/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201207.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 244

                            Headlines

ADTALEM GLOBAL: J.D. Valderrama Appeals Approval of Versetto Deal
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
ALASKA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in Pilot Initiated Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ward Seeks Class Certification in Refund Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: "Rita" Beverage Mislead Consumers, Suit Claims

APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
APPLE INC: Prevails Against Radiation Exposure Lawsuit
APPLE: Dodges IPhone Radiation Class Action Suit
APPLE: Faces Class Action over F2P Gambling Applications
APPLE: New MacBook MagSafe Introduced Following Class Action

APTDECO INC: King Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unlawful Deductions
ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL: Two Debris Removal Lawsuits Dismissed
AUSTRALIA: New Allegations Added in Centrelink Class Action
AUTOMATED PET: Henderson Seeks to Certify Employee Class
AXA EQUITABLE: January 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

BAIDU INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Crockrom Class Action Granted
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bid in Douglas Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Gaffney Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Perez Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

BAYER CORP: Faces Deaugustine Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
BERRY CORP: Faces Torres Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
BERT BELL: Faces Brown et al. Suit Over Retirement Plan Amendments
BMW AG: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
BMW AG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Bid Deadline

BMW AG: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
BMW AG: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
BMW AG: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
BMW AG: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action Filing
BOFI HOLDING: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Class Action Mulled Over Mesh Implants
BRAVO ARKOMA: McKnight Balks at Late Oil and Gas Interest Payments
BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: California Settlement Class Approved
BROOKLYN, NY: Landlords Hit With Class Actions
BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay OT to Social Workers, Franco Says

BURLINGTON COAT: Goodman, et al. Seek Final Settlement Approval
BURROWS PAPER: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in Ransom Suit
C.R. ENGLAND: $3.6MM Settlement in Gradie et al Suit Wins Final OK
CANADA DRY: Settles Another False Ads Lawsuit for $218,000
CANADA: 10,000 60s Scoop Survivors' Claims Still Being Assessed

CANADA: Class Action Over Africville Demolition Pending
CANADA: Class Action Over Missing Indigenous Women Ongoing
CANADA: Settlement in Ex-Kelowna Social Worker Suit Approved
CARAHSOFT TECH: Wegner Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Nix Generic Pharmaceutical Suit Pending

CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Examines Viability of Class Action Waivers
CELSION CORP: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
CHEROKEE COUNTY: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class of Teachers
CINGULAR GROCERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zuniga Suit Alleges

CURALLUX LLC: Count V in Cooper Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
CUYAHOGA, OH: Beck Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
DAVITA INC: Investors Seek Approval of $135MM Settlement
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal on Order Denying Bid to Vacate Pending
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Court Decision in Bid to Dismiss Class Suit

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid for Class Cert. in Olivares & Holt Pending
DENVER, CO: Provisional Class Status Bid in Homeless Suit Denied
DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Investment Case Can Proceed
DRAKES: Faces $20-Mil. Class Action Over Alleged Underpayments
EI DU PONT: Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
ELECTROLUX HOME: Settlement Conference in Gorczynski on Jan. 8
EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion Deadline
EVOLUS INC: Robbins Geller Alerts of Securities Class Action Filing
EXPLORICA: Class Action Seeks Cancelled School Trip Refunds

EXXON: Plaintiffs Want Class Action Heard by State Judge
FACEBOOK: UK Firm Launches Cambridge Analytica Class Action
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Bid in Chassen Suit Denied
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Cert. in Early Access Cash Suit Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Christakis and Fox Suits Consolidated

FILTERS FAST: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack
FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline
FIRST AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Karp Seeks to Certify Class Action
FIRST HORIZON: Searles Suit v. Capital Bank Financial Ongoing

FOREST CITY TECH: Nagy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
FSD PHARMA: Ends Class Action Lawsuit With $5.5 Million Settlement
FSD PHARMA: Negotiates C$5.5-Mil. Settlement in Shareholder Suit
GARRISON PROPERTY: Roberts Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds
GCI LLC: HFPF Suit vs Parent Company Ongoing

GENERAL CONSULATE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Mohammad FEHA Suit
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Orders Dismissal of Settlement
GODIVA: 11th Cir. Tosses Muransky FACTA Class Action
GROWERS' CHOICE: Lizarraga May File Prelim. Approval Bid by Jan. 21
GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Buber Seeks to Certify Class of Employees

GRUBHUB: Sued for Listing Restaurants Without Permission
HERITAGE SENIOR: Hoaglan Seeks to Certify Employee Class
HILTON HOTELS: White et al. File Second Renewed Class Status Bid
HOME DEPOT: Hankey Seeks Class Status for Labor Suit
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Certification Bid OK'd in P.J.E.S. Suit

