the New Jersey case for pretrial purposes. In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed against Janssen Biotech Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of direct purchasers of ZYTIGA(R). The direct purchaser complaint alleges that defendants violated the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry, and seek damages and injunctive relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. KIA MOTORS: Kondash Litigation Remains Open, Court Clarifies ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland issued an order amending its previous decision denying class certification in the case to exclude the following sentence contained on page 28: "7. This case be closed on the Docket of this Court." Judge McFarland said, "Inclusion of this sentence inadvertently closed the case, but the case remains open since Plaintiff Tom Kondash's individual claims are still pending before the Court. See Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702, 1716 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting survival of plaintiff's individual claims following denial of class certification). This Order Nunc Pro Tunc shall be entered today and is effective as of the date of the original Order, September 30, 2020. Accordingly, this case is reopened on the docket of this Court." A copy of Court's amended order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dzXNXr at no extra charge.[CC] LANNETT CO: Lead Plaintiff et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN UTESCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, and MARTIN P. GALVAN, Case No. 2:16-cv-05932-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff University of Puerto Rico Retirement System and plaintiff Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds, ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class defined as: "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of Lannett Company, Inc. ("Lannett" or the "Company") during the period from July 15, 2014 and October 31, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Class")." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest.; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, previously appointed as Lead Counsel in this action, as Class Counsel. The University of Puerto Rico is the main public university system in the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and a government-owned corporation. Founded in 1942, Lannett Company is a leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical product families with facilities in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Oct. 1, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GUkJo3 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System and Lead Counsel for the Class are: Ian D. Berg, Esq. Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. Todd Kammerman, Esq. Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: MTwersky@aftlaw.com Iberg@aftlaw.com TKammerman@aftlaw.com tkellar@aftlaw.com Liaison Counsel for the Class are: David M. Promisloff, Esq. PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C. 5 Great Valley Parkway, Suite 210 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: (215) 259-5166 Facsimile: (215) 600-2642 E-mail: David@prolawpa.com Counsel for the Plaintiff Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds are: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: JALieberman@pomlaw.com TAWeinrib@pomlaw.com LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 9 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to LexinFintech's initial public offering ("IPO") conducted on or about December 21, 2017; and/or (ii) between December 21, 2017 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LexinFintech investors under the federal securities laws. To join the LexinFintech class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.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) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) LexinFintech's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) LexinFintech exaggerated its user base; (4) LexinFintech was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) LexinFintech engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) LexinFintech lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) 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 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.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. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com[GN] LMT REAL: Court Denies Certification of Tipped Employees Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ONIKA VIDER, On Behalf of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated v. LMT REAL ESTATE, LLC, d/b/a Panache Wood Fire Grill and CHASE HABIB TROUDI, Case No. 2:19-cv-02066-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Savage entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class of: "all current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for Defendants at their Panache Wood Fire Grill location in the State of Pennsylvania at any point from May 13, 2016 through the present"; and 2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), consisting of: "all persons employed by Defendants as Tipped Employees at their Panache Wood Fire Grill and Ristorante Castello locations during the last three years." A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33SrfF3 at no extra charge.[CC] LOANCARE LLC: Owoc Seeks to Certify Florida Borrowers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN WAYNE OWOC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANCARE LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60805-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a Florida Class of: "all individuals with a Florida property address whose mortgage loans were secured by a mortgage serviced or sub- serviced by LoanCare and from whom – between April 30, 2014, and the date of certification -- LoanCare or its agents, employees, assigns, contractors, or subcontractors charged, collected, or attempted to collect fees for making mortgage payments online, via automatic withdrawal by telephone, or via telephone." Excluded from this class are LoanCare and its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees; any governmental entities; any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; as well as class counsel and their immediate family. The Plaintiff alleges LoanCare has developed a practice of charging mortgage holders a fee to make their mortgage payments, often referred to as "pay-to-pay" fees. In fact, between April 30, 2014, and September 17, 2020, LoanCare charged pay-to-pay fees totaling approximately $7,260,876.99 to approximately 82,409 customers with a property address in Florida. LoanCare generated these fees by charging customers to make their mortgage payments via LoanCare's website, via a pay-by-phone option with an agent, or via an automated pay-by-phone option. The Plaintiff adds that these pay-to-pay fees are impermissible under Plaintiff's and all class members' uniform mortgage agreements, and LoanCare has admitted that no class members' mortgage agreement expressly authorized these fees. LoanCare incurs minimal- to no-additional costs to accept payments in these manners, so these premiums -- often referred to as "pay-to-pay" fees -- are pure profit. This matter was filed in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida on April 30, 2019. This matter was removed to this Court on April 17, 2020. LoanCare, a top national subservicer, provides loan servicing solutions that assist the lending industry achieve optimal asset performance. A copy of the Owoc's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/348R0kn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 342-2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com - and - Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com ezebersky@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com zludens@zpllp.com LOS ANGELES LGBT: Whitehorse Class Suit Claims Wrongful Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIE WHITEHORSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV41113 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful termination and retaliation in violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a senior staff attorney on or around February 4, 2019 until her termination, without a valid cause or termination paperwork, after she complained about the Defendant's unlawful practices. Los Angeles LGBT Center is a nonprofit organization that provides programs and services for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Iarusso, Esq. IARUSSO LEGAL A.P.C. 147 Waverly Ave. Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (646) 415-4422 E-mail: michelle@iarusso.legal LVNV FUNDING: Court Grants Norton's Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned SONYA NORTON, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-05051-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order: 1. granting Norton's motion for class certification encompassing all California residents who meet the following conditions: a. LVNV Funding, LLC, represented by Law Office of Harris & Zide, took judicial action (including obtaining Writs of Execution, wage garnishment, and bank levy) after August 17, 2014 (four years prior to the filing of this action) to collect a judgment based on a consumer debt obtained in a California court; b. Arrow Financial Services, LLC was the plaintiff of record at the time the judgment was entered; and c. LVNV Funding, LLC did not file an Assignment of Judgment in conformity with California Code.; 2. appointing Norton as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Kennedy and Lyons as Class Counsel. The court finds that joinder of all class members is impracticable and that the class satisfies the numerosity requirement under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a). The court also finds that the issues common to the class predominate over any individual questions. The Defendants do not raise any separate arguments about superiority, and the court finds that this requirement is also met. Plaintiff Sonya Norton filed this putative class action against Defendants alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Norton also seeks injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code. LVNV Funding LLC a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lenders. A copy of the Court's Order on motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SSwRZi at no extra charge.[CC] MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Soto Suit Seeks to Certify Rig Welders Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL SOTO, VICTOR LUJAN, MARIO SANCHEZ and RICARDO SANCHEZ Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARQUEZ CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE, LLC, TALIS INDUSTRIES, LLC, and JOSE MARQUEZ, Case No. 7:20-cv-00101-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all Rig Welders employed since April 24, 2017"; and 2. granting approval and distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of Contact Information. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain current and former Rig Welders of the Defendants, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq. (FLSA). Marquez Construction is in the building maintenance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36YpLuS at no extra charge.[CC] 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 The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey F. Thomason, Esq. TODD, BARRON, THOMASON, HUDMAN & BEBOUT, P.C. 3800 E. 42nd Street, Suite 409 Odessa, TX 79762 Telephone: (432) 363-2103 Facsimile: (432) 363-2153 E-mail: thomason@toddlawfirm.com MASSACHUSETTS: 11K Residents File Suit v. Gov. for Flu Shot Mandate ------------------------------------------------------------------- wwlp.com reports that more than 11,000 Massachusetts residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against Governor Charlie Baker because they say his flu shot mandate is unconstitutional. The group, known as "Flu You Baker" has been organizing rallies against the mandate for weeks now. Hundreds of people have shown up outside the Statehouse on several occasions to call for the mandate to be removed. When asked about the rallies and the pushback his mandate is receiving, Governor Baker didn't waver on his belief that the mandate is necessary. Baker said the best way to help the healthcare system during a potential second wave of the virus and flu season is to get the shot. The mandate takes effect at the end of the year and will require all students ages 6 months and up to get the flu vaccine in order to attend public school. The Flu You Baker organization has retained legal counsel and they plan to follow through with their civil suit. They were to hold a rally last October 5 in Boston. [GN] MCKENNA & DUPONT: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Trecia Phillips, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. McKenna, DuPont, Higgins & Stone, PC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12429-SCM (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff Trecia Phillip will move the Court on November 16, 2020, for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, on behalf of: "(a) all individuals (b) with a New Jersey address (c) who were sent a letter from Defendant in a form to the Plaintiff's Complaint (d) which was not returned as undeliverable (e) between May 10, 2018 through and including May 30, 2019 (f) where the letter stated: "Our client advises that your account is presently outstanding in the amount of $[BALANCE INSERTED HERE], plus reasonably attorney fees" and/or "However, if you fail to contact this office, [NAME OF CREDITOR] may consider the debt to be valid and may pursue remedies to recover the balance due""; 2. appointing herself as the representative of the class; 3. appointing Ryan Gentile, Esq. as counsel for the class; and 4. authorizing notice of the settlement to be distributed to the class members, and granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, the Settlement Administrator will mail a settlement check to each Settlement Class Member. Each Settlement Class Member will receive $30.00 from the Settlement Fund, the complaint says. The Defendant has identified a total of 123 potential Class Members. The Defendant is a law firm in Red Bank, New Jersey. A copy of the Plaintiff's proposed order preliminarily approving settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FqDdft at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Gentile, Esq. 110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873-7675 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com MEDIANEWS GROUP: Tejada Sues Over Newspaper Carriers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONICA TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07574 (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate and complete employment records, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a newspaper carrier from approximately 2015 to December 2016 around San Mateo, California. MediaNews Group, Inc. is a media company distributing online and print media, with its principal place of business located at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 262-0096 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) between August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal securities laws. To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on MEI Pharma's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. 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] MESOBLAST LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Announces December 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Mesoblast Limited (MESO) securities between April 16, 2019 and October 1, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 7, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow. In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid refractory acute graft versus host disease ("aGVHD"). In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its Biologics License Application ("BLA") with the FDA to secure marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children with steroid refractory aGVHD. On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") meeting to be held on August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish the appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast's submitted study, "it is unclear that these study results are relevant to the proposed indication." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.09, or approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11, 2020. On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended that the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized, controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the product's biologic activity." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.56, or 35%, to close at $12.03 per share on October 2, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 8, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies; (3) that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be delayed; 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 Mesoblast securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] MLA LAW: Rudler Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Britney Rudler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MLA Law Offices, LTC., and John L. Malevitis, Case No. 1:19-cv-02170-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order at a time to be determined by the Court: 1. certifying this case to proceed as a class action on behalf of: "a) natural persons; b) who received a letter from MLA and Malevitis; c) which letter failed to state the amount of any alleged debt or debts or did not reflect any meaningful attorney review; and d) who are a member of either the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Subclass or the New York Consolidated Laws, General Business Law (NYGBL) Subclass, or both, as defined below"; 2. certifying FDCPA Subclass defined as: "a) all those who meet the Class definition above and; b) who received a letter of the kind named above within a year before filing of the Complaint"; 3. certifying "NYGBL Subclass" defined as: "a) all those who live in the State of New York; b) meet the Class definition above; c) and received a letter of the kind named above within three years before filing of the instant Complaint." Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are: a) anyone employed by prior or future counsel for Defendants in this action; and b) any Judge to whom this case is assigned, as well as their immediate family and staff.; and 4. appointing herself as class representative and her attorneys at Cohen&Green P.L.L.C., including Remy Green, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Remy Green, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888 9480 Facsimile: (929) 888 9457 E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com MPM ENTERPRISES: Class Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIO MARTINEZ, LORENZO PEREZ, and JHONNY BLANCO LIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MPM ENTERPRISES, INC., MPM ENTERPRISES II, LLC, MPM ENTERPRISES SEVENTH, INC., MPM ENTERPRISES BEDFORD, INC., MPM ENTERPRISES COURT STREET, INC., MPM ENTERPRISES FLATBUSH, INC., MPM ENTERPRISES HOUSTON, INC., MARKO LALIC individually, MARTIN NUNEZ, individually, and CANDIDO P FERNANDEZ individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-04965 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2020), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated manual workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The manual workers include kitchen workers, stockers, porters, key holders, packaging workers, and all other similarly situated hourly manual workers who work or have worked for the Defendants. