/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201104.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 221 Headlines 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court 3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed AAA: Former Employees Fight For Wages in Class Action Complaint ABBVIE INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market ACCESS ONE: Faces Corbin TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Files Class Suit in Calif. Superior Court ALLERTON DELI: Ramales Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ALPINE TOWING: Chappotin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending AMERICAN FAMILY: Hesselink Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. AMERICAN FAMILY: Wilkerson Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Insurance Suit AMNET SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought APPLE INC: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Lerman Consumer Class Suit ARNOT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Off-the-Clock Work, Zona Suit Alleges ATLAS LAW: Settlement in Curtis Suit Wins Final Court OK AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Announces of Dec. 1 Deadline AWP INC: Faces Salmeri FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT AXA EQUITABLE: Malek Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action BIMBO BAKERIES: Boswell Sues Over Loaf Cake's Misleading Labels BLUE DIAMOND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. BRASKEM SA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline BRENNTAG NA: Initial Settlement Approval Sought BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators BUILDERS CONCRETE: Faces Myles Employment Suit in Calif. Super. CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class CAMPING WORLD: Court OK's Notice to Settlement Class CARE.COM INC: Skelton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CDI CORP: Straight Time Employees Class Sought CHESTER, PA: Pitney Seeks to Certify Class Action CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Says COLONY CREDIT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Conditional Cert. Bid as Moot COOLA LLC: Flaherty Alleges Deceptive Sunscreen Products Labels COSTA LINDA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA COTY INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Class Action COTY INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Class Action COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class CSAA INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims D & T PROPERTY: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime DRAKE-STATE AIR: Conditional Cert. of Installers Class Sought EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action EDUCATION DEP'T: Pratt Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers ELLIOTT PC: Vanderkodde Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ESSENTIA HEALTH: Hills Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class FENNEC PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action FIRST TEAM: Lalli Seeks to Certify 2 TCPA Classes FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Potential Unemployment Class Lawsuit FLOWERS FOODS: Maciel Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California FRITO-LAY INC: Vado Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling G4S SECURE: Underpays Security Guards, Kovacs Suit Claims GAP INC: Faces Yale Suit Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors GARRET MOTION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action GLV INC: Mullen Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit GOL LINHAS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 10 Deadline GOOGLE LLC: Carroll Sues Over Smart Mobile OS Market Monopoly GRACIE MEWS: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Suit Seeks Class Certification HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Pizarro Suit HOMELAND SECURITY: Supplement to Preliminary Injunction Bid Filed HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Joint Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Scarpino Says INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclass INNATE PHARMA: Faces Golovanov Suit Over Drop in Share Price INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir. INTERNATIONAL BONDED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Higuera Claims IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Groove Seeks Permission to Issue Notice to Dancers ISEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Foremen, Castillo Claims JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding et al. Seek to Certify Class JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend cART Antitrust Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits KSR SQUARE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Duran Says LA RISARALDA: Faces Atenco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LANCER FOOD: Court Certifies Workers Class in Gardner Suit LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Balks at Misclassification of Drivers LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 9 Deadline LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Students Seek to Certify Class LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero FLSA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D. Tex. LOYALTY BRANDS: CEO Suit Dismissed by Court of Appeals LUBRITECH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Operators, Peery Suit Claims LUFTHANSA: Conditional Cert. of Aircraft Inspectors Class Sought MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM: Website Not ADA Compliant, DelaCruz Says MAIN STREET: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls MARINE DENTAL: Faces Joung FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MATHESON TRI-GAS: Groves FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas MATSON MONEY: Lures Investors to Sham Investments, Zimmerman Says MAXIM INTEGRATED: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Cir MIDLAND CREDIT: Debiase Sues in New Jersey Over FDCA Violation MIDLAND FUNDING: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Davis Alleges MISSOURI: Court Certifies Defendant Class MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Estrada Suit Wins Conditional Class Status NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Asks Court to Decertify Class & 4 Subclasses NAVIENT CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hyland Suit NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties NEW YORK: Not Dead Yet Alleges Disabilities Act Violations NIKE INC: Saleh Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 16 Deadline NISSAN NA: Hagenbaugh Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania NOBLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS: Torres Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices OMOROVICZA COSMETICS: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D. New York ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Faces Patel Insurance Suit in Tennessee PEORIA DISPOSAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks to Certify 6 Classes PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action PRECIGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline PROGENITY INC: Abraham Fruchter Reminds of Class Action PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action PROPETRO SERVICES: Hourly Paid Workers' Suit Wins Class Status QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Seeks Class Status for FCRA Suit RESOURCE MARKETING: Class Counsel Awarded $71,545 in Fees REZA FAST FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leonardo Suit Claims ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Baclija Suit Seeks to Certify Class SHANGHAI CITY: Court Certifies Kitchen Workers Class SIMON'S AGENCY: Stephenson-Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class Status SIMPLY ORANGE: Turnipseed Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective SPECTRANETICS CORP: Certification of Settlement Class Sought SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES: Marino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Actions STATE FARM: Boobuli's Sues Over Excessive Premiums Amid COVID-19 STEMILT AG: Renteria Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. SUNPATH LTD: Morales Sues in Delaware Over Alleged TCPA Violation TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 30 Deadline TD ASSET: Class Action Against Toronto-Dominion Certified TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla. TEXAS EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Alvarez Suit THERMOFLEX WAUKEGAN: Insurers Won't Cover Class Suit Costs TORO FOODS: Leon Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action TREK RETAIL: Frias-Estrada Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. US FOODS: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action VERA LLOYD: Collective Status Sought in House Parents Action WARNER BROS: O'Connor Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling in "Danielson" WEST END VILLA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit WEST TOWN BANK: Somerville Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses WORCESTER COUNTY, MD: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Coreas Suit WRAP TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 23 Deadline WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part YOUTUBE INC: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ********* 3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court ------------------------------------------------------- 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 proceedings in the "Billing" case remains stayed. In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI Waste Systems of Alabama (BFI), and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the "Billings" case). Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case. 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: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------- 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 St. John class action remains stayed. A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case through December 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and another case (the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. case). Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. 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. AAA: Former Employees Fight For Wages in Class Action Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- glassbytes.com reports that Elizabeth Longoria and Melissa Gomez have become the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against defendant American Automobile Association (AAA). The class action complaint alleges the association violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arizona Wage Act. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, as well as attorney fees and costs. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and other customer service representatives (CSRs) were not paid for time spent working off of the clock. However the tasks performed were classified as "integral work" by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that they were "required to work 'off-the-clock' whereby they performed integral work prior to the start of their scheduled shift and while 'clocked out' without any compensation, including overtime pay" and that they were required to perform tasks that included clearing computer cookies and opening maps and customer information software on their computers prior to the start of their shifts. According to the complaint the tasks amounted to two and a half hours of work weekly in addition to their regular 40-hour workweek. "The process took about 30 minutes due to AAA's underperforming computers, [that] the CSRs often had to restart … several times," a portion of the class action complaint reads. The plaintiffs also claim AAA's timekeeping system created discrepancies, because each CSR was responsible to record their own hours worked. They also had to sign in and out of the association's phone system, which according to the complaint, allowed for instances where an employee might forgot to sign out of the phone system during a break or at the end of shift. Failure to keep an accurate time sheet resulted in the employee being out of conformance, according to the class action complaint. AAA did not respond to the allegations in the class action complaint as of press time. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of this suit. [GN] ABBVIE INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market ---------------------------------------------------------------- KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC; and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-08754 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class of direct purchasers of Bystolic during the period from July 9, 2016 until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease. Bystolic is used to treat high blood pressure and contains the active pharmaceutical ingredient nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol HCl. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to monopolize the Bystolic market in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. To prevent generic competition for Bystolic, Forest orchestrated a series of unlawful reverse-payment agreements (also known as "pay for delay" deals) with potential generic competitors. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and members of a putative direct purchaser class sustained damages by paying more for Bystolic than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct. AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago, Illinois. Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Based in Madison, New Jersey, Allergan Sales, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that provides eye care, medical aesthetics and dermatology, gastroenterology, women's health, urology, and anti-infective therapeutic diseases related products. Allergan USA, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business located in Madison, New Jersey. Forest Laboratories, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located in New York City. Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company with principal place of business located in Hamilton, Bermuda. Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located at in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, 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 - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com ACCESS ONE: Faces Corbin TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- MITCH CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS ONE CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., a Florida corporation, PRODIGY HEALTH GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-81959-AHS (S.D. Fla., October 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that he received numerous calls on his personal cell phone number ending in 7570, which was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about September 2019, from a number ending in 8652 beginning on August 26, 2020. According to the complaint, the live sales representative to whom the Plaintiff was transferred in each of the calls he answered is believed to be Defendant Prodigy, who used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express written consent. The Plaintiff asserts that he was damaged by the Defendants' unsolicited calls on his personal cell phone as his privacy was wrongfully invaded, his seclusion was intruded upon, and he has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated unwanted phone calls. Access One Consumer Health, Inc. and Prodigy Health Group LLC are companies that engage in the marketing, sale, and finance of medical service discount contracts to consumers across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and – Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ|PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Tel: (954) 889-3359 E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com mpascucci@justiceearned.com ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Files Class Suit in Calif. Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allegis Global Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as ANGELA DURAN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ADECCO USA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ALLEGIS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION; ALLEGIS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION; ADELE ALVAREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; BEELINE.COM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; BEST BUY WAREHOUSING LOGISTICS, INC., A SURRENDERED DELAWARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20587209 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 7, 2020). A case management conference is set for March 10, 2021, before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Allegis Global Solutions, Inc. is a provider of talent solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com ALLERTON DELI: Ramales Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL RAMALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERTON DELI GROCERY INC. (D/B/A ALLERTON DELI & GROCERY) and TOWFIK ALI SALEH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08901 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at the deli grocery. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, but the Defendants did not pay him appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for all the hours that he worked over 40 at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Allerton Deli Grocery Inc. owns, operates, or controls a deli grocery, located at 801 Allerton Ave., Bronx, New York 10467. Towfik Ali Saleh serves as owner, manager, principal, or agent of the corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 ALPINE TOWING: Chappotin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SANTIAGO CHAPPOTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPINE TOWING, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and LARRY J. SARAVIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24385-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 26, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a non-exempt dispatcher from on or about 2017 until on or about September 4, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked at least 72 hours per work week, but the Defendants did not compensate him for all overtime he worked. The Defendants allegedly paid him below the minimum applicable hourly wage rate and not at a rate of one and one-half times of his regular rate for all the overtime hours he worked. Alping Towing, Inc. provides towing services to automobile owners. Larry J. Saravia is a corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the activities of Alpine Towing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. Juan J. Perez, Esq. PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 1414 NW 107th Ave., Suite 302 Doral, FL 33172 Tel: (786) 650-0202 Fax: (786) 650-0200 E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com juan@peregonza.com ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of 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] ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of the Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX) between May 6, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Alteryx investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Alteryx class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.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) Alteryx was unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company’s revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about Alteryx’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.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] AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AEP investors under the federal securities laws. To join the AEP class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefitted the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 plaintiffs' appeal in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), is pending. A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging the company's cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws. On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision. 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 FAMILY: Hesselink Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as BRENT HESSELINK, individually and on behalf of aggrieved employees v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF COLUMBUS and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01161586-CU-OECXC, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02051 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful withholding of wages. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus is an insurance company based in Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Esra Acikalin Hudson, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: ehudson@manatt.com - and – Michael E. Olsen, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 371-2500 Facsimile: (714) 371-2550 E-mail: molsen@manatt.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Wilkerson Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Nanika Wilkerson filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Nanika Wilkerson v. American Family Insurance Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-02425, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff Nanika Wilkerson brought this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all persons insured under an Ohio policy issued by Defendant covering private passenger automobiles, who made a total-loss property damage claim and were not paid the full sales tax, title transfer fees and registration fees. The Plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving her 2010 Chevrolet Impala on April 21, 2016. The Plaintiff filed a claim under her Policy with Defendant. Defendant determined that there was coverage, that the cost to repair exceeded the actual cash value ("ACV") and that the vehicle was a total loss. Plaintiff concedes that the loss exceeded the ACV and that Defendant was only liable to pay the ACV. Defendant paid Plaintiff $9,479.00, the base value less the deductible. The Plaintiff alleges, however, that the Defendant's failure to pay the actual cash value of total-loss vehicles, including mandatory state and local sales tax, title fees, and registration fees, constitutes a material breach of contract with her and with every member of the putative class. The Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff's class action complaint because, by the plain language of the policy, Defendant promised to pay the ACV of the damaged property and not sales tax or fees associated with a replacement vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff's class action complaint fails to state a claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiff contends that because ACV can reasonably be interpreted to include necessary replacement costs, and because sales tax, transfer fees and registration fees are necessary replacement costs, the complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant breached the insurance contract. The appellate case is captioned as Nanika Wilkerson v. American Family Insurance Co., Case No. 20-4113, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on November 30, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due on December 30, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NANIKA WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. Daniel Richard Karon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON 700 W. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 241-8172 E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com dkaron@karonllc.com Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Adam Arceneaux, Esq. Jennifer R. Buchheit, Esq. ICE MILLER One American Square, Suite 2900 Indianapolis, IN 46282 Telephone: (317) 236-2137 E-mail: adam.arceneaux@icemiller.com jenny.buchheit@icemiller.com - and - Steven D. Forry, Esq. Lydia F. Reback, Esq. ICE MILLER 250 West Street, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 462-2700 E-mail: steven.forry@icemiller.com lydia.reback@icemiller.com AMNET SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CROCKETT and PATRICK IVLOW-PAQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMNET SERVICES, INC. And CROSSLINK WIRELESS, L.L.C., Case No. 4:20-cv-00417-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs Michael Crockett and Patrick Ivlow-Paquette ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action of, and authorizing the issuance of notice to: "all individuals who held the positions of RF Engineer and/or Drive Tester with, and who were classified by Defendant Crosslink Wireless, LLC and/or Defendant Amnet Services, Inc. as independent contractors during the last three years." AmNet is a technology-focused company engaged in providing value add services and intelligent solutions for the wireless Carriers and Enterprise customers. Crosslink is a telecommunication company. A copy of Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of a collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j2g0OB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Katherine Paulus, Esq. Ryan M. Paulus, Esq. Brittany C. Mehl, Esq. Jessica M. McDowell, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 5821 NW 72nd Street Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com b.mehl@cornerstonefirm.com j.mcdowell@cornerstonefirm.com APPLE INC: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Lerman Consumer Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Apple Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CHAIM LERMAN, ROSLYN WILLIAMS, and JAMES VORRASI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-7381, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The questions presented are: 1. Is class certification improper when individualized issues make it impossible to answer essential questions of injury on a class-wide basis under Plaintiffs' theory of liability, which here required a user-specific weighing of benefits of an operating system software update against an alleged slowdown"? 2. Is class certification improper when Plaintiffs' damages theory does not match their liability theory and can the availability of statutory damages excuse this mismatch? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 2, 2020, Plaintiffs ask the Court for an Order: 1. certifying these classes: New York Class: "all individuals and entities in New York who currently own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or iOS 8 to iOS 9"; New Jersey Class: "all individuals and entities in New Jersey who currently own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or iOS 8 to iOS 9"; 2. appointing Chaim Lerman and Roslyn Williams as Class Representatives of the New York Class and James Vorrasi as Class Representative of the New Jersey Class; and 3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs and the class bring this action against Apple Inc. for deceptive trade practices and false advertising in violation of New York General Business Law and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiffs and other owners of the iPhone 4s were harmed when their devices' software was updated to the newest version, iOS 9. The update significantly slowed down their iPhones and interfered with the normal usage of the device, leaving Plaintiffs with a difficult choice: use a slow and buggy device that disrupts everyday life or spend hundreds of dollars to buy a new phone. Apple explicitly represented to the public that iOS 9 is compatible with and supports the iPhone 4s. This is also obvious from the fact that Apple made the software available for the iPhone 4s, but not for older versions of the iPhone. The petition raises important issues concerning the rigor that the predominance inquiry requires in proposed class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite issuing a lengthy opinion, the district court did not fulfil its duty carefully to scrutinize critical evidence and precedent. In so doing, it ignored individualized injury issues that create fatal dissimilarities among class members. The court compounded those errors by misapplying damages models to bypass these individual issues. These errors in the district court's class certification order warrant immediate review. The appellate case is captioned as Lerman v. Apple Inc., Case No. 20-3627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents Chaim Lerman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; James Vorrasi; and Roslyn Williams are represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-8209 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com Defendant-Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by: Keara M. Gordon, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 E-mail: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com ARNOT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Off-the-Clock Work, Zona Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY ZONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARNOT HEALTH, INC., ARNOT OGDEN MEDICAL CENTER, ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, and QUEST STAFFING GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-06902 (W.D.N.Y., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated nurses for their off-the-clock work and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt traveling nurse in New York for six years. Arnot Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company based in Elmira, New York. Arnot Ogden Medical Center is a 256-bed tertiary medical facility located in Elmira, New York. St. Joseph's Hospital is a provider of skilled nursing care, out-patient rehabilitation, and in-patient behavioral science services located in Elmira, New York. Quest Staffing Group, Inc. is a Texas-based company that connects traveling nurses with employers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and – Joshua Konecky, Esq. Leslie Joyner, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. Sarah McCracken, Esq. 