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have compensated the and all other Hourly Manual Workers on an hourly basis. Despite being non-exempt employees, the Defendants have failed to properly pay them and other Hourly Manual Workers proper minimum wages and overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked when they work over 40 hours per week. The Defendants operates upscale, health-food focused grocery stores (Union Market) in New York, New York. The individual Defendants Marko Lalic, Martin Nunez, and Candido P Fernandez owned and operated the Union Market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Maria Laura Crespo, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 N S CORPORATION: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. N S CORPORATION and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV41170 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act including failure to compensate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide compliant meal and rest breaks, failure to provide safe working conditions, failure to timely pay all wages owed, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee until May 15, 2020. N S Corporation is a car wash services provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and – Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased NNOX securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Nano-X Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the Complaint, defendants 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. On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a report entitled, "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market - Theranos 2.0", which summarized Nano-X as "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." On this news, Nano-X's stock 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. 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. 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 Nano-X securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nanoximagingltd-nnox-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-308/apply 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. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during the period from August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nano-X System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nano-X System was not original; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you acquired Nano-X securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. [GN] NASHVILLE TENNESSEE: Collective Action Conditionally Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned BETH MCGILL, TINA GIPSON, KARI NUENKE, EMILY NUENKE, and REBEL MOORE, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES, INC., a/k/a NASHVILLE VENTURES, d/b/a HELP 4 TIMESHARE OWNERS, INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, JOHN STEVEN HUFFMAN, and JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00922 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action; 2. conditionally certifying a class of: "plaintiffs who worked for Defendants as hourly employees with case management duties, including as executive branch director, case manager, senior case manager, and case manager assistant"; 3. denying the plaintiffs request to equitably toll the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs; 4. reserving ruling on the motion to approve the notice and consent form; and 5. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding notice to the potential class members. The parties shall attempt to reach an agreement as to content of the proposed notice and the method of notification and shall file an agreed notice for approval with the Court by October 30, 2020. If the parties cannot agree, they shall file competing notice proposals and explanatory memoranda by October 30, 2020. The Court said, "At this stage in the proceeding, the Plaintiffs' factual showing is sufficient proof that they are similarly situated to other hourly employees who performed case management duties. Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have met the fairly lenient standard governing conditional certification." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Integrity Solutions Group, LLC, also does business under the name "Help for Timeshare Owners." The Plaintiffs contend they worked for the Defendants as hourly employees managing "cases" of clients who wants to cancel their timeshare contracts. The Plaintiffs further allege they were assigned to such a large volume of cases to manage that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and never received pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiffs filed this action as a purported collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant Nashville Tennessee Ventures, d/b/a "Help 4 Timeshare Owners," helps timeshare owners cancel their timeshare contracts. Nashville Tennessee Ventures is owned by the Defendants John Steven Huffman and John Preston Thompson. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GYAcE0 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GRID: Jenkins Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARRETT JENKINS, EMMOT STEELE, FRANCES ROYAL, DANAI EWAN, and CHARMAINE WHYTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., KEYSPAN GAS EAST CORPORATION, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, and THE BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-cv-01219-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting their Motion for Class Certification of the following classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): a. Skip-Tracing Class "Subscribers or users of a cellular telephone number that was robo-called by any of Defendants' Third-Party Debt Collection Agencies for the purpose of collecting an alleged debt on a National Grid Utility Account, where the telephone number was not provided to the calling Third- Party Debt Collection Agency(ies) by ServCo or any other Defendant"; b. Stop Calling Class "Subscribers or users of a cellular telephone number that was robo-called by ServCo, any other Defendant, or any of Defendants' Debt Collection Agencies for the purpose of collecting an alleged debt on a National Grid Utility Account after the date when ServCo's or its Debt Collection Agency(ies)' records indicate by code, do-not- call list, or written communication that the telephone number should not be called again (a “Stop Calling Request”). Any user or subscriber of a cellular telephone number shall be excluded from the Stop Calling Class if Defendants identify an audio file, record of a website submission, and/or paper application showing that the cellular telephone number called was provided by an account holder to Defendants or their Debt Collection Agency(ies) after the Stop Calling Request but before any robo-calls"; c. Robo-Call Class "Subscribers or users of a cellular telephone number that was robo-called by ServCo, any other Defendant, or any of Defendants' Debt Collectors to collect an alleged debt on a National Grid Utility Account." Any user or subscriber of a cellular telephone number shall be excluded from the Robo-Call Class if Defendants identify an audio file, record of a website submission, and/or paper application showing that the cellular telephone number called was provided by an account holder to Defendants or their Debt Collection Agency(ies) before any robo-calls. The Skip-Tracing Class, Stop Calling Class and Robo-Call Class further exclude (1) Defendants' officers, directors, employees, and agents as well as any outside counsel in this litigation; (2) any judge to whom this case is assigned, along with his or her staff, and (3) immediate family of any individual excluded by (1) or (2). The Class Period for each Class runs from March 9, 2011, four years prior to the filing of this action, until the Class(es) are certified. To the extent the same telephone call to any Class member is certified in more than one Class, the Classes seek to recover for that call only once. 2. appointing themselves as representatives of the Classes; 3. appointing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Tusa P.C. as class counsel for the Classes.[CC] NCR PENSION: Stanton Suit Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR STANTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. THE NCR PENSION PLAN; THE PENSION AND BENEFIT COMMITTEE OF THE NCR PENSION PLAN; NCR, as Plan Administrator; and LINDA FAYNE LEVINSON, EDWARD P. BOYKIN, GARY J. DAICHENDT, CHINH E. CHU, and RICHARD T. MCGUIRE, Case No. 1:17-cv-02309-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class. The Plaintiff Arthur Stanton previously worked for NCR Corporation and claims to be a participant in its Pension Plan. He alleges that the Defendants NCR and members of the NCR pension committee violated their fiduciary duties to him and others similarly situated. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ddQ6Ge at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com NEW YORK BLACK: Class Status Sought in Case over Non-Cash Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH KASIOTIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York consumers, v. New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-08057-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class defined as: "all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, used a black car service, provided a non-cash tip to the black car driver, and paid a surcharge upon that non-cash tip, which was then remitted to the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc."; 2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative; and 3. appointing Denlea & Carton LLP as class counsel. This putative class action is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant asserting a claim for unjust enrichment arising from the Defendant's imposition of a surcharge of 2.5% on voluntary, non-cash tips and gratuities paid by passengers in connection with the use of black car services. New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the underwriting of fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kdtU1D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: 914-331-0100 Facsimile: 914-331-0105 www.denleacarton.com NEW YORK: Teachers File Class Action Over COVID-19 Risks -------------------------------------------------------- Priscilla DeGregory, writing for New York Post, reports that five teachers have sued the city seeking to work from home in the upcoming school year because of health concerns posed by the coronavirus pandemic, new court papers show. "Absent the requested relief, Petitioners and those educators similarly situated will face the Hobson's choice of choosing between their own and their families' safety, health, and possibly their lives, versus their own livelihoods and economic survival," a Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit from Sept. 4 alleges. Schools are set to reopen this fall with a hybrid curriculum of online and in-person classes slated to begin respectively on Sept. 16 and 21. As part of the plan to reopen classrooms, random monthly COVID-19 tests will be given to 20 percent of students and teachers. Four teachers and one substitute -- Shannon Corwin, Umang Desai, Eric Severson, Tamdeka Hughes-Carroll and Wanda Caine -- claim in the lawsuit that there are too many risks and challenges facing Department of Education staff if they are forced to teach at school facilities, rather than online, the court papers show. Many teachers, students and staff will take public transportation to campuses, which themselves are poorly ventilated and sanitized, the suit says, also citing finding child care and the potential for exposing elderly family as obstacles, the court papers say. The plaintiffs -- who work in schools across the city -- don't fall within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to be eligible for remote teaching, "but should also be allowed to work remotely due to serious health and safety risks to themselves and their families," the suit says. Meanwhile, the state court system is limiting foot traffic in courthouses while indoor dining and recreation are still banned in the city. This all comes while schools continue with the plan to reopen, the court papers say. "Without a rational basis, respondents are requiring millions of public school employees and students in New York City to return to brick and mortar school buildings on September 8, 2020 amid an unacceptably high level of COVID-19 inflections across the country and smaller clusters of coronavirus popping up on college campuses in the Tri State area," the suit charges. The teachers have brought a potential class-action suit against the city and the DOE seeking a court order allowing them to work from home -- without losing leave of absence days and while maintaining their full salary -- so as to "protect themselves and families from communal spread of coronavirus," the court filing shows. On Sept. 4, around 100 teachers protested outside the homes of Mayor Bill de Blasio and DOE Chancellor Richard Carranza over classrooms reopening on Sept. 21 without proper safeguards in place. DOE spokeswoman Danielle Filson told The Post, "Throughout the entire pandemic we have prioritized health and safety for our students, teachers and staff, and the plan we developed together with the [United Federation of Teachers] and other labor partners does the same. We will oppose the lawsuit." The city Law Department did not immediately return a request for comment. [GN] NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC): (1) between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to NextCure's November 2019 secondary public offering. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for NextCure investors under the federal securities laws. To join the NextCure class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1952.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) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) NC318 was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 20, 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-1952.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] NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC): (1) between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to NextCure's November 2019 secondary public offering. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for NextCure investors under the federal securities laws. To join the NextCure class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1952.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) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) NC318 was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 20, 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-1952.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] NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NKLA) between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Nikola securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Nikola Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report titled: "Nikola: How to parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the Largest Auto OEM in America." In that report Hindenburg claimed that it "gathered extensive evidence-including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs detailing dozens of false statements by the Company's founder Trevor Milton." On this news the Company's stock price fell during intraday trading on September 10, 2020. 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. 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 Nikola securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nikolacorporation-nkla-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-307/apply/ 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] NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 16 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW) ("Nikola") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Nikola on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please click https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola. According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger of VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020. The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020 when Nikola issued a press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3, 2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R. Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities. The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test" video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed. Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over the next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on September 11, 2020. Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per share on September 15, 2020. Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September 21, 2020, further damaging investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm , a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 4, 2020 and September 9, 2020, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 16, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Nikola, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Announces Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW) ("Nikola") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities between March 3, 2020, and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Nikola investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or online, click https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola. According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger of VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020. The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020, when Nikola issued a press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3, 2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R. Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities. The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in-house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test" video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed. Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over the next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on September 11, 2020. Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per share on September 15, 2020. Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September 21, 2020, further damaging investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who acquired Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities during the period from March 3, 2020 through September 20, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. If you acquired NKLA securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NKLA) between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Nikola investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Nikola Securities Class Litigation Nikola, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, describes itself as a designer and manufacturer of zero-emission battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen station infrastructure. The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Nikola founder and then-Chairman, Trevor Milton, repeatedly overstated and mischaracterized Nikola's financial, technological, and operational profile; (2) Milton's misrepresentations were designed to falsely portray Nikola as a successful and growing company; and (3) the foregoing misrepresentations would likely subject Nikola to regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions, as well as reputational harm after the truth emerged. On September 10, 2020, before the market opened, research firm Hindenburg Research published a report describing Nikola as "an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton's career." According to Hindenburg, the report was based on "extensive evidence - including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails and behind-the-scenes photographs-detailing dozens of false statements by" defendant Milton. Hindenburg claimed that "[w]e have never seen this level of deception at a public company, especially of this size." Following this news, the price of Nikola common stock fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%, from its closing price of $42.37 on September 9, 2020 to close at $37.57 on September 10, 2020. On September 14, 2020, after the market closed, Bloomberg reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was examining the merits of the Hindenburg report. On September 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice joined the SEC in examining allegations that Nikola misled investors by making exaggerated claims about its technology. On that day, the price of Nikola stock fell $2.96 per share, or 8.3%, from its closing price of $35.79 on September 14, 2020 to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020. September 20, 2020, Nikola announced that defendant Milton had resigned as Chairman of the Company. Following this news, the price of Nikola stock fell another $6.61 per share, or 19.3%, from its closing price of $34.19 on September 18, 2020, to close at $27.58 on September 21, 2020. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN] OAKLAND, CA: Journalists File Class Action Against Police Dep't. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Fernandez, writing for KTVU, reports that a handful of Bay Area journalists are suing the Oakland Police Department alleging that the agency regularly flouts the California Public Records Act by not issuing information in a timely manner or routinely responding with boiler-plate delays. The Meade Firm in San Francisco and Reiser Law in Walnut Creek are representing reporters in two companion suits, both filed in Alameda County Superior Court. The plaintiffs in a more general class-action lawsuit are Scott Morris, Brian Krans, Sarah Belle Lin, Michael Katz and Oakland Privacy. Darwin BondGraham and Ali Winston are plaintiffs in a more specific suit addressing the non-responsiveness of records that fall under a police transparency law, SB 1421. They are seeking records in 31 cases as they are working on a book. In 20 months, the pair have has received a total of five documents, which are "woefully incomplete," according to attorney Sam Ferguson. "In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the United States has commenced a long-overdue national reckoning regarding the role of the police in our society," the suit in the Morris case states. "Yet during this historic moment, OPD is thwarting transparency. OPD has thousands of open PRA requests, including requests for documents related to police shootings, use-of-force incidents, electronic surveillance, hate crimes data, budget allocation and more. OPD must not be allowed to flout transparency and civilian oversight. Oakland police did not immediately respond; the Oakland City Attorney's Office immediately said they had no comment. The Oakland Police Department, like any other government agency, must comply with the California Public Records Act's strict response deadline of 10 days, plus an additional 14 days if it invokes a specific exemption. But the department is also required to "promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor" by disclosing whether it has responsive records or whether it will be withholding them under a statutory exception. The journalists say the department has done neither, adding that it also flouts the Sunshine Ordinance enacted by the city. "OPD thus lulls requesters into a false sense that it is actively compiling records when in fact it is not," the Morris suit states. "In many cases, including some requests submitted by Plaintiffs, OPD has invoked thirty-day extensions -- found nowhere in the PRA or the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance -- dozens of times, thus extending its 'deadline' by years. One PRA request with OPD dates back to 2014 and has thirty-three separate deadline changes, the last of which was communicated in 2016 KTVU has also experienced these delays and responses, despite the fact that the information was available and provided to other entities. As one example, KTVU requested the "after-action" police reports stemming from June 1, when police used tear gas following a youth protest. Oakland police have not yet made that report available to KTVU, but did make it available to the Oakland Police Commission. In another example, KTVU requested correspondence between Oakland police and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office regarding mutual aid on that same night. Again, Oakland police have not responded to KTVU despite a public records request, yet the department made that information available to civil rights lawyers suing the department over its use of tear gas. The Oakland suits come one month after the Bay Area News Group sued the San Jose Police Department to force the release of dozens of files on officer misconduct and use of force. San Jose police have countered it will take years to review and release more than 80 files sought by the news organization. So far, they have released only six complete cases and partial records from 20 others, the news organization reported. In 2019, the First Amendment Coalition and public radio outlet KQED sued the California Department of Justice, which also argued that gathering and redacting "potentially millions" documents for disclosure would be an onerous burden. In January, however, an appellate panel rejected that argument and required the state agency to uphold the law. A bill authored by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) would have imposed fines on agencies that didn't respond to these requests in a timely fashion, but her legislative proposal failed to pass before the deadline. [GN] PACIFICORP: Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Over Wildfires ----------------------------------------------------- Pete Danko at Portland Business Journal reports that three law firms said they have filed a class action lawsuit against PacifiCorp and its Pacific Power unit, alleging negligence and downed power lines caused "a significant portion of the fire damage that community members suffered" in the wildfires that devasted Oregon last month. In a news release, Keller Rohrback, Stoll Berne and Nick Kahl said the suit alleges PacifiCorp/Pacific Power "failed to properly maintain and operate their electrical infrastructure" and should have shut down power to reduce the risk of lines and other equipment sparking fires. [GN] PANDA RESTAURANT: Spargifiore Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JENNIFER SPARGIFIORE, on behalf of herself and all members of the putative class v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV44438, was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 27, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09837 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime wages, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. is a company that operates chain of restaurants based in Rosemead, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark D. Kemple, Esq. Radha D.S. Kulkarni, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-btu/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] PEABODY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU) between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Peabody investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Peabody class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1962.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, from April 3, 2017 through September 28, 2018, defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella mine, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (1) the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (2) the Company failed to follow its own safety procedures; and (3) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown. Further, according to the lawsuit, following the September 28, 2018 fire and throughout the remainder of the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart the North Goonyella mine: (1) the Company's low-cost plan to restart operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental risks; (2) the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate ("QMI"), would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; and (3) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production. 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 27, 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-1962.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. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN] PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Won't Be Required Repay Fair Share Dues ----------------------------------------------------------- Phil Ray, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that two large public employee unions will not be required to repay non-members who sued for the return of "fair share" payments they made over a period of many years, according to a recent decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The federal appeals court upheld decisions by U.S. District Judges Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown and Malachy E. Mannion in Harrisburg, which dismissed class action lawsuits filed by former school teachers and government workers, contending payments they made to the unions had been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, and, therefore, their contributions should be repaid. In an opinion written by 3rd Circuit Judge Midge Rendell, it was ruled that the unions involved in the lawsuits -- the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Service Employees International Union Local 668 in Harrisburg -- representing thousands of employees, acted in "good" faith when requiring fair share payments from employees who were not members of the unions but who received the benefits of union collective bargaining efforts. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case titled Janus v. AFSCME that those who were not members of the union, and who therefore did not pay dues, could also not be forced to pay additional fees as a requirement of their employment. The Janus decision indicated the fair-share payments violated the employees' First Amendment rights. For instance, many of those objectors did not want their money to go toward union political activities. As an alternative, the unions allowed employees to designate their fair share contributions toward a non-religious charity of their choice. Rendell, in her lengthy opinion, found that union fair-share fees were "authorized for over four decades by Supreme Court precedent and a Pennsylvania statute that explicitly authorized fair-share fees for public-sector unions." The lawsuits brought on behalf of the teachers and government workers showed no "malice" and there was no evidence that the unions "either knew or should have known of (the state law's) constitutional infirmity," according to the Rendell opinion. The appeals court opinion reflected an opinion filed 13 months ago by Judge Gibson in Johnstown when he dismissed the case noting, "It was objectively reasonable for union defendants to rely on state statute that was constitutional under controlling Supreme Court precedent when collecting fair-share fees from plaintiffs (those who sued)." The 3rd Circuit decision however was not unanimous. Judge D. Michael Fisher concurred with Rendell's finding, but used a different line of reasoning based on common law, while Judge Peter Joseph Phipps, dissented. Phipps raised the question whether a "good-faith" defense exists when the First Amendment protection of speech is involved. "For that reason, I would reverse the orders dismissing these cases and remand for further proceedings," he wrote in his 11-page script. The class action lawsuits challenging fair-share payments were filed in Johnstown and Harrisburg in 2018, just prior to the issuance of the Janus decision by the Supreme Court. The Johnstown lawsuit included that Sandra H. Ziegler, a teacher of 24 years with the Chestnut Ridge School District in Bedford County, who was a religious objector and who refused to designate her fair-share fees to a non-religious charity; Arthur Diamond, a teacher from Chester County, who wanted no part of the union; and Jeffrey Schwartz, a teacher in Cumberland County. The defendants in the Johnstown lawsuit included the Pennsylvania State Education Association, representing nearly 180,000 teachers and related personnel, Gov. Tom Wolf, the Pennsylvania Attorney General and Bedford County District Attorney Lesley Childers-Potts, who was responsible for enforcement of state law allowing fair-share fees in the Chestnut Ridge School District. The lawsuit in Harrisburg was brought by two government employees, Janie Wenzig and Catherine Kioussis. A spokesman for the PSEA, Chris Lilienthal, said the PSEA was pleased with the decision by the 3rd Circuit. He emphasized that the PSEA stopped collecting fair-share fees immediately after the Janus decision was handed down. The appeals court ruling found the PSEA acted in good faith when collecting the fees, Lilienthal emphasized. The ruling by the 3rd Circuit, he said, was consistent with rulings from other circuit courts nationwide. He said the union never got to the point where it was able to ascertain the possible financial impact of returning the fees. Attorney Bruce Ludwig of Philadelphia, representing the SEIU, said the union was glad the 3rd Circuit agreed with other Circuit Courts throughout the nation by dismissing the request by former workers for the return of their fair-share payments. He called the lawsuits "ridiculous and unfair" because the unions, in asking fair share fees, were following the law at the time. He said the lawsuit and others like it are part of "right-wing" groups to bankrupt the unions. The plaintiffs have the option of seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the spokesman for the teacher plaintiffs, Jonathan F. Mitchell of Austin, Texas, could not be reached for comment. [GN] PENTEGRA SERVICES: D&Os Mismanaged Benefit Plan, Greenberg Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD GREENBERG, GREGORY S. DIGSBY, LINDSEY CLARK and CHRYSTAL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, PENTEGRA SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 7:20-cv-08503 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries in connection with the Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan breached the duties they owed to the Plan, Plaintiffs, and the other participants of the Plan by: -- failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and -- maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. The Plaintiffs are participants of the Plan. The Board of Directors of the Pentegra Defined Contribution Plan for Financial Institutions and its members during the Class Period is the Plan Sponsor and a named fiduciary. Pentegra Services is a fiduciary to the Plan because it exercised discretionary control over Plan assets during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Defendants in Blais to Deposit Award of Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants in Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp. are required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $836 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11.8 billion). The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.4 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $68,440) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,810) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $171.9 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $576 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion including interest (approximately $10.3 billion) due to the trial court's error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.05 billion)). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $836 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Class Suit in Canada Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp. In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $99.6 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately $43.4 million) to RBH. Philip Morris said, "RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both Letourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i) defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all class members given the individual differences between class members. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 30 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Pintec Technology Holdings Limited. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT) Class Period: October 2018 IPO Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020 The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Pintec erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Pintec's financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Pintec's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To be a member of these class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] PRECIGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 4 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Precigen Inc. ("Precigen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PGEN, XON) between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Precigen securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit PGEN XON Shareholder Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that the Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that a cease and desist order against Precigen. The cease and desist order involved "inaccurate reports concerning the company's purported success converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion ('MBC') program." The order noted that the Company was "primarily using significantly more expensive pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was indicating that the results had been achieved using natural gas." The cease-and-desist order further stated that the Company "pitched the MBC program privately to numerous potential business partners over the course of 2017 and 2018. A number of these potential partners performed due diligence on the MBC program including reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization. [The Company] has not yet found a partner for the MBC program." If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 4, 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 Precigen securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/precigeninc-pgen-xon-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-321/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. [GN] PRECIGEN INC: Disclosures Misled Investors, Seppen Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SEPPEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECIGEN, INC. F/K/A INTREXON CORPORATION, RANDAL J. KIRK, RICK L. STERLING, and JOEL LIFFMANN, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07586 (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about Precigen's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company used pure methane, rather than natural gas, as the feedstock to achieve the reported results from its methane bioconversion platform (MBP); (2) that yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than yields using pure methane; (3) that, due to the substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) that, due to the high costs of pure methane, the Company could not sustain operations of the MBP without pursuing financial alternatives; (5) that, due to the reduced yields from natural gas and high costs of pure methane, the Company could not find a financial or strategic partner for its methane conversion platform; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was forced to divest its MBP and associated intellectual property, allowing the Company to focus on its other strategic assets; (7) that the Company was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth about the Company's operations and performance was disclosed to investors, Precigen's stock price fell $0.52, or 10%, to close at $4.60 per share on August 11, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members acquired Precigen securities at artificially inflated prices between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020. Precigen, Inc., f/k/a Intrexon Corporation, is an American biotechnology company headquartered in Germantown, Maryland. [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 PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Collective Status Sought in Badon FLSA Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BADON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PREFERRED CAREGIVERS AND SITTERS, LLC D/B/A "PREFERRED CAREGIVERS & SITTERS, LLC"; and BARRY WRIGHT AND MILLICENT WRIGHT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01065-ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class consisting of: "all Home Healthcare Workers employed by Defendants since October 2017 who were paid on an hourly basis but were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." The Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a collective class for overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by the Defendants. Preferred Caregivers LLC is a home health agency serving New Orleans, Louisiana and the surrounding area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify FLSA collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k4dzfA at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs are: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net PROFESSIONAL BILLING: Katz Seeks to Certify Junk Fax Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C. D/B/A JUVA SKIN AND LASER CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL BILLING COLLECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03043-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a Junk Fax Class consisting of: "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four years prior of filing of the initial complaint in this action, (2) were sent, by the Defendant or on Defendant's behalf, (3) a telephone facsimile message, (4) from whom the Defendant claims it obtained prior express permission or invitation to send faxes in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express permission or invitation to send a fax to the Plaintiff." This case challenges the Defendant's serial violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending unsolicited fax advertisements. The Plaintiff filed its Class Action Complaint on April 16, 2020. The Defendant PBC is a professional corporation. To market its products and services, the Defendant sends unsolicited fax advertisements en masse to the Plaintiff and the Class -- a plain violation of the JFPA. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/375ghhn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq. ARONS & ARONS, LLC 76 South Orange Ave. South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 762-0795 Facsimile: (973) 762-0279 E-mail: ja@aronslaw.net PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies FSO Class in "Oglesby" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica Oglesby v. Professional Transportation Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01573-TMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy M. Cain entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification of: "similarly situated field safety officers currently and previously employed by Defendant Professional Transportation Inc., who Plaintiff alleges have been misclassified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act." Even if the Plaintiff could show that she is similarly situated to the other members of the proposed class, the Court said it would still be inclined to deny certification, in its discretion, in light of the manageability issues posed by allowing this case to proceed as a collective action. In particular, because the claims in this case center on whether each plaintiff was properly classified as exempt and, if not, the amount of overtime hours they worked without compensation, the fact-finder will necessarily be required to conduct an individualized assessment of each plaintiff's claims. Although the FSOs all operated under the same job description, their day-to-day activities varied such that to determine an field safety officer's (FSO's) exemption status under the FLSA would require the fact-finder to assess the daily activities and responsibilities of that particular FSO independent of the rest of the class. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Defendant did not keep records of the hours worked by its FSOs. Thus, the only potential evidence thereof would be the FSOs' own check-out emails, if available, and testimony from the parties, which would also require the fact-finder to engage in individualized credibility assessments for each plaintiff. In light of the small number of proposed class members and the prevalence of individualized questions as to each one, the court finds that the efficiency goals underlying section 216(b) would not be met by certifying this case as a collective action. "At best, a collective action would present the same manageability difficulties that separate actions would," the Court said. "Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification is denied." The Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant as FSO since October 2008. As an FSO, Plaintiff worked remotely out of her home and frequently traveled both in- and out-of-state to visit different branch offices. The Defendant is an Indiana corporation that "provides over-the-road and dedicated yard van crew transportation services to customers in the railroad industry." A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nXeXD6 at no extra charge.[CC] PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Aniello Balks at Yumanity Deal --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ANIELLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., MEENU CHHABRA, DAVID ARKOWITZ, FRANKLIN BERGER, BADRUL A. CHOWDHURY, KIM COBLEIGH DRAPKIN, EMMANUEL DULAC, JEFFREY W. KELLY, and YUMANITY THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020), is a stockholder class action complaint alleging Defendants' violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with a proposed transaction. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin a proposed stock-for-stock reverse merger which, when completed, will substantially dilute exis ting shareholders of Proteostasis, who will own approximately only 32.5% of the combined company. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants are selling the Company through an unfair process for an unfair price. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in an August 24, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Thereafter, on September 23, 2020, Proteostasis filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Yumanity will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Proteostasis, forming one publicly traded entity combined with the investors in Yumanity, significantly diluting Proteostasis investors' share of the combined company. However, despite this description, it is in fact impossible to glean from the any publicly released documentation related to the Proposed Transaction, an estimate of the value, in U.S. Dollars, of the consideration that Plaintiff or other public stockholders of Proteostasis are set to receive. The Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction based on a flawed process which will result in grossly inadequate compensation for shareholders. As such, Plaintiff and the other public shareholders of Proteostasis common stock are entitled to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, alternatively, to recover damages in the event that the transaction is consummated, the complaint says. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California and has been a Proteostasis stockholder. The Defendant Proteostasis, a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery and development of novel therapeutics to treat cystic fibrosis. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: 516 741 4977 Facsimile: 516 741 0626 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com PTKW INC: Approval of Notice to Delivery Drivers Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Mayhew, On behalf of himself and those similarly, v. PTKW, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00690-MWM-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff Andrew Mayhew moves the Court for an Order authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of this action to his similarly-situated co-workers: "all current and former delivery drivers who work or worked at any LaRosa's Pizza location owned and/or operated by Defendants PTKW, Inc., Gregg Pancero, Jr., and/or Gregg Pancero, Sr. between the date three years prior to filing of the Class Action Complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice." This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at the Defendants' LaRosa's stores. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked, both while completing deliveries on the road and performing non-tipped tasks inside the restaurant; they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants' food; and they are under-reimbursed for their delivery-related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms resulted in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ko4zlW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Krzeski, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to the 2018-2019 AMCA Data Security Incident is still pending. On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA") had informed the Company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019 (the "AMCA Data Security Incident"). Optum360 provides revenue management services to the Company, and AMCA provided debt collection services to Optum360. AMCA first informed the Company of the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical information and other personal information (e.g., social security numbers). Test results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the Company's systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA also informed the Company that information pertaining to other laboratories' customers was also affected. Following announcement of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA sought protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws. Numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Data Security Incident. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases still pending to, and consolidated them for pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident. In January 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996, is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New Jersey. RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Seeks to Certify Amended Consumers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SOTELO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on November 16, 2020 for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all consumers who purchased in California, either in a retail store, on Rawlings' website, or through a third- party website, any of the following models of Rawlings youth non-wood baseball bats during the applicable limitations period (which is October 25, 2014 through the present): Model # US8510; Model # US8511; Model # US855; Model # US8F8G; Model # US8M11; Model # US8MC8; Model # US8P11; Model # US8R8; Model # US8V10; Model # US8V11; Model # US9V10; Model # USM210; Model # USRS10; Model # USRSN8; Model # USRX8; Model # UT8534; Model # UT8V34; Model # US8R10; Model # US9510; Model # US9511; and Model # US9V11." Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, including its corporate affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries; Defendant's employees, including officers and directors; and the Judge to which this case is assigned.; 2. appointing himself as the Class Representative; and 3. appointing Calcaterra Pollack LLP and McLaughlin & Stern, LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and Shoop, A Professional Corporation and C. Mario Jaramillo, PLLC (D/B/A Access Lawyers Group) as Local Counsel for the Class. In an August 11, 2020 Order, the Court held that a broader proposed class of purchasers of bats sold by the Defendant Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. met each requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and only failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b). In reaching this conclusion the Court suggested that predominance could be met by a class of bats "x or more ounces heavier than the sticker weight or weight implied by the drop." The Plaintiff Richard Sotelo now seeks certification of such class. The Defendant manufactures, distributes and sells baseball bats that it advertises and labels as being a specific weight in ounces. However, the weight stated on and advertised for the bats, commonly referred to as "sticker weight," is not the bats' actual weight, according to the lawsuit. A copy of the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lG2C4v at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are: David R. Shoop, Esq. SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 9701 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 950 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-1700 Facsimile: (310) 277-8500 E-mail: david.shoop@shooplaw.com - and - Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036-5803 Telephone: (212) 899-1760 Facsimile: (332) 206-2073 E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com - and - Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448-0066 E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com - and - C. Mario Jaramillo, Esq. C. MARIO JARAMILLO, PLLC (D/B/A ACCESS LAWYERS GROUP) 527 South Lake Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (877) 360-3383 Facsimile: (866) 686-5590 E-mail: cmj@access.law - and - Jason Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 244-5595 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Darnis Putative Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Raytheon Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al. On April 3, 2020, United Technologies Corporation (UTC) completed the Separation Transactions and on April 3, 2020, completed the Raytheon Merger, to form the new company, Raytheon Technologies Corporation. As a result of these transactions, the company now operates in four principal business segments: Collins Aerospace Systems (Collins Aerospace), Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Intelligence & Space (RIS) and Raytheon Missiles & Defense (RMD). On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to Company, Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the separation of UTC into three independent, publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint claims that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and for breach of fiduciary duty, and also asserts claims under certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Raytheon said, "We believe that the Company has meritorious defenses to these claims. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible range of loss, if any, which could result from this action." Raytheon Technologies Corporation is a global premier systems provider of high technology products and services to the aerospace and defense industries. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts. RELIANCE TRUST: Parties Seek to Modify Class Definition in Pledger ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA A. PLEDGER, et al., v. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04444-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs and Reliance Trust Company move the Court under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to modify the definition of the Class for purposes of effectuating the recent settlement between the Settling Parties. The Parties seek to certify the following modified Class: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through March 31, 2019, excluding the Defendants." The Insperity Defendants do not oppose this motion. Acting on a stipulation proposed by the parties, the Court previously certified a class under Rule 23(b)(1) consisting of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017, excluding the Defendants." The Settling Parties move to extend the Class period end date from September 30, 2017 to March 31, 2019. Certification of the modified Class definition is appropriate based on the same reasoning applied in the Court's prior certification order, the complaint says. Reliance Trust is a financial services company offering wealth management and investment services. A copy of the Parties' unopposed motion to modify the class definition is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j1VYUg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com - and - Bradley S. Wolff, Esq. SWIFT CURRIE McGHEE & HIERS, LLP 1355 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3231 Telephone: (404) 874-8800 Facsimile: (404) 888-6199 E-mail: brad.wolff@swiftcurrie.com Counsel for the Defendant Reliance Trust Company are: Brian D. Boyle, Esq. Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq. Stuart Sarnoff, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: bboyle@omm.com bbradshaw@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com - and - William Bard Brockman, Esq. RYAN CAVE, LLP One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor 1201 West Peachtree St, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309-3488 Telephone: (404) 572-6600 Facsimile: (404) 572-6999 E-mail: bard.brockman@bryancave.com RENAL ASSOCIATES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To all persons and entities who purchased or acquired American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. common stock between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, inclusive. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing is scheduled to be held on January 12, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Michael A. Hammer, United States Magistrate Judge of the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom 5A, Newark, NJ 07101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement1 of the claims in the above-referenced Action for consideration including the sum of $5,775,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Net Settlement Fund (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; (3) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 30 percent plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $100,000, and an Award to Plaintiff of not more than $7,500.00, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be fully and finally dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation. Please Note: The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may change and/or may be held by teleconference or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. You should monitor the Court's docket and the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.AmericanRenalSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making plans to participate in the Settlement Hearing. You may also confirm the date, time, and method of the Settlement Hearing by contacting Class Counsel by phone at 212-279-5050 or by email at info@aftlaw.com. If you purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. ("ARA") common stock between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the full and final release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your purchase, sale and ownership interest in ARA common stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim form, you may obtain copies by writing to American Renal Assoc. Securities Litigation, ATTN: NOTICE REQUEST, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103, emailing to info@AmericanRenalSecuritiesLitigation.com or calling (844) 559-0203, or by going to the website, www.AmericanRenalSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim form postmarked no later than January 4, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than December 8, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. All members of the Settlement Class who have not validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and an Award to Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than December 22, 2020, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 CLASS COUNSEL: Mitchell M.Z. Twersky Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Jason C. Hegt LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact the Claims Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel at the addresses listed above or go to the website at www.AmericanRenalSecuritiesLitigation.com. To learn more about Plaintiffs' Counsel, go to its website at www.aftlaw.com. Please do not contact the court regarding this notice. By Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Media Contact: Angeion Group Douglas S. Clauson Director, Communications (215)–563-4116 1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement filed with the Court on June 25, 2020 (ECF No. 50-3) (the "Stipulation"). [GN] ROSIE'S CAFE: Woodbeck Sues Over Improper OT Wages for Servers -------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA WOODBECK, on behalf of herself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSIE'S CAFE & GRILL, INC., JOANNE FITZGERALD and IRVING GAVIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00846-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) including failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to maintain and keep accurate time records, and failure to post required FLSA informational listings. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt server at their restaurant in Sanibel, Florida from August 2019 until March 12, 2020. Rosie's Cafe & Grill, Inc. is an operator of a restaurant located in Sanibel, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey N. Del Rio, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 983-2959 Facsimile: (813) 229-4059 E-mail: JDelRio@forthepeople.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Disclosures Misled Investors, Altomare Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ALTOMARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., RICHARD FAIN, JASON LIBERTY, and MICHAEL BAYLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24407 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about Royal Caribbean's decrease in bookings outside China and its inadequate policies and procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. Specifically, regarding global bookings, Royal Caribbean made statements that: (1) misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; and (3) failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing material declines in bookings globally because of customer concerns over COVID-19. Additionally, regarding safety procedures, the Company made statements that: (1) falsely assured investors that it implemented rigorous safety protocols; (2) such protocols were expected to ultimately contain the spread of the virus; and (3) failed to disclose that its ships were following grossly inadequate protocols that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial risk to passengers and crews. When the truth about the Company's operations and performance was disclosed to investors, Royal Caribbean's stock price fell $7.30 per share, or 14.13%, to close at $44.37 per share on March 11, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members acquired Royal Caribbean securities at artificially inflated prices from February 4, 2020, through March 17, 2020. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is an American global cruise holding company, headquartered in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and – James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 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 Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or "the Company") (NYSE:RCL) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 7, 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. Royal Caribbean told investors that the impact of COVID-19 would be minor. The Company falsely stated that global bookings outside of China were strong and not slowing. In fact, the Company was suffering from significant drops in bookings due to customer concerns about COVID-19. While the Company touted rigorous safety protocols, its ships were actually following wholly inadequate procedures to prevent the spread of the virus. 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 Royal Caribbean, 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] SASOL LIMITED: Cohn and Moshell Seek to Certify Rules 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD LINDSEY MOSHELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. SASOL LIMITED, DAVID EDWARD REPRESENTATIVES, AND CONSTABLE, BONGANI NQWABABA, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL STEPHEN CORNELL, PAUL VICTOR, and STEPHAN SCHOEMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01008-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff David Cohn and additional named plaintiff Chad Lindsey Moshell will move the Court on December 17, 2020 or at a date or time designed by the Court, for an order: 1. certifying under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class of: "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Sasol Limited American Depository Receipts during the period from March 10, 2015, to January 13, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, excluding Defendants, the officers and directors of Sasol Limited, all entities in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, members of immediate families, heirs, successors or assigns of any excluded person or entity"; 2. certifying the Class for a claim against all Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and for a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all Defendants except Sasol Limited; 3. appointing the plaintiffs David Cohn and Chad Lindsey Moshell to serve as Class Representatives; and 4. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel. Sasol Limited is an integrated energy and chemical company based in Sandton, South Africa. The company was formed in 1950 in Sasolburg, South Africa and built on processes that were first developed by German chemists and engineers in the early 1900s.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff David Cohn and Additional Representative Plaintiff Chad L. Moshell, are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com SECOND ROUND: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned LISA A. PRITCHARD, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. SECOND ROUND SUB, LLC, SECOND ROUND, LP, and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:17-cv-06334-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on a date and at a time to be determined by the Court: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement of the action and related relief; 2. appointing of Class Representative and Class Counsel; 3. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class of: "(i) All natural persons with addresses within the State of New Jersey; (ii) to whom, beginning August 22, 2016 through and including August 31, 2017; (iii) Defendants sent one or more letters in attempts to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Second Round Sub, LLC; (iv) where the original creditor was Synchrony Bank; and (v) which contained the statement: "Second Round Sub, LLC is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt of $600 or more." 4. approving the form and manner of distribution of notice to Settlement to Class Members; and 5. scheduling a final fairness hearing; The Settlement Agreement provides for the Defendant to: (1) retain the Settlement Administrator mutually selected by the parties; (2) establish a settlement fund in the amount set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) pay the Class Representative’s individual service payment, subject to approval by the Court; (4) close the Plaintiff's alleged debt to the Defendants and effectuate a related trade-line deletion; and (5) pay Plaintiff’s reasonable counsel fees, costs, and expenses, subject to approval by the Court. On August 22, 2017, this litigation was commenced by the Plaintiff as a putative class action against the Defendants. The Pritchard Complaint alleges that the Defendants committed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendants have denied any and all liability alleged by the the Plaintiff. As a result of arm's-length negotiations between the Plaintiff's counsel and the Defendants' counsel, the parties reached a settlement that provides, among other relief, monetary relief to the Settlement Class Members, says the complaint.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: 201 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com Attorneys for the Defendants Second Round Sub, LLC, Second Round, LP, are: Daniel J. DiMuro, Esq. Ronald A. Giller, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI , LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 SETERUS INC: Albers Suit Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrie Albers on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, v. SETERUS, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (as successor in interest to Seterus, Inc.), Case No. 2:18-cv-02440-KHV (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting class certification for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class; 2. appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative. The Albers' lawsuit is part of a multi-forum attempt to recharacterize legally-required notice-of-default letters (Default Letters) sent by the Defendant as a deceitful intimidation tactic. However, the Default Letters themselves demonstrate that Seterus made no misrepresentations, but instead simply gave customers the notice required by the governing loan documents. The Default Letters inform borrowers like Albers that their loan is in default, and seek payment of an "Amount Due" by a date certain (the Expiration Date). The Default Letters further inform borrowers that Seterus "will accelerate" the maturity date of the loan if the payment is not made, and "may proceed without further notice to commence foreclosure proceedings." Albers asserts that this is misleading because a payment less than the Amount Due can delay acceleration. However, discovery has shown that such a payment never took a borrower out of Seterus's preforeclosure department such that they remained on a path toward acceleration. Moreover, the Default Letters do not state any date on which acceleration or foreclosure will occur. This case arises from Seterus's servicing of Albers's mortgage loan (the "Loan") secured by property located at 28 S. 16th Street, Kansas City, Kansas (the Property). Seterus operates as a loan servicing company. It operates as a subsidiary of International Business Machines Incorporated. It was formerly known as IBM Lender Business Process Services Inc. Its services include loan application, underwriting, processing, vendor management, document preparation and loan closing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iVbLo5 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Asa C. Edwards, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com aedwards@maginnislaw.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com SHAKE SHACK: Gomez Seeks Blind's Full Access to Restaurant App -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAKE SHACK INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-24413 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to develop and design its mobile application to be fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant's mobile application contains access barriers which include, but not limited to: (a) text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided; (b) information about the meaning and structure of the application's content is not conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content; (c) when the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence cannot be programmatically determined; (d) application pages do not have titles that describe topic or purpose; (e) images on the application are not explained to the user with use of a screen reader program; and, (f) there is no Accessibility Statement regarding a company policy to assist disabled users found anywhere in the application. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to require the Defendant to modify its application so that it is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind or visually impaired individuals. Shake Shack Inc. is a company that owns, operates and maintains brick and mortar restaurants in the state of Florida and specifically at 901 S. Miami Ave. Suite 109, Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto R. Leal, Esq. THE LEAL LAW FIRM, P.A. 8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157 Lake Worth, FL 33463 Telephone: (561) 237-2740 Facsimile: (561) 237-2741 E-mail: al@thelealfirm.com SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, LLC, the successor to Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 (which the company refer to as, "pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial of Pandora’s motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important question of law." The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Wage & Meal Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against Holdings and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park Management Corp. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges violations of California law governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages, and related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and we have accrued our best estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Magic Mountain Employees' Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Magic Mountain, LLC continues to defend a purported class action initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain. On February 14, 2020, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain, LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain. The complaint alleges one cause of action for failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California labor law, and seeks all applicable statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and we have accrued our best estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suits Over Credit Card Info ------------------------------------------------------------ Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in the putative class action suits related to the printing of more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, which is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. During 2017, four putative class action complaints were filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (Holdings) or one of its subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017, in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois; on September 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; on September 11, 2017, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California; and on November 30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey. The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts and/or the expiration dates of those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person, punitive damages in an amount determined by a court and reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any information was misused. The Circuit Court in Illinois granted the company's motion to dismiss on November 2, 2018, but the matter was reversed on appeal on January 22, 2020. The Illinois Supreme Court has granted review, but briefing was stayed so that the parties could engage in settlement discussions. The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the company's motion to dismiss on May 6, 2019, but on December 31, 2019, the matter was stayed and administratively closed on the company's motion based on the Eleventh Circuit's review of an order denying dismissal in a case involving substantially similar factual allegations and statutory violations. Either side may move to reopen the Georgia case within 30 days of the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in the other matter. The company's demurrer in the California matter was overruled on February 26, 2019, but the order contained certain favorable rulings that enabled us to file a motion for summary judgment on December 12, 2019. That motion is stayed as the parties explore settlement. The Superior Court in the New Jersey matter granted the company's motion to dismiss on January 18, 2019, which ruling the plaintiff has appealed, and the matter is stayed pending the outcome of settlement discussions. On October 20, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, which is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit over the collection of biometric data. On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (Holdings) in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant. The complaint asserts that we violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the admission of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction. An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable attorneys' fees in each case. The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in the company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way in order to have a right of action. On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal and oral arguments were heard on November 20, 2018. On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in order to proceed with a complaint. Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable, and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot be made." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit Over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to alleged violations of Massachusetts law governing employee overtime and rest breaks. On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags New England. The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties. On July 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of two classes, an overtime class and a meal break class. On November 8, 2018, the court granted class certification for the overtime class and denied class certification for the meal break class. On June 20, 2019, in response to competing motions for summary judgment on the application of an overtime wage exemption applicable to amusement parks that operate no more than 150 days per year, the court agreed that the defendant park did not operate more than 150 days in 2013, 2014, and 2016, but found that it did operate more than 150 days in 2015, 2017 and 2018, for which the defendant park would owe overtime wages. On September 26, 2019, the company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to 2017 and 2018, because the defendant park relied on a separate overtime wage law exemption applicable to a separate and distinct operation of the business in those years. On December 6, 2019, the court denied the company's motion for reconsideration. Six Flags said, "We continue to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this litigation and we have accrued our best estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement in San Diego Suit Gets Preliminary OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the settlement in the purported class action suit initiated by two former Home Delivery team members has received preliminary court approval. On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed suit, now venued in San Diego County Superior Court, California, alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law. The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The parties have executed a settlement agreement, including the settlement and release of certain additional related claims that are contained in a consolidated complaint, which received preliminary Court approval on July 29, 2020 and is proceeding through final administrative processes. Sleep Number said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending this matter in the event the settlement is not ultimately finalized." Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SOLANTIC CORPORATION: Underpays Urgent Care Staff, Roberts Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHYLAINE ROBERTS, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v. SOLANTIC CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20NWCV00603 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act and the California's Business and Professions Code including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee since November of 2016. Solantic Corporation is an urgent care management company that conducts business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 SOUTHEAST CORPORATION: Marlow Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY MARLOW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SOUTHEAST CORPORATION AND WESLEY R. HOWARD, Case No. 4:20-cv-03437 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 6, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants knew or should have known that he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. But the Defendants did not pay him for the hours he worked in excess of four per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he [was] employed." Instead, the Defendants paid him a fixed sum -- a salary -- regardless of the number of hours he worked. The Plaintiff resides in Hardin County, Texas, and was employed by Defendants as a maintenance technician. Southeast Corporation operates Dairy Queen franchises, a limited-service restaurant that serves specialty snack items and nonalcoholic beverages, throughout the Houston and Beaumont area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq Renu Tandale, Esq MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net renu@mooreandassociates.net SRC COLLISION: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Shop Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRC COLLISION, INC., d/b/a CMB COLLISION, and NICHOLAS CASPARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08946 (S.D.N.Y., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours premium, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a painter in their autobody shop in Bronx, New York from March 2008 through May 17, 2020. SRC Collision, Inc., d/b/a CMB Collision, is a provider of auto body repair services, with its principal place of business located at 4124 Boston Post Road, Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 Facsimile: (212) 679-5005 STAAR SURGICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA) common stock between February 26, 2020 and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Alwazzan v. STAAR Surgical Company, No. 20-cv-01533, and is assigned to Judge James V. Selna. The STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit charges STAAR Surgical and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased STAAR Surgical common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 19, 2020. STAAR Surgical designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the lenses into the eye. The STAAR Surgical class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that STAAR Surgical was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; and (3) its research and development expenses. On August 5, 2020, STAAR Surgical reported that its net sales were down 11% from the prior year quarter and its implantable Collamer® lenses sales were down 11% from the prior year quarter. STAAR Surgical also reported a net loss of $0.03 per share, versus net income of $0.08 per share in the prior year quarter. On this news, STAAR Surgical's common stock price fell nearly 10%. Then, on August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research published a report in which it wrote that "[w]e think that STAAR Surgical has overstated sales in China by at least one-third, or $21.6 mln. That would mean that all of [STAAR Surgical]'s $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The report continued, stating that "[f]ake sales [in China] come at 100% margins and therefore translate directly into profit. That means that the roughly $21.6 mln in overstated Chinese sales in 2019 represent 152% of total company profit. In other words, without the fraud that we believe pervades the China business, STAAR is losing money." On this news, STAAR Surgical's common stock price fell an additional 6% – further damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Michael Albert Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel No: 800-449-4900 E-mail: malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] STANLEY STEEMER: Conditional Cert. of Hourly Workers Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATEEF RUNNELS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STANLEY STEEMER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02731-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting his motion for conditional certification and directing that notice be sent to similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of: "a group of current and former non-exempt hourly workers who were paid on a commission basis, with a minimum hourly guarantee." The Plaintiff alleges that Stanley Steemer maintained a pattern and practice of providing a minimum hourly guaranteed rate of pay to the non-exempt workers at issue, but failed to properly compensate non-exempt workers for overtime premiums for weeks and/or periods where they fell below the minimum hourly rate. Because Stanley Steemer has maintained a practice and policy that Plaintiffs allege is unlawful and have challenged in these proceedings, the matter is necessarily appropriate for conditional certification under the FLSA. The Plaintiff commenced this action as a hybrid class/collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked exclusively for Stanley Steemer as a non-exempt worker from June 20, 2017 through October 6, 2017. Stanley Steemer is a nationwide corporation that provides whole building cleaning solutions for customers requiring such services. Since its inception, Stanley Steemer has "expanded across 49 states into a network of nearly 300 locally owned and operated franchises and company-owned locations." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31gqIef at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Courtney M. Stout, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com cstout@williamsdirks.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee’s Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Heather J. Hardinger, Esq. THE MEYERS LAW FIRM, LC 503 One Main Plaza 4435 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816)-444-8500 Facsimile: (816)-444-8508 E-mail: hhardinger@meyerslaw.com STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company remains a defendant in a purported class suit related to its invoicing practices. In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against the company alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In addition, the company had received a purported class action demand letter alleging that our invoicing practices were unfair and deceptive under Massachusetts law. State Street said, "A class of customers, or particular customers, may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts law." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. STEVEN MNUCHIN: Court Vacates Provisional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN SCHOLL, et al., v. STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal; 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of their first claim and graning their motion for summary judgment of their second claim; 3. declaring that the Defendants' policy violated the APA and is vacated; and 4. vacating the provisional certification of the class and certifying a litigation class for all purposes. Finally, the court enters the following permanent injunction: The Defendants Steven Mnuchin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; Charles Rettig, in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the U.S. Department of the Treasury; the U.S. Internal Revenue Service; and the United States of America, are hereby enjoined from withholding benefits pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6428 from plaintiffs or any class member on the sole basis of their incarcerated status. Within 30 days of the court's September 24, 2020 order, defendants shall reconsider advance refund payments to those who are entitled to such payment based on information available in the IRS' records (i.e., 2018 or 2019 tax returns), but from whom benefits have thus far been withheld, intercepted, or returned on the sole basis of their incarcerated status. Within 30 days of the court's September 24, 2020 order, the defendants shall reconsider any claim filed through the "non-filer" online portal or otherwise that was previously denied solely on the basis of the claimant's incarcerated status. The Defendants shall take all necessary steps to effectuate these reconsiderations, including updates to the IRS website and communicating to federal and state correctional facilities. Within 45 days of the court's September 24, 2020 order, the defendants shall file a declaration confirming these steps have been implemented, including data regarding the number and amount of benefits that have been disbursed. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37eKr1R at no extra charge.[CC] TACTILE SYSTEMS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Tactile Systems Technology. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Tactile Systems Technology (NASDAQ: TCMD) Class Period: May 7, 2018 - June 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2020 The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in fact, the total addressable market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains, the Company and/or its employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of the Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's profits were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5) the Company's public statements, including its year-over-year revenue growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Los Angeles Tel No: 310-914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN] TACTILE SYSTEMS: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Announces Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. ("Tactile Systems" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCMD) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Tactile Systems between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tactile Systems investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) while the Company publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for the Company's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile engaged in illegal sales and marketing activities; and (3) the Company's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tactile Systems during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 30, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] TESLA INC: Class Certification Bid in Twitter Post Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for class certification in the consolidated suit related to Elon Must's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private remains pending. Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors. The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Trial is set for March 2022. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 24, 2020. Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims." Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. TRINET GROUP: Facing 401(k) Plan-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in a class action related to the TriNet 401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan. On September 29, 2020, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the directors of certain TriNet subsidiaries and other TriNet employees on behalf of participants in two retirement plans available to TriNet's eligible worksite employees, the TriNet 401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan. The complaint is similar to claims recently brought against a number of employers including PEOs this year and generally alleges that the defendants violated certain fiduciary obligations to Plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to overseeing plan investment and recordkeeping fees. TriNet said, "These claims are in the earliest stages, and we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to this matter. We believe the claims are without merit." TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. TriNet Group, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Dublin, California. TURNER CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE A. GONZALEZ, and other similarly-situated individuals, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE SOUTH CO. d/b/a TURNER – KIEWIT JOINT VENTURE, Case No. 6:20-cv-01897 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2020), is class action suit seeking to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former employees similarly situated worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January 2020, without being properly compensated. The Defendant Turner–Kiewit JV employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee from January 1, 2020, to September 22, 2020, or 38 weeks. Turner Construction is an American construction company with presence in 20 countries. It is a subsidiary of the German company HOCHTIEF. It is the largest domestic contractor in the United States as of 2019, with a revenue of $11.77 B. Kiewit Infrastructure is located in Omaha, Nebraska, and is part of the Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Contractors Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TURQUOISE HILL: Franchi Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TURQUOISE HILL RESOURCES LTD., ULF QUELLMANN, BRENDAN LANE, LUKE COLTON, RIO TINTO PLC, RIO TINTO LIMITED, RIO TINTO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, JEAN-SEBASTIEN JACQUES and ARNAUD SOIRAT, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages on behalf of himself and the Class caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection to a Company's false and misleading business and operations statements. The case is a federal securities action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Turquoise Hill from July 17, 2018 to and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period), and who were damaged thereby. During the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts regarding the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants made false and or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the progress of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not proceeding as planned; and (ii) there were significant undisclosed underground stability issues that called into question the design of the mine, the projected cost and timing of production. On September 10, 2020, Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto announced that they had entered into a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding under which they would seek to "reprofile Oyu Tolgoi's existing debt" and raise an additional $500 million through debt financing, plus up to $3.6 billion in equity -- thereby diluting Turquoise Hill's public shareholders. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff Anthony Franchi purchased Turquoise Hill securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing. Turquoise Hill is an international mining company focused on the operation and development of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in Southern Mongolia ("Oyu Tolgoi"), which is the Company's principal and only material resource property. Turquoise Hill's subsidiary, Oyu Tolgoi LLC, holds a 66% interest in Oyu Tolgoi, and the remainder is held by the Government of Mongolia. Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited are operated and managed together as single economic unit and engage in mining and metals operations in approximately 35 countries. Through their subsidiaries, Rio Tinto owns 50.8% of Turquoise Hill. A Rio into subsidiary, Rio Tinto International Holdings, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Kurt Hunciker, Esq. Seth M. Pavsner, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0057 E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com khunciker@hrsclaw.com spavsner@hrsclaw.com U.S. BANCORP: Collective FLSA Class Status Sought ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JENNIFER JACKSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. BANCORP and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02310-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying proposed collective Fair Labor Standards Act class defined as; "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by U.S. Bancorp and/or U.S. Bank National Association, anywhere in the United States, at any time from June 24, 2017 through the final disposition of this matter ("Putative Class Members"); 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e- mail, text-message, and posting) to Putative Class Members; 3. approving a Reminder Notice to be sent to Putative Class Members halfway through the 90-day notice period; and 4. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all Putative Class Members by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and cell phone numbers of all Putative Class Members who worked for the Defendants at any time from beginning three years immediately preceding the Order granting conditional certification through the present. U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware. It is the parent company of U.S. Bank National Association, and is the fifth largest banking institution in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nRFYrQ at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, are: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liu Alleges Race Bias in Driver's Rating System ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-07499 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against minority drivers through the use of its star rating system to terminate them. Under the rating system, Uber passengers are asked to evaluate drivers on a one to five scale after each ride, and Uber used the customer feedback to determine which drivers get terminated. The Defendant continued to use the rating system despite its awareness that passengers frequently discriminate against minority drivers. Thus, the Defendant's reliance on customer evaluation to determine driver terminations is racially discriminatory. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California as a driver until he was deactivated in October 2015 because his average star rating fell below 4.6. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a transportation service provider headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Anne Kramer, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com UNITED SERVICES: Schlagel Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN SCHLAGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00745-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a putative class action against Defendant United Services Automobile Association (USAA), pursuant to Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. All members of the proposed class: a. purchased a policy of insurance from Defendant; b. made a claim for Med Pay or PIP benefits; c. had their benefits reduced by Defendant’s discounting scheme; and d. failed to exhaust the limits of their Med Pay or PIP benefits. Excluded from the Class are any individuals who are employed or controlled by Defendants; the officers, directors, agents, and servants of USAA; and the immediate family members of any such excluded person. Also excluded is any judge who may preside over this action. The Plaintiff purchased a contract of insurance from the Defendant, which included $5,000 in first-party Med Pay coverage through USAA. The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant medical bills and records totaling $6,182.00, along with a demand for payment. Rather than timely providing coverage benefits, the Defendant submitted the Plaintiff's claim to a third-party service, Auto Injury Solutions (AIS), which uses computer software to categorically eliminate, abate, and/or reduce the amount the Defendant pays for its insured's health care expenses. This process is referred to by the Defendant as a Medical Bill Audit (MBA). The Defendant did not disclose to the Plaintiff that it submitted her claim to AIS, the complaint says. The Plaintiff's Med Pay claims were improperly delayed, denied, and/or reduced during the MBA process. For example, USAA claimed that her chiropractic treatment was not medically necessary, despite clear medical evidence and the unequivocal position of her treating physicians, says the complaint. The Plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging violation of alleging violation of ACA section 23-89-208 and breach of contract. This case was eventually removed to federal court. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k1CqAN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill G. Horton, Esq. CADDELL REYNOLDS, PA 211 N. 2nd St. Rogers, AR 72756 Telephone: (479) 464-8269 Facsimile: (479) 230-2002 E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com - and - John Doyle Nalley, Esq. LOVELL, NALLEY & NALLEY 501 N. Main St., P.O. Box 606 Benton, AR 72018 Telephone: (501) 315-7491 UNITED STATES: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORLANDO CANCINO CASTELLAR, et al., Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendant-Respondents, Case No. 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff-Petitioners will move the Court on Dec. 7, for an order granting class certification of the proposed class defined as follows: "all individuals, other than unaccompanied minors or individuals with administratively final removal orders, who (1) are or will have been in the civil custody of the San Diego Field Office of ICE, the San Diego Field Office of CBP Office of Field Operations, the San Diego Sector of U.S. Border Patrol, and/or the El Centro Sector of U.S. Border Patrol, collectively, for longer than 48 hours and (2) have not had a hearing before an immigration judge." The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Plaintiff-Petitioners' renewed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31jSbeS at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Petitioners, are: Bardis Vakili, Esq. David Loy, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 Telephone: (619) 398-4485 E-mail: bvakili@aclusandiego.org davidloy@aclusandiego.org - and - Joanna Fuller, Esq. Aleksandr Gelberg, Esq. Megan A. Chacon, Esq. Geuneul Yang, Esq. FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 678-5070 E-mail: jfuller@fr.com gelberg@fr.com chacon@fr.com jyang@fr.com - and - Leonard B. Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON P.C. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-4549 E-mail: lens@rgrdlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Lawsuit Wants Univ. to Pay Back Tuition ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10news.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against the University of San Diego wants the school to refund students some tuition fees following the move to virtual learning. The lawsuit, filed by two students, claims the college owes students some of their tuition and fees back due to the switch to virtual learning. The suit says that when the school switched to virtual learning in Spring 2020, students were still charged full tuition even though "USD could no longer provide the promised hours of instruction." The lawsuit claimed that USD also increased its tuition on top of that. "Similarly, students paid fees for services and access to facilities and equipment over the full semester. Though USD provided these services and facility/equipment access for only part of the semester, and could not provide them for the full semester, USD demanded that students pay fees for the entire semester," lawsuit documents state. A spokesperson for USD told ABC 10News they have not been notified of or served with the lawsuit. The lawsuit is seeking a "prorated portion of the tuition, fees and other related costs, proportionate to the diminished value of online classes and the amount of time in the Spring 2020 and following semesters when USD ceased in-person classes, campus services and access to campus facilities, continuing through to such time as USD reinstates in-person classes" for the two students who filed the lawsuit and "all others similarly situated." [GN] US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Ephrati Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the purported stockholder class action suit initiated by Moshe Ephrati, is pending. USO was named as a defendant in a purported stockholder class action on July 31, 2020 by Moshe Ephrati, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh. The stockholder class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06010. The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March 2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial. Since this stockholder class action makes the same substantive claims made against the same defendants in the stockholder class action commenced by Robert Lucas on June 19, 2020, and is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740, it is expected that these two stockholder class actions will be consolidated. The defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims and move for their dismissal. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the purported stockholder class action suit initiated by Robert Lucas remains pending. USO was named as a defendant in a purported stockholder class action on June 19, 2020 by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants USO, United States Commodity Funds LLC (USCF), John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh. The stockholder class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March 2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial. The defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims and move for their dismissal. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). VARSITY BRANDS: American Spirit Anti-Trust Suit Moved to W.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMERICAN SPIRIT AND CHEER ESSENTIALS, INC., ROCKSTAR CHAMPIONSHIPS, LLC, JEFF & CRAIG CHEER, LLC, d/b/a JEFF AND CRAIG CAMPS, and ASHLEY HAYGOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, BSN SPORTS, LLC, VARSITY SPIRIT LLC, STANBURY, LLC, HERFF JONES, LLC, BAIN CAPITAL, LP, CHARLESBANK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,VARSITY BRANDS HOLDING CO., INC., VARSITY SPIRIT FASHION & SUPPLIES, LLC, U.S. ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC., USA FEDERATION FOR SPORT CHEERING, d/b/a USA CHEER, VARSITY INTROPIA TOURS, LLC, and JEFF WEBB, Case No. 1:20-cv-03088, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on October 27, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02782-SHL-atc to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' illegal restrictions of trade, monopoly, and violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. American Spirit and Cheer Essentials, Inc. is an apparel company, with its primary place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Rockstar Championships, LLC is an independent competition producer of cheerleading competitions based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Jeff & Craig Cheer, LLC, d/b/a Jeff and Craig Camps, is an independent producer of scholastic and competitive cheer camps based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Varsity Brands, LLC, formally known as Varsity Brands, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that produces sports apparel and equipment with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. BSN Sports, LLC, formerly known as BSN Sports, Inc., is a sports apparel and equipment company, with its principal place of business in Farmers Branch, Texas. Varsity Spirit, LLC, formally known as Varsity Spirit Corp., is a corporation that sells cheerleading, dance team and band apparel, trains cheerleaders and dancers at educational camps and hosts cheerleading competitions, with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. Stanbury, LLC is a manufacturer of college, junior high school, and high school marching band uniforms and band merchandise throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Brookfield, Missouri. Herff Jones, LLC, formerly known as Herff Jones, Inc., is a manufacturer of graduation announcements, high school yearbooks, diplomas, class and championship rings, caps, gowns, and tassels throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. Bain Capital, LP is an American private investment firm, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Charlesbank Capital Partners, LLC is a private equity investment firm with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Varsity Brands Holding Co., Inc. is a holding company that manufactures sporting goods, with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies, LLC, formally known as Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of cheerleading apparel and accessories with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. The U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. is the governing body for All-Star cheerleading and dance in the United States. USA Federation for Sport Cheering, d/b/a USA Cheer, is an organization that provides recreation, sports, leisure or athletics services, with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. Varsity Intropia Tours, LLC is a company that distributes and sells travel packages throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Falanga, Esq. Kobelah S. Bennah, Esq. LAW OFFICES FALANGA & CHALKER 11200 Atlantis Pl #C Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (770) 955-0006 Facsimile: (770) 955-2123 E-mail: rfalanga@falangalaw.com kobelah@falangalaw.com VISTA FORD: Hernandez-Meza Sues over Employment Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER HERNANDEZ-MEZA, v. VISTA FORD INC., a California corporation; JEFF HARKNESS, an individual; DOES 1-100, Case No. 20STCV38982 (Cal. Super., Oct. 13, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly-situated alleging that Defendants discriminated its employees on the basis of age and nationality pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code. As a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation, the Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, the complaint says. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a lube technician. His employment began on June 6, 1995 and ended when he was wrongfully terminated on September 5, 2019. The Plaintiff was approximately 59 years old when he was fired. His coworkers were all in their 20s and 30s except for his brother. The Plaintiff was the oldest member of his department, besides his brother. The Plaintiff is of Hispanic national origin, and was also the only one in his department who did not speak English, except for his brother. Vista Ford is a car dealership conducting business in the County of and the State of California. The Defendant Jeff Harkness was Plaintiff's supervisor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Roven, Esq. JONNY LAW P.O. Box 3989 Valley Village, CA 91617-3989 Telephone: (818) 639-3997 Facsimile: (818) 471-4164 E-mail: jon@calljonnylaw.com W & W ENERGY: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR PEREZ CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. W & W ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00102-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court for an order granting conditional certification of the following class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "Individuals employed by W & W Energy Services, Inc. As laborers and/or other hourly employees who were paid a per diem from September 22 , 2017 to the present." The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following schedule: -- 14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members: The Defendant to provide, to the extent available, to the Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); beginning date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of engagement (if applicable). -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members The Plaintiff 's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by Members. -- 30 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members: The Plaintiff 's Counsel may resend an identical copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members who have not submitted a Consent Form by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to Potential Class Members: The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to file their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff 's Counsel for filing with the Court. W&W is a provider of production infrastructure-related services to oil and gas producers operating in the Permian Basin. A copy of the unopposed motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jRSLIk at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY ork 0005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: JFitapelli@fslawfirm.com Fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com Attorneys for the Defendant are: Lisa K. Hooper, Esq. E-mail: lhooper@Icalawfirm.com 811 Main Street, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77002-6110 Telephone: (432)-683-3351 Facsimile: (432) 683-2857 WELLS FARGO: Faces Moehring Suit Over Hazard Insurance Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN MOEHRING, ALEXIOUS MOEHRING, JANET MENDOZA, JERRY SPEER, and MARY SPEER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02506-EFM-KGG (D. Kan., Oct. 13, 2020), seeks redress for Wells Fargo's fraudulent and deceptive practices involving the manner in which Wells Fargo purchases and then seeks reimbursement for hazard insurance involving homes and residences that are the subject of foreclosure proceedings, and which are ultimately "redeemed" by the homeowners or their assignees. The Plaintiffs contend that through a deceptive pattern and practice going back years, Wells Fargo had charged individuals who redeem their homes after foreclosure sales for a full year of hazard insurance, even though just a small fraction of the insurance is typically used, and even though insurance companies will typically reimburse a purchaser for unused insurance. Wells Fargo is unjustly enriching itself and misleading persons who are at their most financially vulnerable-homeowners who just lost their homes in foreclosure proceedings and are trying to struggle back and recover their homes, the Plaintiff add. The Defendant Wells Fargo, N.A. is a national banking association.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Michael R. Owens, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 E-mail: wilders@stuevesiegel.com owens@stuevesiegel.com - and - Paul D. Snyder, Esq. Karen E. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC 10995 Lowell Ave, Ste 710 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: 913-685-3900 E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com WELLS FARGO: Jaffe ECOA Class Suit Removed to D. Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JAMARI JAFFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. C-02-CV20-001698, was removed from the Maryland Circuit Court for the County of Anne Arundel to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on October 27, 2020. The Clerk Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03127-CCB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act by failing to send a timely adverse action notice. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: John C. Lynch, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 Facsimile: (757) 687-1504 E-mail: john.lynch@troutman.com - and – S. Mohsin Reza, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 274-1927 Facsimile: (703) 448-6510 E-mail: mohsin.reza@troutman.com WELLS FARGO: Martin Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Guadalupe Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 5:19-cv-01969-JAK-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Ricardo Martin will move the Court January 25, 2021, for an order: 1. determining that a class action is proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, (3) the class representative’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and (4) the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; 2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and certifying the following Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association who were paid "OverTimePay -- Override" and/or "Incentive Overtime Recalc" wages, at any time between August 30, 2018, through the date that the class is certified; 3. finding himself to be an adequate representative and certifying him as the class representative. 4. finding the Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms, namely Larry W. Lee and Mai Tulyathan of Diversity Law Group, P.C., Dennis S. Hyun of Hyun Legal, APC, and Jonathan M. Lebe of Lebe Law as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. On August 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs Ricardo Martin and Guadalupe Ramirez filed their Class Action Complaint against the Defendant in the Riverside County Superior Court. The Complaint asserts single cause of action for violation of California Labor Code section 226(a). On October 15, 2019, the Defendant removed this case to the federal district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35hFD9p at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for Plaintiffs Ricardo Martin and Guadalupe Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com WORLD WRESTLING: Firefighters Seek to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., VINCENT K. McMAHON, GEORGE A. BARRIOS, and MICHELLE D. WILSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-02031-JS (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust will move the Court on November 24, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying this case as a class action; 2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System is the administrator of a single-employer public employees' retirement system. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a WWE, is an American integrated media and entertainment company that is primarily known for professional wrestling. WWE has also branched out into other fields, including movies, football, and various other business ventures.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust and the Proposed Class are: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Christine M. Fox, Esq. Ross M. Kamhi, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-907-0700 Facsimile: 212-818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com cfox@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com rkamhi@labaton.com WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Announces 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 Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:WRTC) between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wrap investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wrap class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1953.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) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) 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 23, 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-1953.