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com smccracken@schneiderwallace.com ATLAS LAW: Settlement in Curtis Suit Wins Final Court OK -------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD CURTIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ATLAS LAW, PLLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), has won final court approval. The final settlement approval hearing was held September 29. The Parties had asked the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class for settlement purposes; 2. granting final approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the Class for final settlement purposes. On April 2, 2020, the Court conditionally certified a settlement Class in this action and preliminary approved the Parties' proposed settlement agreement. After providing the other 733 Class members with notice of the proposed settlement, no objections have been received, no Class member has requested exclusion from the Class, and 46 Class members submitted valid claims. If the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, the Settlement Fund of $3,500.00 will be equally divided among the 46 Class members who submitted claims--with each receiving a check for $76.08, the suit says. This action has been brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent him its initial written communication seeking to collect the Debt. The Plaintiff is a consumer alleged to owe money arising from mobile home rental fees. The Defendant is a law firm alleged to be a "debt collector" under the FDCPA based on its consumer debt collection activities. A copy of the Joint Motion for Class Certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303xseR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 fax E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale T. Golden, Esq. GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC 201 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, FL 33609-2303 Telephone: (813) 251-5500 Facsimile: (813) 251-3675 E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Announces of Dec. 1 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") (NYSE: ACB) between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Aurora securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit ACB Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing] an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited preliminary fiscal fourth-quarter 2020 results." Among other things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to $1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced fixed asset impairment charges [were] now expected to be up to $90 million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand with near term expectations for demand." On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63% to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 1, 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 Aurora securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/auroracannabisinc-acb-shareholder-class-action-stock-fraud-lawsuit-322/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] AWP INC: Faces Salmeri FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY SALMERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AWP INC., D/B/A AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02412 (N.D. Ohio, October 23, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid non-exempt traffic control specialist since March 2017. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were paid shift differential wages for working on shifts that started in the evening, and safety bonuses if they worked enough hours and had no preventable injuries and accident. However, the Defendant failed to include the shift differential wags and bonuses paid to the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees in their regular rate of pay in the calculation of their overtime compensation. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees their lawfully earned overtime wages at the proper rate at one and one-half times of their regular rate of ay as required by the FLSA. AWP Inc. provides temporary traffic control services at work sites throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rocketfeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com AXA EQUITABLE: Malek Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., et al. The case is styled as Joel J. Malek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leonard Feigenbaum; Does 1 through 1000; and AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-04885-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company offers term, universal, and whole life insurance services, as well as provides retirement and investment products. AXA Equitable Life Insurance serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Alan Frank, Esq. FRANK LLP 305 Broadway, Ste 700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) investors that acquired shares between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020. Investors have until August 7, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. Baidu founded iQIYI in 2010. Baidu currently owns an approximately 56% controlling interest in iQIYI. After the market closed on August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission sought "the production of certain financial and operating records dating from January 1, 2018, as well as documents related to certain acquisitions and investments that were identified in a report issued by short-seller firm Wolfpack Research in April 2020." Baidu's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell $7.83 per ADS, or 6%, on this news, to close at $116.74 per ADS on August 14, 2020, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] BIMBO BAKERIES: Boswell Sues Over Loaf Cake's Misleading Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA BOSWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08923 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading advertising and labeling of its loaf cake product under the Entenmann's brand. The representations of the product as "All Butter Loaf Cake" are misleading because butter is not the sole shortening ingredient in the product, as shown by the small print of the ingredient list. Though the product contains butter, it also contains soybean oil, a shortening ingredient. Moreover, the product contains artificial flavor, which provides artificial butter flavoring, which gives the impression that it contains more butter than it does by increasing the butter taste. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive practice, the product is sold at a premium price compared to other similar products represented in an appropriate manner, the suit says. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo, with a principal place of business in Horsham, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 260-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com BLUE DIAMOND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-08772 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Web site, www.bluediamondstore.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Web site equal to sighted individuals. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blue Diamond Growers is an almond growing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradshaw International, Inc. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bradshaw International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08379-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Bradshaw International, Inc. is an American manufacturer of food service equipment, headquartered in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The company owns the brand goodcook and has a partnership with Mr. Clean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BRASKEM SA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or "the Company") (NYSE:BAK) 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 May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were encouraged to contact the firm before October 26, 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. Braskem operated its salt mines in an unsafe manner resulting in significant danger to the approximately 2,000 properties in the nearby area. The Company's disregard for safe operations put it at risk for remedial liabilities to these property's owners, including permanent closure of a salt mine. The Company downplayed the seriousness of its liabilities in this regard. 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 Braskem, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] BRENNTAG NA: Initial Settlement Approval Sought ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYANT BUESCHER, CLARENCE IANNINE, CLARESSA WALLACE, and CRAIG COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., and BRENNTAG INVESTMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00147-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement entered into with the Defendants; 2. preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class; 3. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the Settlement to the proposed Settlement Class (the Notice Plan); and 4. scheduling a Fairness Hearing. Brenntag distributes chemicals globally. It serves adhesives, coatings, elastomers, sealants, ceramics, and chemical compounding. A copy of the Court's Order Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/340di6u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY GOFF, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BRUNEL RESOURCES, INC. And RIO TINTO SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03536 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime at the rate of time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class Members overtime pay at the rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he worked a total of approximately 125 hours and was paid an hourly rate of $45.50 per hour for all hours worked. He worked overtime hours during this time period but was not paid any additional premium for those hours worked over 40 in a week. The Plaintiff Jeffery Goff is an individual residing in Herriman, Utah. The Class Members are all current and former Construction Coordinators who worked for Defendants and who were paid an hourly rate of pay without overtime pay. Brunel is a staffing company that places workers with its client companies in the oil and gas, mining, engineering, manufacturing, and IT industries across the U.S. Rio Tinto is a client of Brunel that primarily operates in the mining industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. Courtney B. Warren, 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 cwarren@hftrialfirm.com BUILDERS CONCRETE: Faces Myles Employment Suit in Calif. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Builders Concrete, Inc., et al. The case is styled as DAMMION MYLES, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BUILDERS CONCRETE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; CONCRETE HOLDING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., CORPORATION; VIKING READY MIX CO., INC., A CORPORATION; and NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-102375 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Oct. 9, 2020). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." A case management conference is set for April 12, 2021 before Judge Stephen D. Schuett. Builders Concrete Inc. was founded in 1989. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of portland cement concrete.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL, ESQ. CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY JEAN JOHNSTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CAMINO NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.1:19-cv-02742-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of: All non-excluded persons or entities: i. who received working interest, royalty, and/or overriding royalty payments from Defendant for oil and/or gas proceeds from oil and/or gas wells located in the State of Oklahoma with check dates up to and including May 31, 2020. ii. The persons or entities excluded from the class are: (1) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates"; 2. preliminarily approving the Settlement; 3. appointing herself as Class Representative for the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice; 6. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; 7. appointing JND Legal Administration as Escrow Agent; and 8. setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant worth $2.1 million in cash value for the Plaintiff's claim on statutory interest owed for late payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under Oklahoma law. The Plaintiff initiated this action on September 9, 2019, by filing the Original Class Action Complaint in this Court, in which she alleged that the Defendant violated Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act, by failing to pay statutory interest owed on the payment of oil-and-gas proceeds made outside of the timelines set out in the PRSA. Camino Natural operates as a natural gas company. The Company explores and develops deposits of crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify settlement class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34gxR00 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan W. Rauchway, Esq. David Holman, Esq. Molly Kokesh, Esq. DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS 1550 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 892 9400 Facsimile: 303.893.1379 E-mail: jon.rauchway@dgslaw.com david.holman@dgslaw.com molly.kokesh@dgslaw.com CAMPING WORLD: Court OK's Notice to Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY A. MILLS and MARY F. MILLS, v. CAMPING WORLD RV SALES a/k/a CAMPING WORLD OF NEW JERSEY-LAKEWOOD, MEYER'S RV CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02283-TJB (D.N.J.), the Court has entered an order: 1. approving notice to be sent to the proposed settlement class: all persons who purchased or leased a motor vehicle from the Defendant at any time on or after January 16, 2012, the day six years prior the date the initial Complaint was filed who: (a) received from Camping World a sales document with terms the same or similar to the terms in the Purchase Agreement provided to Plaintiffs; and/or (b) were charged a "Documentation Fee" or similar fee for documentary services where the sales document used in the transaction did not set forth in writing the price for each specific documentary service performed. Specifically excluded from the Classes are any judges or magistrates involved in this matter. 2. appointing interim counsel; and 3. scheduling fairness hearing The Court has considered the benefits that the settlement will confer on the Settlement Class, which are: -- The Defendant will pay total payment of $1,603,100.00 into a Common Fund which will result in a total payment of $575.00 per Settlement Class Member account. -- Members of the Settlement Class shall receive a total payment of $575.00 per Settlement Class Member account. -- After the fees and costs referred to below each Settlement Class Member will receive a check in the amount of approximately $367.23 2 per account. A copy of the Court's Order approving notice to be sent to proposed settlement class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kJSbMQ at no extra charge.[CC] CARE.COM INC: Skelton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY SKELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARE.COM, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02086-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants sent numerous unsolicited text messages on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -7330 on or about August 19, 2020 in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services. The Defendants allegedly used its SMS Blasting Platform, which is an automatic telephone dialing system, in transmitting text messages without obtaining "prior express consent" from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed by the acts of the Defendants causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy. Care.com, Inc. is a service company that connects consumers with caregivers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CDI CORP: Straight Time Employees Class Sought ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN C. VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, v. CDI CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01044-TR (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification and authorizing notice to be sent (via mail, email, and text message) to: "all current and former employees of CDI who were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a single workweek (or "straight time for overtime") at any time in the past 3 years (Straight Time Employees). 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms, as well as the proposed email, text, and phone scripts; 3. authorizing his proposed notice methods; 4. directing CDI to produce each Straight Time Employee's contact information to Plaintiffs' within 10 days; and 5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time Employees to join the case. A copy of the Vasquez's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/368xgyK at no extra charge.[CC] CDI is a privately-held multinational company providing engineering, information technology and staffing services to clients in a range of industries including energy, chemical, aerospace, defense, transportation and financial services. Attorneys for the plaintiff & putative class members are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 710-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES PC 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-3500 Facsimile: (215) 578-3501 E-mail: tsweeny@messalaw.com CHESTER, PA: Pitney Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENARD PITNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF CHESTER, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-00799-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of: "all persons who have been (1) detained in a holding cell at the City of Chester Police Department (2) as a result of being arrested and/or charged with summary offenses, civil enforcement offenses, child support enforcement arrears, traffic offenses, petty disorderly offenses, disorderly persons offenses, misdemeanors, contempt proceedings, failure to pay financial fines, penalties and/or costs in like matters as set forth above; and/or failure to appear at any court proceedings on like matters as set forth above; and (3) who were strip-searched upon their entry into detainment and/or custody and/or were strip-searched prior to an appearance before a judge or judicial officer who had the authority to release the person as referred to above from detainment and/or custody and (4) the strip-search was conducted and/or performed according to the City of Chester's blanket strip search policy, that is, without reasonable suspicion based on objective and articulable facts that the aforesaid person or persons possessed weapons and/or contraband. The class includes persons who were strip searched on or after February 25, 2017 and extends to the date on which the City of Chester and the Chester Police Department are enjoined and/or cease to strip-search the class of persons referred to above." This civil action alleges a blatant violation of plaintiff Kenard Pitney's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. On May 18, 2018, Mr. Pitney was the subject of a questionable arrest by defendant City of Chester's Police Department ("CPD") while he was a patron at Harrah's Casino in Chester, Pennsylvania. Chester is a city in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. With a population of 33,972 at the 2010 census it is the largest city in Delaware County. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33QOnCD at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class are: Patrick Geckle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK G. GECKLE, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-735-3326 - and - Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Edward S. Goldis, Esq. Andrew K. Mitnick, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215 567-8300 CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CIRCLE GRAPHICS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08777-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Web site, www.canvasondemand.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Web site equal to sighted individuals. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Circle Graphics, Inc. is a photo printing company, and owns and operates the said Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal COLONY CREDIT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. 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. CLNC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-credit-real-estate-inc-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1 Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. (NYSE:CLNC) This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Colony Credit pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc., NorthStar Real Estate Income Trust, Inc., and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. on or about February 1, 2018 (the "Merger"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 9, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-credit-real-estate-inc-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) the credit quality of certain of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger, and were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii) certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid; (iii) as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the Registration Statement; (v) as a result, the Company's financial condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations, and prospect 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. According to the filed complaint, (i) the credit quality of certain of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger, and were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii) certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid; (iii) as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the Registration Statement; (v) as a result, the Company's financial condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations, and prospect 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] CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Conditional Cert. Bid as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MENTH, v. CONCERTO HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-11514-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action and to issue notice, as moot: "all current and former salaried, non-managerial employees who worked for Concerto Healthcare, Inc., who performed utilization review duties (referred to as Utilization Management Nurses or "UM Nurses"), at any location and at any time after June 10, 2017." The Plaintiff brought this case against the Defendant alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ConcertoHealth is a risk-bearing provider group that delivers high touch, individualized field-based care to persistently high cost and at-risk populations. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m4pf2H at no extra charge.[CC] COOLA LLC: Flaherty Alleges Deceptive Sunscreen Products Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- NORAH FLAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COOLA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2020) seeks legal or equitable remedies from the illegal actions of the Defendant in violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices. The complaint alleges that the Defendant intentionally labeled its sunscreen products with false and misleading claims that they provide full spectrum infrared light protection, when the Defendant's products do not provide full spectrum infrared light protection. By making false and misleading claims about the protections provided by its products, the Defendant impaired the Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of products she chose to buy. As a result, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about her consumer products as required by Illinois and federal law. Coola LLC manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes sunscreen throughout Illinois and the United States under the brand name "Coola."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steven G. Perry, Esq. David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (224) 218-0875 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com dlevin@toddflaw.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 COTY INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on Sept. 8 disclosed 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 Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY) common stock between October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors had until November 3, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Coty is one of the world's largest beauty companies. The Company operates three divisions: Coty Consumer Beauty ("Consumer Beauty") which focuses on color cosmetics, retail hair coloring and styling products, body care and mass fragrances sold primarily in the mass retail channels; Coty Luxury ("Coty Luxury") which focuses on prestige fragrances and skincare brands; and Coty Professional Beauty ("Coty Professional") which focuses on servicing nail salon owners and professionals in both hair and nail. On the first day of the Class Period, October 3, 2016, Coty issued a press release announcing the completion of its blockbuster merger with The Proctor & Gamble Company's fine fragrance, color cosmetics, salon professional and hair color and certain styling businesses ("P&G Specialty Beauty Business") for $12.5 billion to scale up its beauty business. In the press release, defendant Becht, Chairman of Coty's Board of Directors, confirmed that " . . . we now have a much improved team, structure and culture to make the vision of this merger a reality." On July 1, 2019, Coty announced the write down of about $3 billion in value of brands acquired from P&G as part of a four-year restructuring plan, confirming that the P&G Specialty Beauty Business had been overvalued. On this news, Coty's stock price dropped $1.94, or over 14%, from an opening price of $13.53 per share on July 1, 2019 to a closing price of $11.59 per share. On November 18, 2019, Coty announced another beauty brand acquisition – a 51% majority stake in Kylie Cosmetics for $600 million in order to "build and further develop Kylie's existing beauty business," which "realized an estimated $177M net revenues for the trailing twelve months (TTM)." Kylie Jenner was described "as the youngest-ever self-made billionaire on the cover of Forbes Self-Made Billionaire issue in August 2018." But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner "has been inflating the size and success of her business. For years." -- revealing that defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition. On this news, Coty's stock price fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May 29, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Coty's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Coty common stock during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] COTY INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminded investors that they had until November 3, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Coty, Inc. (NYSE: COTY), if they purchased the Company's shares between October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Coty and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you 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 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by November 3, 2020. About the Lawsuit Coty and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the acquisitions of P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics (ii) as a result, the Company had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (iii) the Company did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (iv) as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On this news, the price of Coty's shares plummeted. The case is Crystal Garrett-Evans, et al. v. Coty Inc., et al., 20-cv-07277. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 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. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Coty Inc. ("Coty" or "the Company") (NYSE: COTY) 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 October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were encouraged to contact the firm before November 3, 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. Despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions. As a result, the Company overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics. 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 Coty, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 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 who purchased or acquired the securities of Credit Acceptance Corp. ("Credit Acceptance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CACC) from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Credit Acceptance Corporation securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Credit Acceptance Corp. Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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. 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. Additionally, the lawsuit 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. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 1, 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 Credit Acceptance securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/creditacceptancecorp-cacc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-298/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. [GN] CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WERONIKA RECHUL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CRISP MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-61042-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a proposed class; "all persons or entities within the United States who (a) received at least one call from Boomsourcing; (b) made using a pre-recorded voice; (c) to their cellular telephone numbers; (d) as a result of a purported visit to https://medicareguide.us/ and (f) as part of the "medicare-plus-card" and "medicare-discount-card-v8" calling campaigns"; 2. appointing the Plaintiff to serve as the class representative; 3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Paronich Law, P.C. to serve as class counsel; and 4. directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a reasonable time. The Plaintiff contends that this case is well-suited to class certification because it involves a single type of telemarketing calls (prerecorded voice calls) made by a single third party (Boomsourcing) to telephone numbers Crisp Marketing purportedly obtained from a single webpage. The central and determinative issues in this case will be whether Crisp Marketing had prior express written consent, as defined under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, to make the calls. Crisp Marketing works with other companies to promote their products. To promote these other companies' products, Crisp Marketing works with a series of vendors, including Boomsourcing, LLC, to make pre-recorded calls to consumers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/348aF45 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed class, are: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26 th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: 508 221 1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com CSAA INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC v. CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, CSAA AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24325 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and the proposed class members under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents. As a result of the 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 the law. The Defendants have also failed to reimburse the 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 Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the suit says. Based in Walnut Creek, California, CSAA Insurance Exchange and CSAA Affinity Insurance Company are companies that issue property and casualty policies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, 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 mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Francesco A. Zincone, Esq. Eduardo Bertran Esq. J. Alfredo Armas, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com alfred@armaslaw.com D & T PROPERTY: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, JOSHUA MARTIN, and JEFF SPURGEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D & T PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC and FLOYD ERVIN DYESS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01241-STA-JAY (W.D. Tenn., October 26, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as property workers at the Defendants' Jackson, Tennessee location. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but they were not compensated by the Defendants for any hours worked as required by the FLSA. D & T Property Management, LLC engages in managing real estate. Floyd Ervin Dyess is the owner. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. Justin G. Day, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com justin@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Jason T. Brown, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) JTB-LAWS E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com DRAKE-STATE AIR: Conditional Cert. of Installers Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD DILL for himself, and all others similarly situated, v. DRAKE-STATE AIR, INC. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00373-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act class, on behalf of: "all similarly situated installers includes any installer who worked for the Defendants from September 8, 2017 to present, and who, in one or more workweeks, was not paid all overtime owed"; and 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs. Mr. Ronald Dill filed this action to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself and other HVAC installers who worked for the Defendants Drake is located in Eaton, Ohio, and provides HVAC installations and services to customers located throughout the greater Dayton, Ohio area. Defendant Chrismer is a part-owner of Drake, who has significant control of the day-to-day operations of the company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HoOCNE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery, Road, Suite 11A Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 834-8254 Facsimile: (513) 834-8253 E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminded 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 Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Kodak Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted Defendant Continenza and several other Company 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 DFC 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, Defendant 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. On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the "unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Continenza. The article stated that according to "a person familiar with the arrangement," the option award "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." Further, "[t]he decision to grant Continenza options was never formalized or made into a binding agreement, which is why it was not disclosed previously." Concurrently market observers questioned why Kodak, historically a technology company, had been selected for a DPA loan related to pharmaceutical supplies over companies with more experience in the pharmaceutical industry. In reaction to this news, Kodak's stock price plummeted $6.91 per share to close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020 -- a decline of over 34% per share. On August 5, 2020, several Congressional committees sent a joint letter to Defendant Continenza seeking documents about the loan, insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other company executives as a result of this loan" which raised "questions that must be thoroughly examined." The committees also sent a document request to the DFC's Chief Executive Officer on the same day, inquiring about the Kodak loan, which the letter noted was "an organization that was on the brink of failure in 2012 and was unsuccessful in its previous foray into pharmaceutical manufacturing." 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%, from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on August 10, 2020. 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. 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 Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/eastmankodakcompany-kodk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-290/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] EDUCATION DEP'T: Pratt Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMIA PRATT, ALICIA DAVIS, and BRITTANY SAULSBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MARISOL CASTILLO and HEATHER BIANCHI, v. ELISABETH DeVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01501-TNM (D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all people who have taken out a Direct Loan or a Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) loan to pay for a program of higher education, who have asserted a borrower defense claim, who have received or will receive by the time of entry of final judgment in this action a decision applying the partial relief methodology announced by the Department of Education on December 10, 2019 (and revised for accuracy, clarity, and technical corrections on August 4, 2020) ("Partial Relief Rule's methodology") to their borrower defense claim, and who have not and will not be granted full relief from their federal student loans under the Partial Relief Rule's methodology." Excluded from the class are people from whom the Department of Education has or will have by the time of entry of final judgment in this action accepted for reconsideration under 34 C.F.R. section 685.222(e)(5)(i) a request for reconsideration of the relief decision. Also excluded from this class are members of the class certified in Calvillo Manriquez v. DeVos, No. 17-cv-7210 (N.D. Cal.). On June 9, 2020, Ms. Pratt, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Saulsberry, along with borrowers with pending borrower defense applications, filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that the Partial Relief Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and was adopted without procedures required by law. Further, they allege that decisions applying the Partial Relief Rule are themselves arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, because they are based on a rule that is unlawful. The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3clBFj5 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class are: Adina H. Rosenbaum, Esq. Adam R. Pulver, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th St. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 E-mail: arosenbaum@citizen.org - and - Michael N. Turi, Esq. Eileen M. Connor, Esq. Toby R. Merrill, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 122 Boylston Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 522-3003 E-mail: mturi@law.harvard.edu ELLIOTT PC: Vanderkodde Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VANDERKODDE, ANITA BECKLEY, SUSAN BUCK, RUBY ROBINSON, and RITCHIE SWAGERTY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT, P.C., BERNDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00203-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of these classes: ELLIOTT CLASS: "A class comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court; (c) in an action in which a written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than 3.848%"; BERNDT CLASS "A class comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court; (c) in an action in which a written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than 3.848%"; MIDLAND SUBCLASS "A subclass comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court in favor of Midland Funding LLC; (c) in an action in which a written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than 3.848%"; LVNV SUBCLASS "A subclass comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court in favor of LVNV Funding LLC; (c) in an action in which a written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than 3.848%." Alternatively, should the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims, the Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the definition as to each class specified above as follows: changing the date of "April 11, 2011" to "April 11, 2016," and certify each class accordingly. This case is a putative class action, based on the core theory that the Defendants' violations of law as to Plaintiffs were part of a routine, systematic, and pervasive practice of calculating judgment interest at excessive rates and communicating the resulting excessive amounts to consumers and courts throughout the State of Michigan. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act, and the Michigan Occupational Code. Mary Jane Elliott is law firm specializing in debt collection. Berndt & Associates has a law office located in Warren, Michigan. Midland is a debt buyer of unpaid debt. Encore Capital is a global specialty finance company with operations and investments across North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America. LVNV is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Tkkdn at no extra charge.[CC] ESSENTIA HEALTH: Hills Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned MARY HILLS Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. ESSENTIA HEALTH, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. Ciox Health LLC, Third Party Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00907-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff Mary Hills asks the Court for an order certifying a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The proposed class covers persons who have been illegally charged various basic, retrieval and/or certification fees in violation of Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets all of the requirements of Rule 23 necessary to certify classes that will allow Wisconsin patients to recover the fees that the Defendant Essentia has directly or indirectly illegally charged and collected and be granted such other relief they may be entitled to under Wisconsin law. Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. As of 2014 it has over 12,000 employees, including 1,500 physicians and credentialed practitioners. Ciox Health is a healthcare information management company with headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iTK1A9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq. WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C. State Bar No. 1033091 933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311 Milwaukee, WI 53226 Telephone: (414) 774-7330 Facsimile: (414) 774-7670 E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com - and - J. Craig Jones, Esq. JONES AND HILL, LLC 131 Highway 165 South Oakdale, LA 71463 Telephone: (318) 335-1333 Facsimile: (318) 335-1934 E-mail: craig@joneshilllaw.com - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM, LLC 1400 S Charles St. Baltimore MD 21230 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 Facsimile: (301) 620-1018 E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com FENNEC PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) 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 February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were encouraged to contact the firm before November 2, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Fennec's production facilities for its PEDMARK product candidate failed to maintain good manufacturing practices. This failure was likely to delay the regulatory approval of PEDMARK. Based on this news, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Fennec, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC) securities between February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Chapman v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 20-cv-00812. The Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit charges Fennec Pharmaceuticals, its CEO Rostislav Raykov and CFO Robert Andrade with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Fennec Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Fennec Pharmaceuticals 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 Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than Monday, November 2, 2020. Fennec Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous injection for the prevention of hearing loss associated with certain chemotherapy treatments in pediatric cancer patients. The Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, Fennec Pharmaceuticals' sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fennec Pharmaceuticals' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 11, 2020, Fennec Pharmaceuticals disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding Fennec Pharmaceuticals' New Drug Application for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec Pharmaceuticals'] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK." On this news, Fennec Pharmaceuticals' share price fell more than 34%, 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. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Michael Albert, 800-449-4900 malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] FIRST TEAM: Lalli Seeks to Certify 2 TCPA Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARAMJIT LALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE-ORANGE COUNTY, a California corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00027-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 26, 2021 for an order certifying the following classes: Prerecorded No Consent Class: "all persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more of Defendant's realtors called or texted, (2) for substantially the same reason Defendant's realtors called or texted Plaintiff, (3) using a prerecorded voice message, (4) whose phone numbers Defendant's realtors obtained from Vulcan7 or RedX, and (5) who are identified by Plaintiff's expert Aaron Woolfson"; and Autodialed Call No Consent Class: "all persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) one or more of Defendant's realtors called, (2) for substantially the same reason Defendant's realtors called or texted Plaintiff, (3) using Vulcan7, (4) whose phone numbers Defendant's realtors obtained from Vulcan7, and (5) who are identified by the Plaintiff's expert Aaron Woolfson." In this case, Plaintiff Lalli seeks certification of classes in connection with two different Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims: one under the TCPA's autodialer provision and one under the TCPA's prerecorded voice provision. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's expert has determined that, between January 2016 and September 2020, First Team's agents made more than 100,000 calls to telephone numbers they obtained from Vulcan7 or RedX using the dialers supplied by Vulcan7 or RedX and/or a prerecorded voice. These calls included 5,658 calls transmitting pre-recorded messages, including texted video messages, which were delivered to 4,977 unique numbers, including 3,144 unique wireless numbers, for which Vulcan7 was the source of the numbers and for whom First Team and its agents do not otherwise claim to have obtained consent to call. First Team is a real estate brokerage that provides realty services to property buyers and sellers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/331lO61 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Rachel E. Kaufman, esq. Avi R. Kaufman, esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com kaufman@kaufmanpa.com FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Potential Unemployment Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- miami.cbslocal.com relates that in at least an initial win for the state and Deloitte Consulting, a Leon County circuit judge has dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit stemming from major problems with Florida's unemployment-compensation system amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But the case might not be finished: Circuit Judge John Cooper gave attorneys for the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which would refuel the legal fight. Cooper's order came more than three months after a hearing in which lawyers for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and Deloitte argued that he should dismiss the case. The three-page order did not detail reasons for the dismissal, saying only that Cooper "grants the motion to dismiss on the grounds argued by the defendants." Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in April after hundreds of thousands of coronavirus-caused unemployment claims overwhelmed the state's online CONNECT system. The Department of Economic Opportunity runs the unemployment system, while Deloitte was a contractor that helped put CONNECT in place in 2013. The lawsuit made a series of allegations, including negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Cooper in May also rejected a preliminary injunction that plaintiffs sought to force the Department of Economic Opportunity to "fix" the system. During the June hearing, Cooper indicated he expected the dispute to eventually be appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal. He also seemed to be considering dismissing at least parts of the case but allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint — a move known legally as dismissing a case "without prejudice." "Do you want to get up to the DCA quicker, or do you want to drag it out?" Cooper said at one point to plaintiffs' attorney Marie Mattox. Cooper wrote in this week's order that the plaintiffs' attorneys had requested an opportunity to file an amended complaint if he dismissed the lawsuit. He gave them 30 days to file an amended complaint. "If the plaintiffs fail to amend the complaint within the time set by this order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further hearing or notice," he wrote. During the June hearing, Department of Economic Opportunity attorney Daniel Nordby argued, in part, that the lawsuit should be dismissed because of the constitutional separation of powers between judges and the executive branch. He said decisions by the department "involve a great deal of discretion" that cannot be second-guessed by judges under the separation of powers. But Mattox said the department is required by law to properly maintain the unemployment system and that three audits said the system needed changes before the problems this year. She said properly maintaining and operating the system was not a discretionary duty. The state scrambled to take steps to shore up the system after the problems this spring, but many people who lost jobs when the pandemic shuttered businesses remained frustrated as they tried to get benefits. Gov. Ron DeSantis even called the system a "jalopy." Deloitte has sought to distance itself from the problems, saying in court documents it has not been involved with the CONNECT system for more than five years. Deloitte attorney John Boudet during the June hearing disputed the legal arguments made by the plaintiffs, while acknowledging the frustrations of many people who sought benefits. "I don't mean to minimize them in the least," Boudet said. "But this lawsuit is not the right place to address those concerns." But when Cooper asked whether the state or Deloitte was at fault for the problems, Mattox quickly responded, "It's both." [GN] FLOWERS FOODS: Maciel Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MACIEL, and individual, and MACIEL DISTRIBUTION, Inc., a California Corporation, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, FLOWERS FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-03814, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02059-AJB-BLM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought as a collective action under the Federal Labor Standards Act as well as a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 class action based on the California Constitution's prohibitions on usury. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for fraud, lost wages (including overtime), unfair competition, as well as an injunction putting an end to the Defendants' bait-and-switch "independent distributor" business model. He also seeks reimbursement for business expenses and illegal deductions. Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer and marketer of packed bakery food. The Company operates 47 bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and tortillas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq. Ethan Thomas Litney, Esq. Shaun Andrew Markley, Esq. Alex Michael Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org - and - Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Francis Lawrence Tobin, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, LLC 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 - and - Jared Lee Palmer, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 369-3553 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: jared_palmer@ogletree.com FRITO-LAY INC: Vado Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling -------------------------------------------------------- Jesika Vado, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frito-Lay Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02055-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's practice of mislabeling its potato crisps product in violation of the California Business & Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant markets, distributes, and sells potato crisps under its "Ruffles" brand labeled as "Baked Lays Cheddar & Sour Cream Flavor" potato crisps that contains false representations including both words and images seen on the front label of the package. Ms. Vado claims that the "Sour Cream" flavor within the mislabeled product is produced and/or affected by artificial diacetyl, an artificial flavoring compound. Accordingly, she added that the "Sour Cream" flavor in the product is not "natural." As a result of this mislabeling and the misrepresentations contained therein, the Plaintiff and California consumers were convinced to and did pay a premium to purchase what they believed is and was a naturally flavored product, to the benefit and profit of the Defendant, the suit says. Frito-Lay Inc. is a subsidiary of multinational food conglomerate PepsiCo that manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells a variety of snacks, crackers, dips, and other products for the wholesale and retail markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keia J. Atkinson, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 501 West Broadway, Ste. 1260 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: kja@classactionlaw.com jjn@classactionlaw.com G4S SECURE: Underpays Security Guards, Kovacs Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE KOVACS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03180-KMT (D. Colo., October 23, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to challenge its unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and none-exempt security guard at a SAP America location in Colorado Springs, claims that the Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated security guards, specifically for the time they spent obtaining keys, radios, and briefing data on events that occurred or were expected to occur at the location. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay them overtime at one and one-half times of their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is an American security services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (234) 401-9286 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 251-4157 Fax: (214) 261-5159 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com GAP INC: Faces Yale Suit Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER YALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC. and CLICKTALE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07575 (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The case arises from the Defendants' alleged wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors, including the Plaintiff, to Defendant Gap's Websites. The wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the Websites, are used by the Defendants to secretly observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), in real time. Neither the Plaintiff nor any Class member consented to being wiretapped on the Websites, nor to have their communications recorded and shared with Clicktale. Any purported consent that was obtained was ineffective because (i) the wiretapping began from the moment Plaintiff and Class members accessed the Websites; (ii) the Privacy Policy did not disclose the wiretapping or Clicktale; and (iii) the hyperlink to the Privacy Policy is inconspicuous and therefore insufficient to provide notice. The Gap, Inc. is an American worldwide clothing and accessories retailer, with its principal place of business at 2 Folsom Street, San Francisco, California. Clicktale, Inc. is a marketing software-as-a-service (SaaS) company, with its principal place of business at Atrium Tower, 2 Jabotinsky Street, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com breed@bursor.com GARRET MOTION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Husson v. Garrett Motion Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-07992) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Garret Motion Inc. ("Garrett" or the "Company") (NYSE: GTX, OTC: GTXMQ) securities between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). POR Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1 Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR) POR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2020 - August 24, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 2, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Portland General Electric Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) PGE personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3)as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Garrett 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/garrett-motion-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. Garrett designs, manufactures and sells turbocharger, electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies for original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In October 2018, the Company formed as a spin-off of the Transportation Systems business of Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"). On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, the Company disclosed that its "leveraged capital structure poses significant challenges to its overall strategic and financial flexibility and may impair its ability to gain or hold market share in the highly competitive automotive supply market, thereby putting Garrett at a meaningful disadvantage relative to its peers." Garrett further stated that its "high leverage is exacerbated by significant claims asserted by Honeywell against certain Garrett subsidiaries under the disputed subordinated asbestos indemnity and the tax matters agreement." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.04, or 44%, to close at $3.84 per share on August 26, 2020, thereby damaging investors. On September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On September 21, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") announced that it would commence proceedings to delist Garrett's stock from the NYSE after the Company's disclosure that it had filed for bankruptcy. On this news, the Company's stock began trading over-the-counter and closed at $1.76 per share on September 22, 2020, a 12% decline from the closing price on September 18, 2020. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, due to its agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell for certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett was saddled with an unsustainable level of debt; (2) that, as a result, Garrett had a highly leveraged capital structure that posed significant challenges to its overall strategic and financial flexibility; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Garrett's ability to gain or hold market share was impaired; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to seek bankruptcy protection; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Garrett securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice 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 H. 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] GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of the Genius Brands International, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS) between March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Genius Brands investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Genius Brands class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements regarding: (1) the Kartoon Channel app; (2) Nickelodeon's claimed broadcast expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; and (3) the Company's growth potential and overall prospects as a company. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 16 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Genius Brands International, Inc. ("Genius" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:GNUS) 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 March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020. The Firm also encouraged investors 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 their rights free of charge. The Firm can also be reached 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. Genius misled investors about the Kartoon Channel app. The Company also made misleading claims concerning Nickelodeon expanding its "Rainbow Rangers" cartoon. The Company did not fairly present its growth potential and overall prospects. 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 Genius, investors suffered damages. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] GLV INC: Mullen Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Laura Mullen filed an appeal from a recent court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Laura Mullen v. GLV, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01465, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2020, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Mullen's motion to sanction the Defendants. GLV is a youth volleyball business that offers coaching, training programs, and camps; it is known for placing its participants in competitive college sports programs. Mullen sued GLV and its owners, Rick and Cheryl Butler, in a class action alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Mullen alleges that the defendants wrongfully concealed from parents of GLV's program participants that in the 1980s, Rick raped and sexually abused several underage women. In the decision, the Court will refer to the Butlers by their first names for the sake of simplicity. In January 2019, the Court certified a Plaintiff class consisting of persons who paid for youth volleyball instruction through GLV's Sports Performance programs in Illinois between Feb. 27, 2013 and Jan. 10, 2018. In February 2019, after getting input from both sides, the Court approved a class notice, which included a brief description of the case, informed the class members about their options to either stay in the suit or opt out of the class, and explained the legal implications of both options. The notice also advised that class members choosing to opt out had to do so via mail by April 19, 2019. Mullen moved for sanctions against the Defendants for improperly interfering with the class notice process. Mullen has also moved for sanctions against the Defendants' counsel, alleging that she violated her ethical responsibilities by communicating directly with represented parties and knowingly misrepresenting to the Court her clients' conduct during the opt-out period. The Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment. On review, Judge Kennelly found that the Defendants intentionally interfered with the class notice and opt-out process and therefore granted Mullen's motion for sanctions against them. The sanctions the Court imposes under the Court's inherent authority must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. At this point, the Court is, in a separate decision, largely granting summary judgment against the Defendants. As a result, the Defendants may have harmed only themselves by encouraging opt-outs those individuals will not be bound by a judgment against the class and may still be able to file individual suits. But the Defendants did not know that at the time. It is clear from the evidence that they were attempting to come up with enough opt-outs that they would be able to convince the Court to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Laura Mullen v. GLV, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-3021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet is due by November 2, 2020; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 30, 2020 for Laura Mullen.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604-0000 Defendants-Appellees GLV, INC., an Illinois Corporation doing business as SPORTS PERFORMANCE VOLLEYBALL CLUB and GREAT LAKES CENTER; RICKY BUTLER; and CHERYL BUTLER are represented by: Danielle D'Ambrose, Esq. D'AMBROSE P.C. 500 N. Michigan Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (213) 396-4121 GOL LINHAS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 10 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or the "Company") (NYSE: GOL) securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Gol investors have until November 10, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Gol 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/gol-linhas-aereas-inteligentes-sa/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 16, 2020, Gol stated that it could not timely file its fiscal 2019 annual report. The Company also disclosed that its independent auditor's report on Gol's internal control over financial reporting would "probably include one or more material weaknesses" and that the report "will probably include an emphasis paragraph regarding the [Company's] ability to continue as a going concern." On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.27, or 3.5%, to close at $7.30 per share on June 16, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on June 29, 2020, after the market closed, Gol filed its fiscal 2019 annual report. Therein, Gol's auditor raised significant concerns about the Company's accounting, including that Gol lacked "(i) effective policies and procedures related to the identification and disclosure of material uncertainties in the going concern analysis and (ii) effective review of financial statement information, and related presentation and disclosure requirements." On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.14, or 2%, to close at $6.78 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on July 23, 2020, Gol announced the termination of KPMG Auditores Independentes as its external auditor. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.55, or 7%, to close at $7.25 per share on July 23, 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: (1) Gol had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2) there was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital and net capital deficiency; and (3) 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 Gol securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 10, 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. Contacts: Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Carroll Sues Over Smart Mobile OS Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CARROLL, DANIEL EGERTER, and BRENDA KEEGAN, and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 3:20-cv-07379 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims against the Defendants pursuant to the Clayton Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, Google has been able to maintain a monopoly over the market for the distribution of apps compatible with licensable smart mobile operating systems ("Oss"). The conduct is made through a series of contracts with device manufacturers and app developers, and by imposing technological restrictions that make it nearly impossible for consumers to locate alternate ways to download apps. Additionally, Google requires that device manufacturers give the Google Play Store preferential treatment in order to use the Android trademark, Google's proprietary apps, including Gmail, Google Maps, and YouTube, and Google Play Services, software that is necessary to keep apps running effectively. Without access to this content, device manufacturers are essentially unable to market their smart mobile devices. The complaint further asserts that the consumers, including the Plaintiffs, have suffered from Google's anticompetitive conduct. Google imposes a 30 percent surcharge on all paid apps and in-app purchases, an amount that they could not charge in a competitive market. Other app stores and payment processors have tried to offer lower prices. They are unable to break through Google's monopoly. Based in Mountain View, California, Google LLC is the primary operating subsidiary of the publicly traded holding company Alphabet Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. Caroline C. Corbitt, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com ccc@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Justin R. Erickson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jrerickson@locklaw.com GRACIE MEWS: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ MIJARES ROSALES LUNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GRACIE MEWS RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A GRACIE MEWS DINER), GRACIE MEWS LLC (D/B/A GRACIE MEWS DINER), MIHAIL KREATSOULAS aka MIKE, STEVE KREATSOULAS, AMBROS DOE, and TIMMY DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-08700 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay applicable minimum wage, failed to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week, failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each day spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to provide accurate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to pay wages on a timely basis. The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and delivery worker at Gracie Mews Diner from approximately January 2016 until on or about October 10, 2020. The Defendants own, operate and control a diner, located in New York City, under the name "Gracie Mews Diner."[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 HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET TILLMAN AND MELVIN WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-02563-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their Motion for Class Certification: "all owners of real property in Cheraw, South Carolina located within five hundred (500) feet of the Surface Water Drainage Corridor which properties have been impacted by PCB contamination emanating from the Highland Industries Plant Site. Said Surface Water Drainage Corridor extends from the Western Ditch at Highland Industries Plant Site for approximately 3.2 miles to its convergence with the Pee Dee River, and includes said Western Ditch; an unnamed intermittent creek/ditch into which it flows; Various wetlands through which it flows; Flowing then in an easterly direction to Wilson Branch; then in a Northeasterly direction to Huckleberry Branch, and then in an easterly/southeasterly direction to its convergence with the Pee Dee River." This case involves a single contaminant (PCB's), a single source of that contaminant (Highland/Burlington Property), a single method of transport of the contaminant (Surface Water), a defined area of contamination (Drainage Corridor), and a single theory of damages (Diminution of Property Value). Highland Industries specializes in the conception, design and delivery of high-performance textiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMviKd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William C. Lewis, Esq. Christopher Moore, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1513 Hampton Street, 1st Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: 803 541 7850 Facsimile: 803 541 9625 - and - Joshua E. Slavin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA E. SLAVIN, LLC PO Box 762, Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: 843 619-7338 Facsimile: 888 246-8914 E-mail: josh@attorneycarolina.com - and - Gary W. Poliakoff, Esq. Raymond P. Mullman, Jr., Esq. POLIAKOFF & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 215 Magnolia Street P.O. Box 1571 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: 864-582-5472 E-mail: atty@gpoliakoff.com rmullmanjr@gmail.com HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Pizarro Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE H. PIZARRO, CRAIG SMITH, JERRY MURPHY, RANDALL IDEISHI, GLENDA STONE, RACHELLE NORTH, and MARIE SILVER, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HOME DEPOT FUTUREBUILDER 401(K) PLAN, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE HOME DEPOT FUTUREBUILDER 401 (K) PLAN, and DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:18-cv-01566-WM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray entered an order: 1. certifying the following classes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1): Challenged Fund Class: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, excluding the Defendants, who invested in the Challenged Funds at any time from April 12, 2012, through the date of judgment; FE Class: "all Plan participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, for whom FE performed investment advisory services through the Program at any time from April 12, 2012, through the date of judgment; and AFA Class: "all Plan participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, for whom AFA performed investment advisory services through the Program at any time from April 12, 2012, through the date of judgment" 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Smith, Ideishi, and North as Class Representatives of the Challenged Fund Class; Plaintiffs Pizarro and Stone as Class Representatives of the FE Class; and Plaintiffs Murphy and Stone as Class Representatives of the AFA Class; 3. appointing Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP and Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blow LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. denying the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that common questions as to the underlying liability determination of the fiduciaries' prudence in retaining the Challenged Funds predominate. The Plaintiffs allege that "the Plan was injured by Defendants' fiduciary breaches" and suffered quantifiable damages. Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is not defeated simply because the calculation of damages may show that participants did not sustain identical amounts of loss. Consequently, any challenge by the Defendants' to manageability is also unavailing. Particularly given the Court's extensive case management tools, there is a well-settled presumption that courts should not decline to certify a class based on manageability alone. Ultimately, "the Court has a powerful arsenal from which to draw in making otherwise intractable class actions manageable." Accordingly, the Court determines that certification of each proposed Class is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs assert two types of claims against the Defendants: (1) that certain investment options in the Plan were imprudently selected and/or retained by the Defendants despite a sustained record of poor performance (otherwise referred to as the "Challenged Fund claims"), and (2) that the Defendants imprudently selected and/or retained outside investment advisors with an agreement that allowed said advisers to charge fees to participants that were objectively excessive (otherwise referred to as the "Excessive Fee claims"). The Defendants deny these claims and have moved for summary judgment against those individual Plaintiffs who complained about the alleged unreasonable fees for investment advice. A copy of the Court's Order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/304cDjC at no extra charge.[CC] HOMELAND SECURITY: Supplement to Preliminary Injunction Bid Filed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as YOSELIN GABRIELA REINA MORAN, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00696-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), Respondents Matthew T. Albence, Does, Thomas P. Giles, James Janecka, David A Marin, United States Department of Homeland Security, and Chad F. Wolf have filed a Supplement to Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction re Release. On September 22, 2020, Judge David O. Carter entered an order denying petitioners' request for relief. The Notice, to the extent it asks for relief, is denied as it does not provide any argument as to likelihood of success on the merits with its request. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction re Release Motion filed by Petitioners Miguel Angel Orellana, Juan Jairo Perez Fajardo, Yoselin Gabriela Reina Moran43 remains under submission pending the outcome of related cases, as discussed with counsel during the hearing on August 24. Judge Carter entered an order on Aug. 19, 2020, taking under submission a motion to dismiss and a motion for class certification. In an Aug. 21 Order, Judge Carter granted the Motion to Dismiss, in part. 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.[CC] HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Joint Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY FLOWERS, et al., Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case No. e 3:19-cv-00241-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants ask the Court for an order certifying a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) consisting of: "all current and former Hopewell public housing residents since June 1, 2014 through September 30, 2018 (the Recovery Period), who were subject to Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority's ("HRHA") procedures regarding utility allowances and late fees. The Plaintiffs and Defendant have reached a settlement agreement which the parties believe is fair and just and adequately resolves Plaintiffs' claims. The Parties further seek the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement and all supporting documents. A copy of the joint motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwcv0Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel C. McFarland, Esq. Sylvia Cosby Jones, Esq. Brenda Castaneda, Esq. Mary DeVries, Esq. Caroline Klosko, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 123 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804-643-1086 Facsimile: 804-643-2059 - and - Larry F. Eisenstat, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 The Defendants are represented by: Darius K. Davenport, Esq. James L. Chapman, IV, Esq. David C. Hartnett, Esq. CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C. 150 W. Main Street, Suite 1500 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 E-mail: jchapman@cwm-law.com ddavenport@cwm-law.com dhartnett@cwm-law.com IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Scarpino Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEENA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN DREAM and CASEY ROWE, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00449 (D. Neb., October 26, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2011 until October 2020 as an exotic dancer at American Dream performing dances on stage and private dances for the Defendants' customers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers were misclassified by the Defendants as independent contractors, thereby failing to provide them the required minimum wage compensation. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants required him and other exotic dancers to pay $50 as a penalty for missing a scheduled shift, if they came in to work on a night when they were not on the schedule, and for leaving a scheduled shift early; -- The Defendants did not pay them any wages; all their compensation came in the form of tips paid by customers; -- The Defendants required them to tip out the DJ each night, and required to pay a $10 fine if they failed to tip out DJ; Imagination Industries, Inc., d/b/a American Dream, is an establishment where live nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members of the general public, owned and operated by Casey Rowe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANZEL L. STEARNS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, v. INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION; RANDY L. CAGLE JR.; CHRISTOPHER L. WEISS; RYAN B. MOORE; and DOE 1 to 100, Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV (E.D. ArK.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying a class and subclass as follows: "all inmates transported by Inmate Services Corporation on or after November 15, 2013, who were forced to continuously remain in transport vehicles and deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, including sleep, exercise, and hygiene, for more than: (a) 24 hours; (b) 48 hours; (c) 72 hours; (d) 96 hours; (e) 120 hours; (f) 144 hours; (g) 168 hours; and (h) 192 hours." Inmate Services is a law enforcement company based out of 220 N 6th Street Suite A, West Mephis, Arkansas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kJUmju at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Merin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com INNATE PHARMA: Faces Golovanov Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDRE GOLOVANOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNATE PHARMA S.A., MONDHER MAHJOUBI, and LAURE-HELENE MERCIER, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-09778-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with Innate's acquisition of 9.8% of the newly-issued equity by AstraZeneca. According to the complaint, the Defendants announced that AstraZeneca will advance monalizumab in combination with cetuximab in head and neck patients in a Phase III trial, in which Innate will receive $100m milestone payment from AstraZeneca upon dosing of the first patient. On May 12, 2020, the Defendants submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K containing a press release summarizing the results of the first quarter of 2020 ended March 31, 2020. However, the statements were materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose adverse fact pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that it touted the results of their various Phase trials as being within expectations; that it continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; and their negotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100m payment into two $50m payments. Subsequently, the Defendants abruptly announced in its Form 6-K what they failed to disclose in its financial results which resulted to precipitous decline of the Innate's American Depository Share market value. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons or entities, who have purchased publicly traded Innate securities between March 10, 2020 and September 8, 2020, have suffered significant losses and damages due to the Defendant's wrongful acts and omissions. Innate Pharma S.A. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company engaged in discovering and developing first-in-class therapeutic antibodies that harness the innate immune system to improve cancer treatment and clinical outcomes for patients. Mondher Mahjoubi served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), while Laure-Helene Mercier served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lead Plaintiffs Hou Liu and Amy Fu filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated March 27, 2020, Order dated March 26, 2020, and Memorandum Opinion dated September 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled HOU LIU and AMY FU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiffs, v. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MARK PRUZANSKI, SANDIP S. KAPADIA, RICHARD KIM, and RACHEL MCMINN Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-7371, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants on September 27, 2017. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. The appellate case is captioned as Hou Liu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-3488, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Hou Liu and Amy Fu are represented by: Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com Defendants-Appellees Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mark Pruzanski, Sandip S. Kapadia, Richard Kim, and Rachel McMinn are represented by: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-2628 E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com INTERNATIONAL BONDED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Higuera Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BYRON HIGUERA, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BONDED COURIERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-8988 (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 23, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act of 2004 for their alleged unlawful employment policies and practices, and in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from 2016 through May 2019. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to: -- compensate him and other similarly situated non-exempt employees with all minimum and overtime wages earned throughout their employment; -- provide him and other similarly situated non-exempt employees with meal and rest periods; -- provide accurate itemized wage statements; -- timely pay wages due at separation of employment; and -- reimburse the Plaintiff and Class Members for all out-of-pocket expenses they incurred in performing their job duties. The Plaintiff sent a letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) by certified mail on January 27, 2020 concerning the Defendants' violations. However, the LWDA did not respond within 65 days, the suit says. International Bonded Couriers, Inc. is an international logistics company that specializes in providing customized global transportation solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Gaines, Esq. Alex P. Katofsky, Esq. Evan S. Gaines, Esq. GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101 Calabasas, CA 91301 Tel: (818) 703-8985 Fax: (818) 703-8984 E-mail: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com alex@gaineslawfirm.com evan@gaineslawfirm.com IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Groove Seeks Permission to Issue Notice to Dancers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IOWA PLAYHOUSE, RONALD BERGERON and MICHAEL BERGERON, Case No.1:20-cv-00027-SMR-CFB (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting permission to issue notice to a class consisting of: "all dancers who have worked at Playhouse during the last three years in order to advise potential opt-in plaintiffs that this lawsuit is pending and to enable them to decide whether to join the lawsuit." The Plaintiff Andrea Grove has brought this collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have worked as exotic dancers at Iowa Playhouse strip club, seeking to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff Grove asserts that she and other exotic dancers working for Playhouse were all subject to the same rules and policies imposed by the Defendants, and were misclassified as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees of Playhouse as a matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the protections of the FLSA, as a result, the Defendants failed to pay dancers working at Playhouse the minimum wage in violation of the FLSA, Groove alleges. Iowa Playhouse is an all nude adult entertainment club/strip club. A copy of the Plaintiff's request is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCMrGP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Nate Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Telephone: 319 363-5209 Facsimile: 319-363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com ISEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Foremen, Castillo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RENE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISEC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01269 (W.D. Tex., October 26, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged failure to properly pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid foreman from June 2014 to July 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him proper overtime because the annual bonuses he received based on his performance were not included by the Defendant in his regular rate when calculating his overtime pay. As a result, despite regularly working 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not receive accurate overtime pay at one and one-half times of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per week. ISEC Incorporated is a construction company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding et al. Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuits filed against JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 21, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), a class of: "clients of Finkelstein & Partners, LLP ("F&P") and Jacoby & Meyers, LLP ("J&M") who were billed and charged for tasks provided by TTS that constitute Actual Attorney Work, Law Firm Overhead, and Surcharge Tasks during the applicable statute of limitations" 2. certifying, under Rule 23(b)(2), a declaratory judgment class of F&P and J&M clients who have pending TTS charges that constitute Actual Attorney Work, Law Firm Overhead, and Surcharge Tasks; 3. appointing Mr. Harding and Ms. Smalls as Representative Plaintiffs; and 4. appointing Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel. The lawsuits are captioned as: "NANCY HARDING and JEFFREY HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, FINKELSTEIN & SOLUTIONS, LLC, ANDREW FINKELSTEIN, and KENNETH OLIVER, Case No. 2:14-cv-05419- JMV-MF (D.N.J.)"; and "BARBARA J. SMALLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ANDREW FINKELSTEIN." Jacoby & Meyers is an American law firm established as a partnership by Leonard Jacoby and Stephen Meyers. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP is a law firm in Newburgh, New York. A copy of the notice of the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kd7UE6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 - and - Joseph Santoli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SANTOLI 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (201) 926-9200 The Defendants are represented by: Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BROADY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related 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 the parties in the contact lens-related suit are awaiting a trial date. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November 2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied in November 2019. The parties await a trial date. 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: Continues to Defend cART Antitrust 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 the company and Janssen R&D Ireland continue to defend a class action suit related to combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV. In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV. The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco. In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the renewed motion to dismiss. 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: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits -------------------------------------------------------- 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 class action suits related to sales of INVOKANA(R) medication. Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R), a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have also been filed in state courts. Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and claims in the United States and the costs associated with these settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals. 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. KSR SQUARE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Duran Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NAIMI DURAN, Plaintiff v. KEVIN CEVYN T. FELDER and KSR SQUARE LLC a/k/a KSR SQUARED LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-03111-PWG (D. Md., October 26, 2020) brings this collective action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay minimum wage compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as customer service representative. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained an illegal ad company-wide practice of unlawfully failing to pay its employees at the hourly wage rates as required by the FLSA. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service representatives were denied by the Defendants of the required minimum wage compensation. The Defendants have not paid any wages to its customer service representatives despite their repeated demands. KSR Square LLC a/k/a KSR Squared LLC provides customer service support to Comcast customers throughout the U.S. Kevin Cevyn T. Felder has extensive managerial responsibility at KSR and has substantial control of the terms and conditions of all of KSR's employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Ray, II, Esq. RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC 8720 Georgia Ave., Suite 803 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 755-5656 Fax: (301) 755-5627 E-mail: jim.ray@raylegalgroup.com LA RISARALDA: Faces Atenco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ATENCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LA RISARALDA CORP. (D/B/A CARNICERIA LA RISARALDA), ORLANDO VALENCIA, AIDA VALENCIA, and JASMINE VENEGAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-04807 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him appropriate overtime compensation, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to provide accurate wage statements at the time of the payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant at the Defendants' supermarket in New York from approximately 2001 until on or about August 2020. La Risaralda Corp. owns, operates, or controls a supermarket in New York under the name Carniceria La Risaralda.[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 LANCER FOOD: Court Certifies Workers Class in Gardner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Gardner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. Lancer Food Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Lancer Hospitality, Inc.) and Lancer Management Services, Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-00493-KMM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Conditional and Class Certification and for Preliminary Approval of Settlement; 2. certifying this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for purposes of settlement only, on behalf of the following settlement group: "all hourly workers employed by Defendants in Minnesota, or who opted- into this action as of August 4, 2020 by filing a consent form with the Court, for whom, according to Plaintiffs' calculations based on Defendants' records, worked unpaid overtime at any time during February 12, 2017 to August 4, 2020"; 3. directing that the notice of intent to object or request exclusion must be emailed or mailed to class counsel at the following address on or before the 45-day period specified in the notice of settlement: Michele R. Fisher Nichols Kaster, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: forms@nka.com 4. appointing Michele R. Fisher, Kayla M. Kienzle, and the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP as class counsel to represent the settlement group; and 5. directing the parties to take all reasonable steps needed to comply with the following timeline: -- Within 5 days of Order: Defendants provide updated list for mailing -- Within 7 days of receipt of list: Plaintiff mail notice of settlement -- Within 45 days of notice of settlement mailing: Objections and requests for exclusion due to class counsel -- Within 7 days prior to final approval hearing: Requests for exclusion and objections due to Court and defense counsel letter supplementing previously filed memorandum due -- At least 71 days from Order: Final approval hearing A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mXPYzg at no extra charge.[CC] LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Balks at Misclassification of Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- Hany Tanious; Loussine S. Mazmanian; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. James B. Gatton; Patrick J. O'Malley; Landstar System Inc.; Landstar Ranger, Inc.; and DOES l to 25, inclusive, Case No. RG20076517 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 9, 2020) arises from the Defendants' deliberate scheme to misclassify their truck drivers as independent contractors, thereby denying them the fundamental protections due to employees under the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges that as a result of the Defendants' unlawful misclassification policy and practice, they have (1) failed to provide proper wage compensation and engaged in unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code; (2) failed to provide worker's compensation benefits in violation of California's Workers Compensation Act, Labor Code Section 3200; and (3) engaged in wrongful termination and retaliation of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Tanious was employed as a truck driver for the Defendants approximately for five & half years until October 29, 2018. Plaintiff Mazmanian is the wife of Tanious. Landstar System, Inc. is a transportation services company specializing in logistics and more specifically third-party logistics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Motaz M. Gerges, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOTAZ M. GERGES 118543 Devonshire St., #448 Northridge, CA 91324 E-mail: mgerges@aol.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. [GN] LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Students Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUDENT A, STUDENT B, STUDENT C, and STUDENT D, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., d/b/a LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 6:20-cv-00023-NKM-RSB (W.D.Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class defined as: "all students who paid fees (including but not limited to campus fees, room, board, parking, and other fees as broadly defined herein) in connection with enrollment in live, on-campus classes at Liberty University for the Spring 2020 semester"; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Michie Hamlett PLLC; DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC; and Matthew S. Miller LLC, as Class Counsel. Liberty University is a private evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia. It was founded by Jerry Falwell and Elmer L. Towns in 1971. Although the university's physical campus is in Lynchburg, most of its students are online. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303pHpm at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: E. Kyle McNew, Esq. J. Gregory Webb, Esq. Lisa S. Brook, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT 310 4th Street, NE P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: 434-951-7231 Facsimile: 434-951-7254 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com gwebb@michiehamlett.com lbrook@michiehamlett.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. D I CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Matthew S. Miller, Esq. MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-741-1085 E-mail: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero FLSA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled GRACE GUERRERO, individually and for others similarly situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00009, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00261 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Loyal Source Government Services, LLC is a staffing company that provides healthcare professionals to government and private entities, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@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 LOYALTY BRANDS: CEO Suit Dismissed by Court of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------ Loyalty Brands, the parent company for multiple like-minded business service franchises, recently announced that after two years of litigation, the Class Action Suit filed against its CEO, John Hewitt, has been dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the United States District Court for Eastern New York handed down in January of 2020. At that time, it was found categorically that claims raised by class action plaintiffs were to be dismissed before ever reaching trial. The Lead Plaintiff-Appellant IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund appealed the motion to dismiss the January 21st judgement. This dismissal of the Class Action suit by two federal courts upholds a consensus that the shareholders of Liberty Tax Service, the company in which Hewitt was the Founder and former CEO, were not hurt by any actions taken by the company in prior years. In the January ruling, the Judge of the United States District Court for Eastern New York, found categorically that the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs had to be dismissed as they did not establish a legal basis that could lead to a finding against John Hewitt. The United States Court of Appeals has upheld that opinion. "This court decision proves definitively what I have said all along, which is that the claims against me and the company never had any merit, and now two United States Federal Judges have vindicated me," said Hewitt. Hewitt is the founder and CEO of Loyalty Brands, LLC, a company he founded in 2018. Loyalty Brands is an umbrella franchise development company that engages with emerging franchisers to help build and strengthen their operations and marketing to increase sales and revenues. For more information about these franchise opportunities, please visit https://loyaltybrands.com/. About Loyalty Brands Headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Loyalty Brands is an umbrella franchise company founded in 2018 by serial entrepreneur John Hewitt. The Loyalty Brands consist of business brokerage, small business accounting, tax preparation and added services, networking and bartering. The company maintains a community first outlook, meaning that involvement in local communities and giving back is a core value. The multi-brand concept involves businesses that are synergistic and compatible, so potential franchisees could possibly own one or more of the brands for additional customer acquisition and co-marketing opportunities. To learn more about Loyalty Brands, please visit https://loyaltybrands.com/. Martha O'Gorman Loyalty Brands Tel No: 757-802-4635 E-mail: Martha@loyaltybrands.com [GN] LUBRITECH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Operators, Peery Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATH PEERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIDNEY K. IVEY d/b/a LUBRITECH and LUBRITECH PRODUCTS, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00248 (W.D. Tex., October 26, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees' overtime. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a coil tubing operator/team lead from August 2019 to October 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but he only received a salary-plus-daily-rate without overtime. The Defendant allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime at the rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. Lubritech provides production and completion equipment, products, and chemicals to the oilfield industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net LUFTHANSA: Conditional Cert. of Aircraft Inspectors Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYRONE SHAUGHNESSY, et al., v. LUFTHANSA TECHNIK NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORP., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01032-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying case as a "collective action" on behalf of eligible employees consisting of: "all past and/or present employees of LTNA who, like the Plaintiffs: a) Work or have worked for LTNA within the past three years; and b) Held non-supervisory or non-lead positions as aircraft inspectors; and c) Performed more than 40 hours of work in any week; and d) Were not paid for their overtime hours of work at a rate of at least one and one-half times the regular rate of pay." The Plaintiffs were employed to work as aircraft inspectors by the Defendant, LTNA. They claim that LTNA systematically violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by refusing to provide its aircraft inspectors with overtime wages, as required by 29 U.S.C. section 207(a). LTNA provides aircraft maintenance, repair, overhaul and modification services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion conditional certification of collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3keeLgs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott McKay, Esq. NEVIN, BENJAMIN, MCKAY & BARTLETT LLP 303 W. Bannock Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: 208 343 1000 Facsimile: 208 345 8274 E-mail: smckay@nbmlaw.com MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM: Website Not ADA Compliant, DelaCruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM PHARMACY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08337-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, https://www.mailmyprescriptions.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 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 their 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 Defendant is a US mail-order pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 228 9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com MAIN STREET: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN STREET HOST INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-09773 (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a pre-recorded call on his telephone number (818)-352-XXXX from the Defendant on August 28, 2020. When the Plaintiff responded, she has spoke to a certain Taylor Morgan, who is attempting to promote the Defendant's services and solicit a sale, and subsequently confirming their conversation by sending an e-mail to the Plaintiff from tmorgan@mainstreethost.com. The Plaintiff contends that he did not provide his prior express written consent to the Defendant to be contacted via automatic telephone dialing system. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff has been harmed because his privacy has been violated, he was annoyed and harassed, and he has incurred certain charges for the Defendant's calls. Main Street Host, Inc. offers digital marketing services to businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Schwartz, Esq. ADAM J SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW 5670 Wishire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (323) 455-4016 E-mail: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com MARINE DENTAL: Faces Joung FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- SU KEN JOUNG, Plaintiff v. MARINE DENTAL LABORATORY, INC., JIN UP KIM, and YONG GI JANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01261 (E.D. Va., October 23, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated against the Defendants for their alleged willful and intentional violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dental technician from on or about August 22, 2017 until on or about August 11, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40 hours a week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime wages at the rate of not-less-than one and one-half times his regular hourly wage rate. Marine Dental Laboratory, Inc. is in the business of making and selling dental prosthetics for patients of dentists located in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Ohio, operated by its owners Jin Up Kim and Yong Gi Jang. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq. RYU & RYU, PLC 301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620 Vienna, VA 22180 Tel: (703) 319-0001 Fax: (703) 562-0787 MATHESON TRI-GAS: Groves FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SHAWANDA GROVES, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., Case No. DC-20-13072, was removed from the 116th District Court of Dallas County, Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on October 23, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-03238-L to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. is a company that provides gases and gas handling equipment based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul E. Hash, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 500 N. Akard, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 520-2400 Facsimile: (214) 520-2008 E-mail: Paul.Hash@jacksonlewis.com MATSON MONEY: Lures Investors to Sham Investments, Zimmerman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATSON MONEY, INC., CHRISTOPHER W. BURNS, INVESTUS ADVISERS LLC d/b/a DYNAMIC MONEY LLC, INVESTUS FINANCIAL LLC, and PEER CONNECT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04409-WMR (N.D. Ga., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Georgia Securities Act, breach of contract, negligence, and negligence per se. According to the complaint, the Defendants defrauded the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated persons to invest in promissory notes that were falsely described to them as safe and conservative "peer to peer" investment opportunities. In reality, the promissory notes were sham investments, unregistered securities under Georgia law and part of a Ponzi scheme that the Defendants attempted to keep afloat by taking in money from new investors to pay interest to earlier investors. Matson Money, Inc. is an investment advisor company based in Mason, Ohio. Investus Advisers LLC, d/b/a Dynamic Money LLC, is a financial advisor company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Investus Financial LLC is a financial services company based in Atlanta, Georgia. Peer Connect LLC is a limited liability company based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC The Brumby Building 127 Church Street, Suite 220 Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 578-1314 E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com - and – Robert C. Port, Esq. Luke M. Caselman, Esq. GASLOWITZ FRANKEL LLC 303 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4500 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 892-9797 Facsimile: (404) 892-1311 E-mail: rport@gadisputes.com lcaselman@gadisputes.com MAXIM INTEGRATED: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-07168-MKV on behalf of shareholders of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. ("Maxim" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MXIM) who have been harmed by Maxim's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Analog Devices, Inc. (the "Proposed Transaction"). On July 12, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger under which Maxim shareholders stand to receive 0.63 shares of Analog Devices, Inc. common stock for each share of Maxim stock they own. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Maxim shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/MXIM. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from September 15, 2020, the date of this notice. 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Atm Shafiqul Khalid filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00130-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Khalid's amended complaint with leave to amend certain claims. The Plaintiff worked at Microsoft from Jan. 9, 2012 until February 2015. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff sought to certify as a class of all Microsoft employees who signed an employment contract with Microsoft similar to the Employee Agreement signed by the Plaintiff (presented as "Count 7"). A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class in a class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, Judge Martinez did not consider the question of class certification. Having reviewed the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response, the Defendant's Reply, and the remainder of the record, Judge Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. He (i) dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend Counts 1 and 2 (Sherman Act claims) and Count 3 (claim for extortion under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); (ii) dismissed with prejudice Count 4 (forced labor), Count 5 (RICO claim for forced labor), Counts 6 and 12 (civil rights claims), Count 8 (fraud), and the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief on Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10); and dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's remaining claims for declaratory relief (Counts 9 and 11). The appellate case is captioned as Atm Khalid v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-35921, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Atm Shafiqul Khalid opening brief is due on December 21, 2020; -- Appellees John Doe and Microsoft Corporation answering brief is due on January 19, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated, of Redmond, Washington, appears pro se. Defendant-Appellee MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, is represented by: Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry Street Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 337-6551 E-mail: bradleyh@lanepowell.com - and - Tiffany Connors, Esq. LANE POWELL PC 1420 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: connorst@lanepowell.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Debiase Sues in New Jersey Over FDCA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is captioned as MAUREEN DEBIASE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-14070-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Oct. 7, 2020). The nature of the suit is stated as consumer credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Leyland Gentile LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC 110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873-7675 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Davis Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANN DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01975-MWB (M.D. Pa., October 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading representations concerning its debt collection practices. The Defendant failed to include a confidential document form anywhere in a complaint that it filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County about the Plaintiff's alleged debt. Within the complaint, the Defendant affirmatively certified compliance with the provisions of 204 Pennsylvania Code that require the filing of confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. Furthermore, Midland Funding disclosed information capable of identifying the Plaintiff as an alleged debtor. As a result of the Defendant's false representations or means in connection with its debt collection practice, the Plaintiff's confidential information such as credit card statements were exposed. Midland Funding, LLC is a debt collection company, with its principal place of business located 350 Camino De La Reina, San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS WARD The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 545-3015 Facsimile: (412) 540-3399 E-mail: jward@fentersward.com MISSOURI: Court Certifies Defendant Class ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORGANIZATION FOR BLACK STRUGGLE, ST. LOUIS A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, GREATER KANSAS CITY A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN ST. LOUIS SECTION, and MISSOURI FAITH VOICES, v. JOHN R. ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as the Missouri Secretary of State, and GREENE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE; JACKSON COUNTY ELECTION BOARD; ST. CHARLES COUNTY ELECTION AUTHORITY; and ST. LOUIS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:20-cv-04184-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 a Defendant Class of: "all 116 local election authorities in Missouri or, in the alternative, joinder of the same." The Plaintiffs in this action seek immediate relief for the thousands of Missouri voters who will attempt to vote on a date or at a location other than their Election Day polling site, voters who vote by mail or absentee ballot (remote ballot) in the November 2020 general election, but who will face severe or insurmountable burdens to casting a ballot that will count. The Plaintiffs' seek to vindicate their voting rights through this Court, and a defendant class certification of local election authorities in this case will ensure the consistent constitutional application, implementation, and enforcement of Missouri law throughout the state, the complaint says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify defendant class of 116 local election authorities is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ety1Hm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Rothert, Esq. Jessie Steffan, Esq. Kayla Deloach, Esq. ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 906 Olive Street, Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 652-3114 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 E-mail: arothert@aclu-mo.org jsteffan@aclu-mo.org kdeloach@aclu-mo.org - and - Denise Lieberman, Esq. MISSOURI VOTER PROTECTION COALITION 6047 Waterman Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63112 Telephone: (314) 780-1833 E-mail: denise@movpc.org denise@deniselieberman.com - and - Naila Awan, Esq. Kathryn C. Sadasivan, Esq. Chiraag Bains, Esq. DEMOS 80 Broad Street, Fl 4 New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (212) 485-6065 E-mail: nawan@demos.org kasadasivan@demos.org cbains@demos.org - and - Ezra Rosenberg, Esq. Ryan Snow, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 E-mail: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org rsnow@lawyerscommittee.org MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as NICO CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.; DALTILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG02675, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 23, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00834 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon separation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, and failure to indemnify necessary business expenses. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is an American flooring manufacturer based in Calhoun, Georgia. Daltile Services, Inc. is a distributor of stone, cement, lime, construction sand, gravel, and other construction materials, with its headquarters in Calhoun, Georgia. Dal-Tile Services, Inc. is a distributor of stone, cement, lime, construction sand, gravel, and other construction materials, with its headquarters in Calhoun, Georgia. Dal-Tile Corporation is a manufacturer of ceramic tiles and natural stone based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jesse M. Jauregui, Esq. Ian A. Wright, Esq. Kelsey K. Wong, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 E-mail: jesse.jauregui@alston.com ian.wright@alston.com kelsey.wong@alston.com MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Estrada Suit Wins Conditional Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as BLAKE ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULHOLLAND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00140 (W.D. Tex.), Blake Estrada and Mulholland Energy Services, LLC file an agreed motion for conditional class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the following class: "Individuals who performed work for Mulholland Energy Services, LLC, as Wash Crew Hands in Texas and New Mexico from June 1, 2017 to 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 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 Class Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. -- 30 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members. The Plaintiff's Counsel may resend a copy of the Court- approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members 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 return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Court. On Oct. 16, 2020, Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order granting an unopposed motion for conditional certification. Mulholland Energy Services is an oil and gas company. A copy of the Parties' motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cqQG2T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLUCK 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 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: JFitapelli@fslawfirm.com Fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Bruce A. Koehler, Esq. Monica L. Perez, Esq. MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.C. 100 N. Stanton, Suite 1000 El Paso, TX 79901 Telephone: (915) 541-1513 E-mail: koehler@mgmsg.com perez@mgmsg.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Asks Court to Decertify Class & 4 Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES D. MCNAMEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01948-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court for an order: 1. granting its motion for decertification of the class and decertify the four subclasses certified by this Court on March 30, 2018, as amended by Order issued on May 22, 2019; and 2. granting Nationstar such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Nationstar, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan, re-financing and home equity loans.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen A. Weigand, Esq. FARUKI PLL 201 East Fifth Street, Suite 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 632-0306 Telecopier: (513) 632-0319 E-mail: sweigand@ficlaw.com - and - D. Kyle Deak, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 305 Church at North Hills Street, Suite 1200 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 835-4133 E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com NAVIENT CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hyland Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR, JESSICA SAINT-PAUL, REBECCA SPITLER-LAWSON, MICHELLE MEANS, ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER GUTH, MEGAN NOCERINO, and ANTHONY CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09031-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order: 1. approving the Cy Pres Recipient to launch the PSLF Project, and receive a total distribution of $2,250,000 from the Settlement Fund; 2. certifying the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(e): "all individuals who, at any point from October 1, 2007 to the Effective Date (i) have or had Federal Family Education Loans (EFEL) or Direct Loans serviced by Navient; (ii) are or were employed full-time by a qualifying public service employer or employers for purposes of PSLF; and (it) spoke to a Navient customer service representative about subjects relating to eligibility for PSLF"; 3. declining to reach the merits of the Fees Application because counsel's papers, and therefore the Class Notice, did not disclose that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) had paid counsel's fees or that an attorneys’ fees award would be used to reimburse AFT for those payments. Therefore, under Settlement Agreement, the $500,000 requested for such award shall be distributed to the Cy Pres Recipient, for a total distribution to the Cy Pres Recipient of $2,250,000; and 4. reserving continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Settlement Class with respect to the Settlement Agreement and this Order. Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware, whose operations include servicing and collecting student loans. A copy of the Court's Final Approval Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dpCh7O at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; JOHN BULGARO; BRIAN K. HAMMOND; PAUL A. MARKWITZ; GEORGE F. HARRIGAN; MARK D. MAY; MICHAEL S. SCALZO, SR.; ROBERT SCHAEFFER; MARK GLADFELTER; SAMUEL D. PILGER; DANIEL W. SCHMIDT; TOM J. VENTURA; MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.; and HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08793 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020) seeks to recover and obtain all losses resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff alleges that from 2014 and continuing period, the Board of Trustees and the Trustee Defendants imprudently deployed and maintained the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund assets in an extraordinary high risk, high cost asset allocation to chase a grossly excessive and unreasonable 8.5% "actuarial return target." The Plaintiff asserts that Meketa, the Plan's investment consultant and alternatives asset manager, breached its fiduciary duties in exercising authority or control over Plan management and assets and providing investment consulting services and investment management services for compensation. Meketa used its position as the Plan's nondiscretionary investment consultant to recommend itself for the position of the Plan's paid discretionary investment manager; advised the trustees as the Plan's nondiscretionary investment consultant the only way to strive to achieve the "actuarial return target" was with extraordinary significantly overweighted allocations of Plan assets to the highest risk asset classes including Emerging Markets Equities and Private Equity and other private market alternatives under Meketa's discretionary management; and directly and substantially benefited by the imprudent asset allocation at the unfair expense of the Plan and the participants, the suit says. The Defendant, the Board of Trustees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, is the Plan Sponsor. Meketa Investment Group, Inc. is a global investment consulting and advisory firm incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is an actuarial consulting firm incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie A. Blau, Esq. BLAU & MALMFELDT 566 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 443-1600 Facsimile: (312) 443-1665 E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com - and - Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Ips Emily L. Skaug, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 NEW YORK: Not Dead Yet Alleges Disabilities Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Cuomo, et al. The case is captioned as Not Dead Yet, NMD United, Disability Rights New York, Michelle Brose, Mike Volkman, Jessica Tambor, and Peri Finkelstein, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, in his official capacity, and Howard A. Zucker Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, in his official capacity, Case No. 2:20-cv-04819-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Britney Renee Wilson, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 633-6967 Facsimile: (212) 633-6371 E-mail: wilson@nclej.org NIKE INC: Saleh Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors -------------------------------------------------------- BURHAAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC. and FULLSTORY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-09581 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2020) is brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to Nike's website, Nike.com, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiff contends that in May 2020, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, he visited Nike.com and purchased shoes from the Web site. He was in Glendale when he visited the Web site. During the visit, his keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications including the entry of personally identifiable information were intercepted in real time and were disclosed to the Defendants through the wiretap. The Defendants' unlawful conduct not only violated the CIPA but also invaded the Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights in violation of the California Constitution, the suit says. NIKE, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is engaged in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services. The Company is headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area. FullStory is a marketing software-as-a-service company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU), between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nikola investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Nikola class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that 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. On 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. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 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. On 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/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] NISSAN NA: Hagenbaugh Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled David Hagenbaugh, Heather Hagenbaugh, Michael P. Homanko, Jr., Sherri A. Homanko, Frederick L. Lubrecht and Marianne P. Lubrecht, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America; Hyundai Motor Company; Kia Motors America; Airport Road Motors N., LLC doing business as: Hazleton Nissan; Airport Road Motors HY., LLC doing business as: Hazleton Hyundai; Airport Road Motors K, LLC doing business as: Hazleton Kia; Michael S. Saporito; Antonio D. Pierce; and Jessie W. Armstead, Case No. 2020-cv-07988, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court Common Pleas for the County of Luzerne to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 7, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01838-MEM to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from breach of contract-related issues. Nissan North America, doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational automobile manufacturer Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. Hyundai Motor Company, commonly known as Hyundai Motors, is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher B. Slusser, Esq. John M. Solt, Esq. THE SLUSSER LAW FIRM 1620 N. Church Street Suite I Hazleton, PA 18202 Telephone: (570) 453-0463 E-mail: chriss@slusserlawfirm.com jsolt@slusserlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey Alan Rockman, Esq. 12 Oregon Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Telephone: (570) 823-6788 Facsimile: (570) 823-6899 - and - Joseph Richard Baranko, Jr., Esq. GILLESPIE FERDINAND MISCAVIGE BARANKO & O'DONNELL, LLC 67 North Church St. Hazleton, PA 18201 Telephone: (717) 454-5575 E-mail: jrb@gmlawoffices.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael P. Daly, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999 Telephone: (215) 988-2604 Facsimile: (215) 988-2757 E-mail: michael.daly@faegredrinker.com - and - Stephen A. Loney HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market Street 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 675-4677 E-mail: stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com NOBLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-06563-KPF on behalf of shareholders of Noble Energy, Inc. ("Noble" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NBL) who have been harmed by Noble's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Chevron Corporation (the "Proposed Transaction"). On July 20, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger under which Noble shareholders stand to receive 0.1191 shares of Chevron Corporation for each share of Noble stock they own. The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Noble shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/NBL. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. 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. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS: Torres Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO TORRES and JORGE HURTADO JR., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01545 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 19, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, an equal amount in liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants willfully and intentionally engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the provisions of the federal and state laws by denying them proper wages and overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs also contend the use of the Defendants of false or deceptive representations concerning the kind and character of the work to be done, the amount and character of the compensation to be paid for the work, and the sanitary or other conditions of employment at its Alaska seafood processing facilities. Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as salmon processor from June 2020 until July 2020. Mr. Hurtado also worked for the Defendants as salmon processor from June 2020 until August 2020. Based in Seattle, Washington, North Pacific Seafoods, Inc. is in the business of canning and processing seafood. It was established in 1972 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Marubeni Corporation, a multi-billion-dollar Japanese company that owns more than 30 subsidiaries in the food industry worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. Henry Avery, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com havery@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com ssd@arnslaw.com - and - Kevin Osborne, Esq. Julie Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth Kramer, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 182 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 635-0631 Facsimile: (415) 599-8088 E-mail: kevin@eko.law julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law OMOROVICZA COSMETICS: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omorovicza Cosmetics, Inc. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Omorovicza Cosmetics, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08356-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Omorovicza Cosmetics, Inc. is a skin care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investor that purchased or acquired the securities of OneSpan Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit OneSpan 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, the 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) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC; (iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 11, 2020, during after-market hours, OneSpan disclosed to shareholders that it would not timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined; and withdrew its full year 2020 earnings guidance, which the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier. On this news, OneSpan's share price fell $12.36 per share, or over 39%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/onespaninc-ospn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-294/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] PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Faces Patel Insurance Suit in Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Ghanshyambhai Patel and Alkaben Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00066 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 21, 2020). The Patels allege breach of the parties' insurance contract. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. An initial case management conference is set for January 4, 2021. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is a property-casualty mutual insurance company, headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily Alcorn, Esq. J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: emily@msb.law brandon@msb.law - and - Erik David Peterson, Esq. MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 201 West Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 225-3731 Facsimile: (859) 225-3830 E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com PEORIA DISPOSAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stinson, v. Peoria Disposal Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01130 (C.D. Ill., Filed Mar. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order: 1. denying as moot a motion to certify class; and 2. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On September 15, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's amended motion to certify the class and granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant PDC Services, Inc. Accordingly, these motions are now moot. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. PDC was founded in 1928 and for more than 90 years, PDC and AREA companies have provided environmental services and solutions.[CC] PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- 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, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 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 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. 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: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 has yet to be served with the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 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 chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint." 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: Semple Class Action 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, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 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 his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. 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. PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks to Certify 6 Classes ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN ROBBINS and TIMOTHY GREEN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00292-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 21, 2021, for an order: 1. certifying plaintiff classes: Radio Rest Break Class (Operator): "all non-exempt hourly California Operators from December 7, 2017 to present who Phillips 66 required to carry or have a radio and answer it during rest breaks"; Radio Meal Break Class (Operator): "all non-exempt hourly California Operators from November 27, 2013 to present who Phillips 66 required to carry or have a radio and answer it during meal breaks"; Radio Class (Non-Operator): "all non-exempt hourly California employees except Operators from November 27, 2013 to present who Phillips 66 required to carry or have a radio and answer it including during meal and/or rest breaks"; Donning and Doffing Class: "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November 27, 2013 to present who Phillips 66 required to don and doff protective gear and/or safety gear"; Auto-Deduct Class: "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November 17, 2013 to present for whom Phillips 66 did not require the precise recordation of the start and end times of each meal break"; and Rounding Class: "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November 17, 2013 to present for whom Phillips 66 rounded their time punches"; 2. appointing the Plaintiff Dean Robbins, Timothy Green, Ian Clare and Keith Washington as representative of the classes proposed or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; and 3. appointing Shaun Setareh, and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group and James Hawkins and Gregory Mauro of James Hawkins APLC as Class Counsel. In this putative wage and hour class action, the Plaintiffs seek to certify claims for failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods under California law; donning and doffing claims for failure to pay for donning and doffing safety gear and protective equipment off-the-clock; auto-deduct claims related to Phillips 66's practice of failing to record meal breaks and deducting half an hour daily whether a meal break was in fact taken or not; and claims related to Phillips 66's practice of rounding time punches. By its own admission the Phillips 66 has a policy whereby class members must always carry radios and answer calls even if they are on a meal and rest break. Phillips 66 asserts various class-wide defenses to this. The Plaintiff Dean Robbins began working at Phillips 66's Rodeo California Carbon Plant in 1984 when it was owned by Union Oil Company of California. He was paid on an hourly basis and worked a regular shift of 6:00am to 2:30pm. Class representative Timothy Green worked for Phillips 66 at the Santa Maria, California refinery. He worked for Phillips 66 from April 2014 until November 2017. His job title was Green Coker Operator. 23 When Mr. Green worked an eight-and-a-half-hour day, he would be paid for 8 hours regardless of whether he received a meal break. Mr. Clare worked at the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, California from 2007 to 2016. His regular shift was a 12-hour shift. During his entire tenure at Phillips 66 he did not clock in or out for meal breaks. Mr. Washington worked for Phillips 66 at the Rodeo refinery from September of 2011 until March 2019. He did not clock in or out for meal breaks. Phillips 66 is a multinational energy company headquartered in Houston, Texas. It operates several oil refineries and other energy facilities in California including in Rodeo, Santa Maria, Carson, and Wilmington, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mkwi7F at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff Dean Robbins are: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, 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 Attorneys for Plaintiff Timothy green are: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Portland General Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE: POR) securities during the period from April 24, 2020 through August 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors had until November 2, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On August 24, 2020, after the market closed, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the Company. In addition, the Company announced that it had formed a Special Committee to review the energy trading that led to the losses and the Company's procedures and controls related to the trading. On this news, the Company's share price fell from $41.96 to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020, a drop of $3.51 per share, thereby injuring investors. Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you acquired PGE 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. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] PRECIGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Precigen, 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 the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com . Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN , XON) Class Period: May 10, 2017 - September 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 4 , 2020 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 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) 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] PROGENITY INC: Abraham Fruchter Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com) on Sept. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Progenity, Inc. ("PROGENITY") (NASDAQ: PROG) on behalf of investors who purchased PROGENITY stock pursuant and/or traceable to PROGENITY's registration statement and related prospectus ("Registration Statement"), issued in connection with PROGENITY's June 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"). The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, charges PROGENITY, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO (together, "Defendants"), with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The class action is captioned Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01795 (S.D. Cal.). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased PROGENITY common stock pursuant to the IPO Registration Statement to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the pending class action. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of this litigation, you must submit an application to the Court no later than October 27, 2020. If you purchased PROGENITY stock and would like to inquire about pursuing claims to recover losses or seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, you are encouraged to contact Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by e-mailing either Jack G. Fruchter (JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien (SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com). You may also call and leave a message at (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or Ext. 1626. On or about June 22, 2020, Defendants conducted PROGENITY's IPO. In the IPO, Defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of PROGENITY common stock to the investing public at a price of $15.00 per share, generating over $100 million in gross proceeds. The Complaint filed by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, alleges that PROGENITY's Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, failed to make the necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (i) PROGENITY had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (ii) PROGENITY would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (iii) PROGENITY was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to PROGENITY's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing. Shortly after the IPO, the price of PROGENITY stock declined significantly. By August 14, 2020, PROGENITY's stock closed at just $7.71 per share, or nearly 50% below the $15.00 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months previously. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com), is a law firm based in New York and maintaining an office in California. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in litigating securities class action cases. The firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved for shareholders, most recently obtaining approval of a $48,750,000 settlement in In re Terraform Global Securities Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-07967 (S.D.N.Y.), representing as much as 75% of likely recoverable damages. If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your rights or your interests, please contact: Jack G. Fruchter Sean M. Handron-O'Brien Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Tel: (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or 1626 Fax: (212) 279-3655 Email: JFruchter@aftlaw.com SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com [GN] PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded purchasers of the securities of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in June 2020 (the "IPO") of the important October 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Progenity class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.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, the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Progenity had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (2) Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (3) Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing. 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 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-1932.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] PROPETRO SERVICES: Hourly Paid Workers' Suit Wins Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL RUIZ ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROPETRO SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00060-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order: 1. granting conditional certification of a collective action and certifying the following class: "all current and former hourly-paid employees of the Defendant who received "per diem" pay from September 1, 2017 to the present and whose home address is within 100 miles of the Defendant's location in Midland, Texas"; 2. directing the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel a complete and accurate list of the names, last known addresses, and email addresses of the potential class members; 3. directing the Plaintiff counsel within 20 days of the Court approving this stipulation, to mail the agreed Notice and Consent forms to all potential plaintiffs; 4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to advise Defendant's counsel of the date of mailing and emailing the Notice. 5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send an identical reminder notice 30 days after the first mailing or emailing of the Notice; and 6. directing the potential plaintiffs to have 60 days from the date of the initial mailing of the Notice to file their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs by returning a completed Consent form to Plaintiff's counsel. The Court further orders the following at the request of the parties: Nothing in the Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification or in the Notice and Consent shall be interpreted as limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the parties' claims and/or defenses. The Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification is not an admission as to any underlying substantive issue in this controversy. Further, Defendant is not waiving its right to later move for decertification of the class. The Plaintiff brings this action both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Defendant asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages and restitution, attorney fees, and costs. ProPetro operates as an oilfield service company. The Company specializes in providing hydraulic fracturing, cementing, acidizing, coiled tubing, nitrogen, and flowback services. A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iWPff4 at no extra charge.[CC] QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 9 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:QTT) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (2) between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") were encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 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. Qutoutiao installed a related party as its advertising agent, removing third-party oversight of the quality and content of advertisements. The Company's mobile app ran ads considered false advertisements under applicable regulations. As a result of the regulatory scrutiny the Company was likely to face regarding such ads, revenues would decline. 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 Qutoutiao, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Seeks Class Status for FCRA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening, Case No. 1:18-cv-12141-ADB (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories who were (a) the subject of a tenant screening report prepared by Defendant that (b) contained information about an eviction proceeding, which (c) was obtained by Defendant from Trans Union, and (d) which had to be updated because it was inaccurate or incomplete according to records of post-dispute investigation results (For the period beginning two years prior to the filing of the Class Action Complaint and continuing through the date of judgment)." The Plaintiff has asserted claims for the Defendant's violations of section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant is doing business in internet media & services industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k281lW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-735-8600 Facsimile: 215-940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. Two Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02862 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 Facsimile: (401) 728-6534 RESOURCE MARKETING: Class Counsel Awarded $71,545 in Fees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY BAUDIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; JOSEPHINE DUFFNEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; and KARISHMA PERSAUD, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. RESOURCE MARKETING CORP., LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge May A. D'Agostino entered an order: 1. partly granting and partly denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration; 2. awarding Class Counsel $71,545.69 in attorneys' fees; and 3. directing the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. The Court increased the fee award to $71,545.69. The Court notes that, throughout its memorandum of law in support of an award of attorneys' fees, Class Counsel repeatedly requested "33%" of the Fund. Class Counsel also repeatedly stated that $81,333.33 is "33% of the Fund." However, $81,333.33 actually represents 33.33333% or 1/3 of the Fund, whereas 33% of $244,000.00 actually amounts to $80,520.00. When the Court ordered $70,830.24, this number accurately amounts to 33% of the net settlement fund of $214,637.08. However, in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, it clearly states that Class Counsel is entitled to attorneys' fees of "one third" or "thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%)." As such, the Court grants reconsideration and awards Class Counsel one third of the net settlement fund, or $71,545.69. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a collective and class action complaint against the Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, based on the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. On January 29, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. On July 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their motions to certify class settlement and for attorneys' fees and costs. On July 27, 2020, the Court held a final approval hearing, during which it signaled its intent to approve of the settlement and requested fees and that a written decision would follow. In the August 13, 2020 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court granted the motion to certify class settlement and granted in part the motion for attorneys' fees and costs. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jh5ItW at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Townsquare Place, Ste. 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 - and - Rod Johnston, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 The Defendant is represented by: Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 677 Broadway, 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207 REZA FAST FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leonardo Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ LEONARDO (A/K/A/ KEVIN) and YONIC HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEZA FAST FOOD, INC. (D/B/A CROWN FRIED CHICKEN) and ADEL EJTEMAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful employment policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Defendants, allege the Defendants of failing to pay their appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week. Moreover, the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs any breaks or meal periods of any kind, improperly and illegally deducted their wages a full hour whenever they were late, and failed to provide them with notices regarding their overtime and wages as well as accurate statement of wages. Peza Fast Food, Inc. is a fried chicken restaurant that conducts business under the name "Crown Fried Chicken," located at 3351 Broadway, New York, NY 10031 owned and operated by Adel Ejtemai. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 7 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 Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE: RCL) between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Royal Caribbean securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Royal Caribbean Shareholder Lawsuit 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 failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company'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 due to 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. The full impact of the Company's false and misleading statements and/or omissions was revealed, as analysts downgraded the Company's stock and slashed their price targets, reflecting the true value of Royal Caribbean stock. On March 18, 2020, prior to the opening of the stock market, Stifel cut its one-year price target on Royal Caribbean from $161 to $40 On this news, Royal Caribbean's stock price dropped $5.33 per share, or 19.27% to close at $22.33 per share on March 18, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 7, 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 Royal Caribbean 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. (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.[GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Baclija Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BACLIJA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 15, 2021 for an order: 1. certifying a Class of: "all individuals who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, within California, a new Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge, or Galaxy S7 Active cellular phone: (i) prior to February 2017 (for Sprint, T-Mobile, or MetroPCS wireless customers or for AT&T wireless customers who purchased a Galaxy S7 or S7 Edge), prior to April 2017 (for Verizon or Comcast wireless customers), or prior to May 2017 (for Cricket wireless customers or for those who purchased an unlocked phone or a Galaxy S7 Active); or (ii) at any time and did not set up their own phone." Excluded from the Class are Defendant Samsung, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 15 officers and directors; any entity in which Samsung has a controlling interest; governmental entities; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as 17 well as their staff and immediate family members. 2. appointing himself as class representative; and 3. appointing the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as class counsel. Mr. Baclija seeks to represent a class of California purchasers of these phones, who he alleges overpaid because Samsung's advertisements were false and misleading. Joinder of these consumers is impracticable, and their claims turn on common questions of law and fact-including the core question of whether Samsung's advertising campaign was deceptive, the Plaintiff contends. The complaint says Plaintiff Martin Baclija's consumer protection claims against Samsung are well-suited for class treatment and satisfy Rule 23's requirements for certification. Despite their universal appeal, electronic devices remain vulnerable to water damage. When Samsung released its Galaxy S7 line of smartphones, its main competition in the market -- Apple's iPhone -- was not water resistant. To distinguish itself from Apple, Samsung devised and implemented a national promotional campaign centering on water resistance. Samsung claimed in widespread television, print, billboard, and digital advertisements that the S7 phones are resistant in five feet of water for up to 30 minutes and depicted them as still working after being sprayed with a garden hose, dropped in a water fountain, or dunked in a fish tank. In reality, the phones are not designed for such conditions, the Plaintiff alleges. Samsung manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2G31Bns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail; dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com elaineb@hbsslaw.com SHANGHAI CITY: Court Certifies Kitchen Workers Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUER HUANG, et al., v. SHANGHAI CITY CORP, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07702-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: 1. dismissing the claims of Huer Huang and Hui Zhen Huang; 2. imposing $3,300.00 in costs on the Plaintiffs for their failure to produce Lu, Li, and Zhai for their depositions; 3. directing the Plaintiffs to produce the responses to Li's interrogatories by October 14, 2020; 4. declining to certify a collective action for employees of the Midtown Restaurant; and 5. conditionally certifying a collective action represented by the plaintiffs Aragon Cardoso Cruz and Maximino Raymundo concerning Defendants' alleged "common policy of (i) not paying Plaintiffs for all the hours they worked, (ii) failure to pay Plaintiffs at least the minimum wage for each hour worked, and (iii) failure to pay at least the one and one half (1.5x) rate the equivalent hourly rate or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week." The conditional class includes: "the named [p]laintiff[s] and all nonexempt current and former employees of the Defendants who performed work as non-exempt, non-managerial [kitchen workers] from August 16, 2016 to present at the Flushing Restaurant." The Plaintiffs brought this action against Shanghai City Corp., Shanghai Duplicate Corp., East Brother Corp., and Shanghai Original, Inc., the corporations that owned and operated the two Joe's Shanghai restaurants as well as a number of individuals who managed the restaurants, alleging that they were paid wages that violated the Fair Labor Standards Ac and the New York Labor Law. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FLLISv at no extra charge.[CC] SIMON'S AGENCY: Stephenson-Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dawn Stephenson-Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Simon's Agency, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02639-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on November 27, 2020 for an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for an Order; 2. appointing Dawn Stephenson-Ortiz as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Barshay Sanders, PLLC, as class counsel. Simon's Agency offers debt recovery and collections services for revenue cycle management and medical billing.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 SIMPLY ORANGE: Turnipseed Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandi Turnipseed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simply Orange Juice Company, Case No. 7:20-cv-08677 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading representations of its vanilla almondmilk in violation of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's representations of its "Simply" brand product as "Vanilla" are false, deceptive and misleading because the product contains added vanillin, which provides almost all of its vanilla taste. She asserts that the representations of "Vanilla" and images of vanilla are also misleading since they give consumers the impression that all of the flavoring is from the ingredient of vanilla beans. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $3.99 per 46 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the product if it were represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Simply Orange Juice Company sells beverages from fruits, vegetables and nuts under the "Simply" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PEREZ, on behalf of herself, v. SIXTH AVENUE RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a L'AMICO, PEAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a THE VINE, LT HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT INC., and LAURENT TOURONDEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-09316-AJN-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of Covered Employees: "all current and former non-exempt employees (including food preparers, bartenders, bar-backs, servers, stockers, runners, bussers, dishwashers, and delivery persons) employed by the Defendants within the last six years" 2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. granting approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. granting approval of the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be sent directly to the Plaintiff's counsel; 5. directing the production in Excel format of names, Social Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court approval of conditional certification; 6. directing the posting of the notice, along with the consent forms in each of the Defendants' places of business where Covered Employees are employed; and 7. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations until such time that the Plaintiff is able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint against the Defendants seeking unpaid wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate the following two restaurants in New York City: "L'Amico" -- 849 Avenue of the Americas, Ground Floor, New York; and "The Vine" -- 851 Avenue of the Americas, Ground Floor, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dDPMB2 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, is: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 SPECTRANETICS CORP: Certification of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal., filed April 20, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 23: "all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed in the Fremont North or South facilities by the Defendant or its predecessor companies as non-exempt hourly employees working as assemblers or in comparable positions, at any time during the Class Period from April 20, 2014 through the date of the Court's order preliminarily approving the Settlement"; 2. preliminarily approving the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims; 3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; 4. appointing herself as Class Representative; 5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and related forms; 6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement Class; and 7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and costs. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes its technology for interventional cardiovascular therapy. The Company's CVX-300 excimer laser system is used in applications such as coronary angioplasty and the removal of pacemaker leads. A copy of the Plaintiff's second motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kHazFS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com maralle@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES: Marino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, YEMINA MARINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company, L'ANGOLO 107 INVESTMENTS LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and SALVATORE DOMANTI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24391-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 26, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a wait-staff worker at all three restaurants operated by the Defendants in Miami-Dade County from approximately December 2014 through September 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees at least the highest applicable minimum hourly rate and failed to timely pay wages to them at the regularly scheduled pay date when those wages were earned. Additionally, the Defendants took a tip credit in excess of actual tips received and kept by the Plaintiff greater than permitted by regulations. Spizzigo Enterprises, L.L.C. and L'angolo 107 Investments LLC operate at least three restaurants and bars in South Florida as a single jointly organized conglomerate using the same or similar names. Both entities are owned and/or controlled, directly or indirectly by Defendant Salvatore Domanti. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Tel: (305) 665-9211 Fax: (305) 328-4842 E-mail: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Staar Surgical Company. 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. Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA) STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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] STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. STAA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1 PLAN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA) STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN) PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21, 2019 - February 26, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30 million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] STATE FARM: Boobuli's Sues Over Excessive Premiums Amid COVID-19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOOBULI'S LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-07074-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2020) seeks to remedy the Defendant's unfair business practice of unjustly profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic by collecting and/or retaining excessive, unfair premiums in violation of California's public policy limiting insurers to a fair rate of return. Beginning in March 2020, California health authorities began to enforce strict social distancing measures in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19, including the closing of nonessential businesses and strict shelter-in-place orders that prevented most people from leaving their homes for extended periods of time. The negative effects of the pandemic on the business operations of Boobuli's and other insured businesses has been severe and protracted. According to the complaint, the Defendant has continued to collect excessive premiums and failed to issue appropriate refunds, despite full knowledge of the circumstances. The Defendant has withheld its policyholders' excessive, unfair premiums, taking advantage of the reduction in the insured risk to reduce reserves, invest the excess funds, and otherwise unfairly profit from its policyholders' misfortunes. The Plaintiff is doing business in Contra Costa County, California, as Caffe California, with its principal place of business in Walnut Creek, California. Bloomington, Illinois-based State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is engaged in the business of marketing and selling insurance products in California and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq. Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq. BERDING & WEIL LLP 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 838-2090 Facsimile: (925) 820-5592 E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com fhagen@berdingweil.com - and - David M. Birka-White, Esq. Robert S. Robinson, Esq. BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES 178 E. Prospect Avenue Danville, CA 94526 Telephone: (925) 362-9999 Facsimile: (925) 362-9970 E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com rob@robrobinsonlaw.com STEMILT AG: Renteria Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as OMAR PALMA RENTERIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, a solely owned subsidiary of Stemilt Growers, LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 18-2-00471-8, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Chelan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on October 23, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00392 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor violations. Stemilt Ag Services, LLC is a provider of farm management services based in Wenatchee, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert R. Siderius, Esq. JEFFERS, DANIELSON, SONN & AYLWARD, P.S. 2600 Chester Kimm Road P.O. Box 1688 Wenatchee, WA 98807-1688 Telephone: (509) 662-3685 Facsimile: (509) 662-2452 E-mail: bobs@jdsalaw.com STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as ROBERT PICETTI, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. STRYKER CORPORATION, HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RG19044860, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 23, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07454 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 provide meal and rest period premiums, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices. Stryker Corporation is an American multinational medical technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. is a company that manufactures and distributes medical products based in Mahwah, New Jersey. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Gabriel M. Huey, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: mbeilke@huntonAK.com jtrankiem@huntonAK.com ghuey@huntonAK.com SUNPATH LTD: Morales Sues in Delaware Over Alleged TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunpath Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Kurt Morales, II, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Ben Fabrikant; Stephen Ost; Brandon Callier; and Nathan Byars v. Sunpath Ltd., a Delaware corporation; Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Matrix Financial Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01376-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 9. 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SunPath Ltd. is an administrator of vehicle service contracts which are commonly referred to as extended warranties or extended vehicle service contracts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq. THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A. 1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 225-7600 E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 30 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 Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD) between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tactile investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Tactile class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1872.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. 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: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile engaged in illegal sales and marketing activities; (3) Tactile's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; 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 November 30, 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-1872.