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. [GN] YAYYO INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of YayYo, Inc. (OTC: YAYO) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with YayYo's November 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover investor losses under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=yayyo-inc&id=2412 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 November 9, 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) defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority, and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in marketing YayYo's IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the 12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO -- in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the IPO – YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4) defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality, Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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] ZARA USA: Gillett Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATRELL GILLETT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ZARA USA, Inc. and INDITEX USA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03734-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order at a time and date to be determined by the Court: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. directing the Defendants to provide the names, last known addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, e- mail addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative class members; and 3. equitably tolling the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff contends the Defendants unlawfully deny their stock associates, sales associates, cashiers, and all other similarly situated hourly employees overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. In this regard, the Defendants have instituted a company-wide policy of paying nondiscretionary commissions, yet the Defendants have failed to calculate these payments into their Hourly Workers' overtime rates. Latrell Gillett filed the class and collective action complaint on May 14, 2020 alleging that Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA, and other violations regarding unpaid wages. Latrell Gillett Gillett was employed by Zara from March 2018 to August 17, 2019 as a "stock associate." Gillett worked at two of Zara's stores, first at their store located at 2655 Richmond Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10314, then in October 2018 he was transferred to their store located at 5100 Kings Plaza, Brooklyn, New York. Zara is an architecture & planning company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34wkUOr at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class are: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 [*] Business Leaders Call for Immunity from COVID-19 Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Shalhoub and Steven S. Vahidi, writing for Claims Journal, report that hundreds of COVID-19 lawsuits have been filed across the country and business leaders say liability immunity is necessary in order to protect against abusive and meritless lawsuits. The stakes are high. Big and small businesses alike are targets for opportunistic lawsuits. Just the mere threat of litigation may cause many businesses to remain closed or delay reopening because few businesses can afford the costs of defending a lawsuit following weeks of business disruption amid the sudden economic recession. Plaintiffs' lawyers across the country are already recruiting individuals to sue businesses by pouring millions of dollars into advertising. However, federal and state civil immunities vary greatly. Knowing if there are legal protections in your jurisdiction is just the first question when considering the steps necessary to protect businesses from a COVID-19 lawsuit. Sixteen states have enacted legislation providing some form of civil immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits for a broad range of businesses. Those states include Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. About a dozen other states have legislation pending that, if enacted, would provide varying degrees of civil immunity. On July 21, 2020, 21 governors, including those from many states that already passed some form of civil immunity, forwarded a letter to Capitol Hill seeking new federal protections to preempt the widely inconsistent and ever-changing patchwork of liability-limiting state laws. The letter states "it is our duty to provide clarity, consistency, and stability to our citizens and their businesses, and the uniformity that federal law provides is critical to America's industries that work across state lines." A uniform approach to civil immunity protections is believed to be necessary to prevent unjustified COVID-19 lawsuits and critical to an economic recovery. Who has immunity and what conduct is protected is a state-dependent inquiry. New York, Alaska, and Oklahoma provide immunity to healthcare providers but not other entities or individuals. North Carolina extends protections to essential businesses. Utah extends liability immunity to any company for injuries resulting from exposure of an individual to COVID-19 on their premises. Tennessee provides civil immunity for all premises liability, product liability, and medical liability claims occurring prior to July 1, 2022. Georgia created a rebuttable presumption that an individual assumes the risk of infection where the premises owner posts a sign warning that there is no liability for injury or death of a person entering the premise that results from contracting COVID-19. Iowa limits COVID-19 lawsuits unless a plaintiff can show a minimum injury such as a diagnosis of COVID-19 that requires inpatient hospitalization or results in death. All sixteen states providing some form of civil immunity have exceptions for wanton, reckless, willful, or intentional misconduct. Given the wide range of laws, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Texas Senator John Cornyn, are seeking national uniform COVID-19 civil liability protections in the SAFE TO WORK (Safeguarding America's Frontline Employees To Offer Work Opportunities Required to Kickstart the Economy) Act, S.4317. The proposed legislation would provide broad liability immunity for businesses, healthcare workers and facilities, educational institutions and local governments. Senator Cornyn claims that this bill "would protect those acting in good faith from being sued into oblivion while ensuring bad actors who willingly put their patients, employees, or customers in danger will still be held accountable." Republican State Attorneys General from 22 states sent a letter to Senate leaders supporting the COVID-19 civil liability protections proposed in the SAFE TO WORK Act, citing a potential "surge in frivolous civil litigation targeting well-intentioned businesses, educational institutions and non-profit organizations." The State Attorneys General acknowledge that some states have implemented civil immunities but argue "the need for a uniform national baseline of liability protection still exists." The SAFE TO WORK Act, which was introduced on July 27, 2020, would provide civil immunity to businesses, healthcare workers and facilities, educational institutions and local governments by creating procedural and substantive hurdles for plaintiffs claiming COVID-19 exposure due to negligence. With limited exceptions, the proposed law would create an exclusive federal cause of action for exposure to COVID-19, thus preempting state and tribal laws covering the same activity (unless such laws take a stricter approach). The Act would permit any covered lawsuit to be filed in or removed to a federal district court by any defendant. In addition, it would apply retroactively to all cases filed on or after December 1, 2019. To safeguard against frivolous claims, the Act would impose heightened pleading requirements. Every COVID-19 plaintiff would be required to show why they believe the defendant is the cause of exposure to COVID-19. Conversely, the plaintiff has to identify all places and persons with whom they had contact with during the 14-day-period before the onset of symptoms and show why they believe those people were not the cause of the exposure. The plaintiff would have to verify, under penalty of perjury the truthfulness of the allegations and provide certified medical records documenting their treatment. The plaintiff would also be required to provide an affidavit from a qualified non-treating physician supporting causation and injury. The Act limits the award of compensatory damages to economic losses, except that the court may award damages for noneconomic losses caused by the willful misconduct of the individual or entity. Punitive damages would also be available for willful misconduct but may not exceed the amount of compensatory damages awarded. Such limits are designed to reduce the economic incentives for plaintiffs' attorneys seeking grossly inflated damages to scare businesses into quick settlements. To add to this deterrent effect, the Act would enable a defendant to sue a plaintiff (and their attorneys) for damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees if the lawsuit is later determined to be meritless. These protections also extend to presuit demand letters seeking settlement in exchange for releasing, waiving, or otherwise not pursuing a COVID-19 claim. To limit the inevitable "bet-the-company" multi-million-dollar class action lawsuits, the Act would require that each putative class member be provided with notice and a description of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs' attorneys prosecuting the class action shall include in the notice the attorneys' hourly fees being charged or alternatively the contingency fee percentages with an estimate of the total amount that would be paid if the requested damages were to be granted. Only then could a putative plaintiff become a class member by affirmatively opting-in (instead of being automatically included in the class by the courts). Republican-led efforts have met resistance from Democrats, who say additional legal protections would encourage wrongdoing and put individuals at risk. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that Democrats would not support protections against COVID-related litigation. Pelosi stated "[e]specially now, we have every reason to protect our workers and our patients in all of this. So we would not be inclined to be supporting any immunity from liability." Such arguments have not been successful in the context of public health emergencies. Indeed, lawmakers have historically placed constraints on the types of lawsuits during public health emergencies. Federal law currently provides civil immunity to a subset of individuals and entities for damages arising from the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency and invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA). PREPA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 247d-6d (2005), provides liability immunity to health care providers and businesses such as manufacturers, distributors, and retailers operating mainly in the in the pharmaceutical and medical device spaces, for any claim under federal or state law for damage caused by, arising out of the use of pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes claims for wrongful death, personal injury, emotional damage, medical monitoring, property damage, and business interruption loss. PREPA creates a rebuttable presumption that immunity applies to covered persons engaged in recommended activities pertaining to covered countermeasures. PREPA states "[T]here shall be a rebuttable presumption that any administration or use, during the effective period of the emergency declaration . . . of a Covered Countermeasure shall have been for the category or categories of diseases, health conditions, or threats to health with respect to which such declaration was issued." Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that immunity does not attach. PREPA does not extend immunity to covered persons engaged in "willful misconduct." A plaintiff alleging willful misconduct must prove by clear and convincing evidence an "act or omission that is taken—(i) intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; (ii) knowingly without legal or factual justification; and (iii) in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit." If suit alleging willful misconduct is initiated, it "shall be filed and maintained only in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia" and requires a verified complaint and an affidavit of a non-treating physician attesting to the causal relationship between the covered countermeasure and the alleged damages. If the complaint is not verified in accordance with the act, it is subject to dismissal. While the SAFE TO WORK Act would, if it becomes law, provide new procedural and substantive protections from COVID-19 lawsuits, knowing if there is an existing applicable law is the key to successfully invoking civil immunity. Until such time as federal uniform legislation passes, COVID-19 civil immunity will continue to vary across the country and be based on the ever-changing patchwork of liability-limiting state laws. [GN] [*] Class Action Against Illinois Trade Unions Mulled Over Racism ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maudlyne Ihejirika, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that Activists called it a "No Labor Day" event, gathering with unemployed Black men and women on Sept. 7 as they unveiled appalling diversity statistics in a new report that turns a spotlight on systemic racism within trade unions, specifically, those operating in Illinois. "These statistics are shocking," said U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., at the news conference with Chicago Black United Communities, the stalwart South Side organization founded by the legendary Lu Palmer. CBUC brought the issue into prominence as far back as the 1970s by shutting down construction sites. Based on U.S. Department of Labor statistics from 1999-2018, the CBUC report finds apprenticeship programs of 62 Illinois trade unions remain mostly white — five of them completely segregated; 15 with less than 20% persons of color; and 13 with 20 to 30% persons of color. "I couldn't believe that in the year 2020, after all the marching, all the demonstrations, there are still unions that have frozen out African Americans. I had to get a magnifying glass to make sure I was seeing these numbers right," said Davis, who called for federal and state hearings, reaching out to the Department of Labor and Office of Civil Rights. "We're going to have to do something about it. Don't tell us there is no room at the inn, because if there's no room, then we just have to kick the door down and come on in anyway. I'm tired of seeing young men on my block standing around with nothing to do, because they can't get into these trade unions." Davis, who turned 79 on Sept. 6, has long battled the issue since his days as an alderman, alongside Palmer, current CBUC Chairman Eddie Read and Soft Sheen founder Ed Gardner. Such efforts advanced under former Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s, then fell off. Apprenticeship programs in Illinois for asphalt paving machine operator, rough carpenter, gas utility worker, stained-glass glazier, industrial coating painter, sign painter and sprinkling fitter are glaringly all-white, the report said. Trades like boilermaker, electric meter installer, electrician, elevator constructor, glazier, heating and air-conditioning installer, HVAC, line installer, maintenance mechanic, millwright, operating engineer, pipe fitter, plumber, sheet metal worker, structural steel worker and welder include less than 20% persons of color. Some of the unemployed at the Sept. 7 event are certified in skill trades but hit brick walls in seeking union work. Others were unable to apply for the apprenticeships that lead to living-wage careers. "I'm just disgusted, angered that we're still fighting for something we were fighting for in the '90s, when my mother was alive," said Guana Stamps, 55, of Humboldt Park, whose three sons are seeking pathways to becoming electricians or plumbers. Stamps is daughter of the late legendary activist Marion Stamps, who fought for public housing residents during the 1980s and 1990s, and in July, she testified before the City Council, saying that eradicating racism in unions would create jobs and help solve Chicago violence. "A gun won't fit in a hand that's got a hammer in it," Read said on Sept. 7. Read hopes the post-George Floyd spotlight on racism will finally force the unions to change. To help that along, CBUC is currently compiling testimony from workers denied jobs, for a potential class-action lawsuit. "An ordinance passed under Mayor Washington stipulated workers on public works jobs must be 50% city residents. We don't believe that's enforced," Read said. "All the Black children who graduated from trade programs at high schools like Dunbar, CVS and Simeon between 1999 and 2018 believed they could enter the trades. These numbers clearly show they could not. So we believe they too have standing in a class-action lawsuit." [GN] [*] Spike in Class Actions in Australia May Shape Exec Hiring ------------------------------------------------------------- InvestorDaily reports that Labor MP Andrew Leigh quizzed CBA chief executive Matt Comyn and deputy CEO David Cohen on their views around class actions and litigation funding during proceedings with the House of Representative standing committee on economics on Sept. 4. The day before, legal firm Piper Alderman had filed a class action against former CBA-aligned advice business Count Financial around conflicts of interest, fees for no service and commissions. CBA is also being targeted in a separate but somewhat similar claim from the firm, around commissions and conflicts of interest with its advisers. The CBA chief acknowledged the Piper Alderman claim, commenting there has been a "significant increase in the number of class actions more recently". But Mr Cohen also weighed in, saying while there was a place for class actions as a channel for consumer reparations, there could be consequences for companies' recruitment across their leadership. He pointed to the fact there had been "a reduction in capacity in the market" for directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance, which is used to provide executives personal liability and financial loss protection from alleged wrongful acts committed in their capacity as corporate officers. "As a result, it is getting harder for directors and officers to take out insurance," Mr Cohen said. "That seems very much [related] to the proliferation of class actions, particularly around securities class actions and non-disclosure to the market. It certainly is a downside. "That's not to say class actions don't have their place. But I think we've just got to be conscious of some of the impacts that are having an effect elsewhere." Dr Leigh fired back, saying that he wasn't sure that many customers would be sympathetic if the cost of insurance was rising because people were receiving the money to which they were entitled. But Mr Cohen said it was a "broader issue". "There is the cost of course, which ultimately is a cost that the company bears and therefore shareholders bear, but the other aspect that I think is a longer-term issue for us all, is that if D&O insurance is not available, then good talent won't be attracted to boardrooms," he said. "That in the long-term can't be a good thing." But the deputy CEO stated class actions shouldn't be banned, commenting it was more a case of ensuring the cases are launched for a purpose without unintended consequences. "Would you agree that a litigation-funded class action can often be an appropriate way of ensuring proper restitution for wronged customers?" Dr Leigh asked. "I think we've seen circumstances where that has happened, I guess," Mr Cohen stated. "The issue with funding more broadly, is whether the amount actually received by customers who have been wronged, is the appropriate amount when you compare it to the proportion received by the funder." CBA is facing a range of class actions. As detailed in its 2020 annual results report, it is facing two shareholder actions regarding its anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing breaches from 2014 to 2017, as well as defending against four claims in relation to its superannuation products. The latest super class action was filed against subsidiaries Colonial First State Investments and the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society (CMLA) in January, alleging the superannuation business did not act in the best interests of members and breached its trustee duties when taking out group insurance policies from CMLA. CBA is also one of a number of banks and brokers targeted by a class action in the US District Court, claiming a conspiracy among competitors to manipulate the BBSW (bank bill swap rate) benchmark for mutual gain. Another action, launched in June, relates to consumer credit insurance for credit cards and personal loans that were sold between 2010 and 2018. The bank is also facing two regulatory enforcement lawsuits from ASIC, both regarding superannuation products from Colonial First State. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***