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] TD ASSET: Class Action Against Toronto-Dominion Certified --------------------------------------------------------- An Ontario law firm says a class action centred on TD Asset Management Inc.'s trailing commissions to discount brokers has been certified. Siskinds LLP says the class action was prompted by a retired dentist investing in mutual funds, who discovered that TD Asset Management was paying trailing commissions to discount brokers like TD Direct Investing for services and advice, but neither was being provided. A trailing commission, also known as a trailer fee, is paid by mutual fund investors to financial advisers in exchange for regularly reviewing holdings and providing guidance. The retired dentist alleges his mutual fund assets were wasted by the commissions he had to pay and says investors lost tens of millions of dollars because of the practice. TD Bank Group, which Siskinds says unsuccessfully sought an appeal of the certification decision, declined to comment because it said the matter is still before the courts. Siskinds is currently pursuing six other trailing commissions class actions against mutual fund trustees managers, including the Bank of Nova Scotia's Dynamic, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, National Bank and Bank of Montreal Investments. This report by The Canadian Press was first published October 9, 2020. [GN] TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jane Appelbaum, Linda Hall, Kenaope Rutang, and Dawn Darrow, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., formerly known as: Teva Global Respiratory Research, LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Research LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Research Inc., formerly known as: Ivax Laboratories Inc., formerly known as: Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ivax LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Corporation; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., formerly known as: Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as: Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Research & Development, L.L.C.; Alza Corporation; Janssen Ortho LLC; Johnson & Johnson; and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as: Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-62068-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. The case is assigned to Judge Raag Singhal. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&d, Inc. was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing, fabricating, or processing of drugs in pharmaceutical preparations for human or veterinary use.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra Camille Mullenax, Esq. Francisco Raul Maderal , Jr., Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Cir., Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: alexandra@colson.com frank@colson.com - and - Susan Stanfill Carlson, Esq. DEEHL& CARLSON, P.A. 501 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 448-9111 Facsimile: (305) 442-0441 E-mail: susan@deehl.com - and - Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 728-2959 E-mail: tjl@kttlaw.com bwidlanski@kttlaw.com TEXAS EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Alvarez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.A. B/N/F ALFREDO ALVAREZ and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00921-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Proposed Class asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class; and 2. appointing class counsel. On September 18, 2019, the class members filed their First Original Class Action Complaint arguing the TEA violated their rights pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. TEA is the branch of the government of Texas responsible for public education in Texas in the United States. A copy of the Proposed Class' motion to certify class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dzXdJr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by: Martin J. Cirkiel, Esq. CIRKIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1901 E. Palm Valley Blvd. Round Rock, TX 78664 Telephone: (512) 244-6658 Facsimile: (512) 244-6014 E-mail: marty@cirkielaw.com The Defendant Texas Education Agency is represented by: Rola Daaboul, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 936-1322 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 E-mail: rola.daaboul@oag.texas.gov THERMOFLEX WAUKEGAN: Insurers Won't Cover Class Suit Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Citizens Insurance Company of America, a Michigan corporation; and Hanover Insurance Company, a New Hampshire corporation v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC an Illinois limited liability company, and Gregory Gage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-05980 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2020). This is an insurance coverage dispute between Citizens and Hanover, on the one hand, and Thermoflex. Citizens issued a Commercial Lines Policy to Thermoflex that contains a General Liability Coverage Part and a Cyber Liability Coverage Part. Hanover issued a Commercial Follow Form Excess and Umbrella Policy to Thermoflex. In this action, Citizens and Hanover seek a declaration that they have no duty to defend or indemnify Thermoflex under the Policies in connection with the underlying putative class action suit captioned Gregory Gage v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, and bearing Case No. 20 CH 00000749. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Kness. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC engages in the business of automotive accessory development and production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq. Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 550 West Adams, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-1718 E-mail: jgoldwater@lbbslaw.com kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com TORO FOODS: Leon Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS LEON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TORO FOODS, LLC, and GERARDO DEANDA, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying a class of: "all hourly employees employed by the Defendants since July 14, 2017." The Plaintiff alleges that he and putative class members were uniformly subject to the same policies of the Defendants that led to the violations of Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all hourly employees employed by the Defendants, to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendants are a Texas business that own and operate two Spanish cuisine restaurants in San Antonio. Defendants employ hourly employees such as the Plaintiff to accomplish its business purpose. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dNp3BN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: R. Carlo Garcia, Esq. OLIVIA, SAKS, GARCIA & CURIEL, LLC 14255 Blanco Road San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: 210-308-6600 Facsimile: 210-308-6939 E-mail: cglaw@osgclaw.com TREK RETAIL: Frias-Estrada Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as RAUL FRIAS-ESTRADA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TREK RETAIL CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C20-01916, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 23, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-07471 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime premium pay; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide wages upon termination or discharge; failure to provide accurate records; failure to reimburse business expenses; and violations of California's unfair competition laws. Trek Retail Corporation is a bicycle and cycling product manufacturer and distributor, with its headquarters in Waterloo, Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer N. Lutz, Esq. Rio F. Schwarting, Esq. PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 755-8500 Facsimile: (858) 755-8504 E-mail: jlutz@pettitkohn.com rschwarting@pettitkohn.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as BENJAMIN VALDEZ, HECTOR CASTELLANOS, WORKSAFE, AND CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; UBER USA, LLC; RASIER, LLC; and RASIER-CA, LLC, Case No. CGC-20-587266, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 25, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07496 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code by misclassifying Uber drivers as independent contractors. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a provider of ride hailing services based in San Francisco, California. Uber USA, LLC is a provider of ride hailing services based in San Francisco, California. Rasier, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. Rasier-CA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Theane Evangelis, Esq. Blaine H. Evanson, Esq. Heather Richardson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com tevangelis@gibsondunn.com bevanson@gibsondunn.com hrichardson@gibsondunn.com US FOODS: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WOODARD, individually and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. US FOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00452 (E.D. Tenn. October 26, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as delivery driver. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated delivery drivers routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but they were only paid a "day-rate" for all hours worked per day. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at one and one-half times his regular hourly rate of pay. US Foods, Inc. distributes food and related items to more than 250,000 customers across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart") (NASDAQ: VXRT) between June 25, 2020 and July 25, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vaxart-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9994&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or involvement in Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which commits the federal government to massive funding for the development of COVID-19 vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and marketing and was not among the companies chosen to receive significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS partnership and support. If you suffered a loss in Vaxart you have until October 23, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] VERA LLOYD: Collective Status Sought in House Parents Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASHANNA GIRTMON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VERA LLOYD PRESBYTERIAN FAMILY SERVICES, INC., and VERA LLOYD PRESBYTERIAN FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00762-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 6, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the following collective: "all House Parents employed since June 18, 2017"; 2. scheduling a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice and file Consent forms and directing the Defendants to produce the names, last known home and work addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of potential opt-in the Plaintiffs no later than seven days after the date of the entry of the Order granting this Motion; and 3. permitting her to provide the Notice to potential opt-in the Plaintiffs through U.S. Mail and email and that this Court permit Plaintiff to distribute a follow-up reminder Postcard via traditional U.S. Mail. Vera Lloyd is an equal opportunity employer and provider.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Odom, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: thomas@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WARNER BROS: O'Connor Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DANIEL O'CONNOR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WARNER BROS. ANIMATION INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 20STCV33069, 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 9, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09291-MCS-JPR to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. Warner Bros. Animation is an American animation studio owned by the Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics division of Warner Bros. Entertainment. The studio is closely associated with the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, among others.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emma Luevano, Esq. Louise Truong, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2040 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: eyl@msk.com ltt@msk.com WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling in "Danielson" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Panel has affirmed the district court's dismissal of a claim for monetary relief bought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by public sector employees against their union following the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), which held that the compulsory collection of agency fees by unions violates the First Amendment. The appellate case is captioned as DALE DANIELSON, a Washington State employee; BENJAMIN RAST, a Washington State employee; TAMARA ROBERSON, a Washington State employee; as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAY ROBERT INSLEE , in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington; DAVID SCHUMACHER , in his official capacity as Director of Washington State Office of Financial Management; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, a labor organization, the Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-36087, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff filed an appeal from the District Court's Order entered in the lawsuit styled DALE DANIELSON, BENJAMIN RAST, and TAMARA ROBERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, the Defendants, DALE DANIELSON, BENJAMIN RAST, and TAMARA ROBERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05206-RJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, public sector unions around the country relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which held that the unions could collect compulsory agency fees from nonmembers to finance their collective bargaining activities, without running afoul of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. State laws and regulations further entrenched the union agency shop into the local legal framework. In 2018, the Supreme Court uprooted its precedent by overturning Abood. Immediately thereafter, the defendant Union stopped collecting mandatory fees from nonmembers. The Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit seeking, among other things, a refund of all agency fees that were allegedly unlawfully collected from plaintiffs prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus. Joining the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that private parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively valid state law. See Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019) ("Janus II"); Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n, 942 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2019). The panel held that the good faith affirmative defense applied as a matter of law, and the district court was right to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief. The Plaintiffs are Washington state employees who work within bargaining units exclusively represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO (the Union). The Plaintiffs are not members of the Union and object to financing its activities. Nonetheless, until recently, they were required to pay agency fees to the Union. Collection of agency fees from nonmembers was authorized by the governing collective bargaining agreement, by Washington law, and by over four decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent dating back to Abood. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus, reversing course on the constitutionality of the traditional agency shop regime. Janus overruled Abood and held that the mandatory collection of agency fees from objectors violated the First Amendment. 138 S. Ct. at 2486. It is undisputed that, immediately thereafter, the Union stopped collecting mandatory fees from nonmembers. On March 15, 2018, Plaintiffs brought a putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Jay Inslee, in his official capacity as Governor of Washington; David Schumacher, in his official capacity as Director of the Washington Office of Financial Management; and the Union. In anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, the Plaintiffs alleged that the imposition of compulsory agency fees violated their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, a refund of "all agency fees that were unlawfully collected from Plaintiffs and their fellow class members," and an award of attorney's fees and costs. In the wake of Janus and changes to the Union's practices, the district court determined that the claims against Inslee and Schumacher (the State Defendants) for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot, and they were dismissed from the case. Shortly thereafter, the Union filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The Union argued that the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed as moot, as the parallel claims against the State Defendants had been. The Union further argued that the claim for monetary relief should be dismissed because it had relied in good faith on presumptively-valid state law and then-binding Supreme Court precedent. The district court granted the Union's motion as to all claims and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs then sought reconsideration of the ruling, which the district court denied. This appeal timely followed. The Plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief against the Union. In so ruling, we join the Seventh Circuit, the only other circuit to have addressed the question before us. See Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019) (Janus II); Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n, 942 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2019). The Panel held, "We agree with our sister circuit that a union defendant can invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected pre-Janus, where its conduct was directly authorized under both state law and decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Union was not required to forecast changing winds at the Supreme Court and anticipatorily presume the overturning of Abood. Instead, we permit private parties to rely on judicial pronouncements of what the law is, without exposing themselves to potential liability for doing so."[BN] The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC Austin, TX - and - Talcott J. Franklin TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC Dallas, TX - and - Eric Stahlfeld, Esq. FREEDOM FOUNDATION Olympia, Washington - and - Christopher Hellmich, Esq. HELLMICH LAW GROUP P.C. Anaheim Hills, CA The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: P. Casey Pitts, Esq. Scott Kronland, Esq. Matthew J. Murray, Esq. Altshuler Berzon LLP San Francisco, CA - and - Edward E. Younglove III, Esq. YOUNGLOVE & COKER P.L.L.C. Olympia, Washington WEST END VILLA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Payne at ottawacitizen.com reports that the family of a woman who contracted COVID-19 while living at West End Villa is among plaintiffs seeking $15 million in damages as part of a class-action lawsuit, claiming the Ottawa long-term care home failed to protect residents and was negligent in their care. The lawsuit comes as a 16th resident of the home has died since the outbreak began at the end of August. It is the largest and deadliest ongoing COVID-19 outbreak in long-term care in the province since the first wave hit long-term care homes last spring. In a statement of claim, the plaintiffs say inadequate preventive and responsive measures and inadequate staffing at the home operated by Extendicare contributed to "mass spread" of COVID-19 at the home. A spokesperson for Extendicare said the company has not received any documentation or notice related to the case, adding that the home has had a regular staff testing program in place since June to identify and isolate cases as early as possible, has had enough personal protective equipment to meet all provincial directives and is working closely with public health and The Ottawa Hospital. "Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our residents, keeping our families informed and supporting our staff," the spokesman said. "Our hearts are with our community and those who have lost loved ones to this virus during this immensely challenging time." Among allegations in the statement of claim are that the home failed to implement a proper infection prevention and control program, contrary to the provincial long-term care act, that it failed to follow acceptable practices regarding prevention and containment of contagious respiratory illnesses and failed to properly train and retrain staff in infection prevention and control. The lawsuit also said the home failed to make safety upgrades in the building and to ensure West End Villa met the required design standards for long-term care homes. The lawsuit claims Peggy Hannon, whose daughter and guardian Suzanne Zagallai is lead plaintiff, became infected with COVID-19 while living in a shared room at the home. The family said they had difficulty getting information about her condition and asked that she be moved to hospital for treatment but didn't get a response. The lawsuit also claims that Hannon was not moved from her shared room, nor was her roommate, after she tested positive for COVID-19 on Sept. 18. She has since been moved to a single room. The lawsuit claims the home failed to implement adequate hand-washing protocols and adequate social distancing, among other things. The claim alleges that staffing shortages resulted in residents, including some who died, suffering from dehydration and malnutrition. None of the claims has been proven in court. The lawsuit is not certified. The Ottawa Hospital took over management of the home on Sept. 18. Sixty-nine residents of the home have tested positive for COVID-19, 23 of them still have active cases that are being treated in the home and three are in hospital. Forty three staff members have tested positive, 38 of whom remain isolated at home. [GN] WEST TOWN BANK: Somerville Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AND KAREN SOMERVILLE, et al., v. WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST, Case No. 8:19-cv-00490-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs Joseph and Karen Somerville, Mark and Susan Kline, David and Janie McCranie, and Randolph Whitley ask the Court for an order: 1. allowing the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and 2. certifying these Class and Subclasses: Proposed West Town Class: "all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a mortgage loan obtained from West Town Bank & Trust, a/k/a West Town Savings Bank, for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015." Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of West Town Bank & Trust, a/k/a West Town Savings Bank., or All Star Title, Inc.; The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Subclass consisting of: "all members of the West Town Class"; and The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Subclass consisting of: "all members of the West Town Class who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015"; and 3. appointing themselves as class representatives of the Class and Subclasses. West Town Bank offers a variety of financial services including checking, savings, loans and mortgages. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j0gTqH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com WORCESTER COUNTY, MD: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Coreas Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO COREAS, et al. v. DONNA BOUNDS, in her official capacity as Warden of Worcester County Detention Center, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00780-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore D. Chuang entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification and Expedited Bail Hearings. The motion is granted on the issue of class certification as to the overall class, the Howard County subclass, and the Worcester County subclass. The motion is denied without prejudice on the issue of expedited bail hearings. The Court accordingly certifies these classes: 1. The Main Class consisting of: "all persons who are or will in the future be held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detention in Maryland who are age 50 or older or who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19"; 2. The Howard County Subclass, consisting of: "all persons who are or will in the future be held in ICE detention at the Howard County Detention Center who are age 50 or older or who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19"’ and 3. The Worcester County Subclass, consisting of: "all persons who are or will in the future be held in ICE detention at the Worcester County Detention Center who are age 50 or older or who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19." WCDC is a detention facility located at 5022 Joyner Rd, Snow Hill, Maryland. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32W1OBJ at no extra charge.[CC] WRAP TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming November 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wrap Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC) securities between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Wrap's trial pilot program for its BolaWrap product was a disaster. According to the report: "Over a six-month period, 200 BolaWrap devices in the hands of 1,100 LAPD officers in the field were only used nine times, and only worked once." On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25%, to close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors 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, the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Wrap securities during the class period, you may move the Court no later than November 23, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 23 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 Central District of California on behalf of investors that purchased Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC) securities between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report entitled "Wrap Technologies: Disastrous LAPD BolaWrap Pilot Program Results, No Evidence These Have Been Communicated To Investors" alleging, among other things, that the Company's trial pilot program with the LAPD was a disaster, and that the Company had not disclosed the results to investors. On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25.43% to close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants 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. If you purchased Wrap Technologies securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 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 Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Wrap Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC) securities during the period from April 29, 2020 through September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants 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. If you acquired Wrap 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. [GN] XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR CORTEZ ARRELLANO, et al. v. XPO PORT SERVICE INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08220-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court concurs with Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate that class-wide adjudication is superior -- or even manageable -- for this aspect of their reimbursement claim, and therefore declines to certify the Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of maintenance expenses. Insofar as Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for fuel and insurance, however, the Court finds no similar issues to adjudication on a class-wide basis, and certifies the claim as to those expenses. On December 4, 2019, Reynaldo Gomez Acosta, Servando Avila Luciano, and Feliz Nunez Duarte filed a fourth amended class action complaint on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' FAC alleges various violations of the California Labor Code, including misclassification of employees; unlawful deductions and reimbursable expenses; unpaid minimum wages; waiting time penalties; and failure to pay all wages owed every pay period. The Plaintiffs are drivers who contend that they were improperly classified as independent contractors rather than employees, and were therefore denied numerous benefits and protections to which they were entitled under California law. The Defendants provide drivers with a company-owned truck and remain responsible for the truck with insurance, permits, licenses, place cards and use. XPO is a major transnational transportation and logistics company that provides various shipping services throughout California.[CC] YOUTUBE INC: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUTUBE, INC., Case No. 20-CIV-04023, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 24, 2020. The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07493-SK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Plaintiff's various tort and statutory claims against the Defendant after she allegedly suffered psychological harm as a result of her work as a moderator of content posted on YouTube's platform. YouTube, Inc. is an American online video-sharing platform headquartered in San Bruno, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory P. Stone, Esq. Katherine M. Forster, Esq. Bethany W. Kristovich, Esq. Zachary M. Briers, Esq. Benjamin G. Barokh, Esq. April D. Youpee-Roll, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: Gregory.Stone@mto.com Katherine.Forster@mto.com Bethany.Kristovich@mto.com Zachary.Briers@mto.com Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com April.Youpee-Roll@mto.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***