HOMELAND SECURITY: Gatore Class Status Bid Denied as Moot
HOMELAND SECURITY: Mulangu Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
HOMELAND SECURITY: Noncitizen Children's Class Certified
HORIZON STARS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Haider Suit Claims
HUUUGE INC: Court Approves Amazon's Agreed Rider in Wilson Suit

IRWIN NATURALS: Batista Sues Over Mislabeled Ginkgo Supplements
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Action Over Land Rover Turbocharger
JPMORGAN CHASE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
JUBILANT RADIOPHARMA: Magistrate Judge Tosses Antitrust Allegations

JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Motion for Class Certification Denied
JUUL LABS: School Board Considers Joining Vaping Lawsuit
KANSAS CITY: Ellis & Winters Discuss Ruling in Senne Suit
KELLY SERVICES: Larry Seeks to Certify Salaried Recruiters Class
KINKISHARYO INT'L: Armendariz Seeks to Certify 2 Classes

KINKISHARYO INT'L: Loaiza Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
KRAFT HEINZ: Mawby Seeks to Certify Missouri Consumers Class
L'OREAL: Judge Dismisses False Advertising Class Action
LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Pending
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Klein Law Reminds of Dec. 12 Motion Deadline

LAS VEGAS: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
LG: Agrees to Settle Class Suit on Refrigerator Defect Claims
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway

LINCOLN NATIONAL: LLANY Facing Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
LINK: Faces Class Action Over Woodford Fund Collapse
LOGITECH INC: California Court Junks Three Suits by James Porath
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
LYFT INC: Independent Living Resource's Class Status Bid Nixed
LYFT INC: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
LYFT: Wants Judge to Skip Arbitration Discovery in Class Action

MARS PETCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Fishon Class Action
MARS WRIGLEY: Faces Brown Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
MASSACHUSETTS: Residents Mull Class Action Over Flu Shot Mandate
MATSON MONEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
MATSU FUSION: Chen & Fan Suit Wins Collective Action Status

MCDONALD'S: Black Franchisees Allege 'Pipeline Of Discrimination'
MEDACCESS NETWORK: Latronico Balks at Fraudulent ERISA Health Plans
MEREDITH CORP: Iowa Putative Class Suit Dismissed
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 7 Bid Deadline
METRODATA SERVICES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Wentworth FCRA Suit

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Julian Seeks to Certify Claim Specialists Class
MEWBOURNE OIL: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Felps FLSA Suit
MONTCLAIR STATE: Class Action Over Remote Learning Pending
MOPHIE INC: Amended Settlement in Young Suit Gets Final Approval
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $6.7 Million

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Israr Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
NEW CHINA KING: Ming Hui Lin Seeks Collective Action Status
NEW YORK: Correction Officers File Class Action
NEW YORK: Judge Tosses Class Action Covid-19 Wedding Restrictions
NIKOLA CORP: Gross Law Files Shareholder Class Action

NORWEGIAN AIR: Averts Covid-19 Flight Refund Class Action
O ORGANICS: Averts Kombucha False Advertising Class Action
OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
ONEOK INC: Lindsey Seeks to Certify Class of Day Rate Inspectors
ONTARIO HOCKEY: Three Judges Refuse to Sign Off $30MM Settlement

OREGON: Small Businesses Mull Class Action v. Gov. Over Shutdown
PACIFIC BELLS: Fails to Pay Overtime to Managers, Scott Suit Says
PACIFIC POWER: Faces Class Action Over Archie Creek Fire
PENNSYLVANIA: Approval of Class Notice in Suit v DOC Sought
PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Ongoing

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits
PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway
PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale
PINE VALLEY CENTER: Duvet Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Perez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PLAYTIKA LTD: Amazon's Rider in Protective Order Approved in Wilson
PNM RESOURCES: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Avangrid Sale
PRECIGEN INC: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Burchfield Alleges Mislabeling of Infant Meds

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in Paris Suit
QATAR: Class Action Mulled Over Invasive Airport Strip-Search
QS NEXT: Rodriguez Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
QUANTUM GLOBAL: $175,000 Deal in Taafua Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
QUDIAN INC: Securities Suit Settlement Wins Initial OK

R.J. HARRIS: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Gutierrez Claims
REALGY LLC: Lindenbaum Appeals Order in TCPA Suit to Sixth Cir.
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Bid Deadline
ROYAL SEAS: Wants Class Certification Orders Vacated
RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Court Denies Motion to Decertify Class

RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Seeks Class Certification
SAFECO INSURANCE: Signor Seeks to Certify Class Action
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brandt Seeks to Certify Truck Drivers Class
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
SERVICE KING: Moniz et al Seek to Certify 9 Classes of Employees

SERVICEMASTER COMPANY: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class
SHOPKO: Judge Okays $3.018MM Severance Class Action Settlement
SUNPATH LTD: Morales Seeks Provisional Class Status for TCPA Suit
T&D CUSTOM: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
TARGET CORP: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Ruling in Pearson Case

TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification
TEXAS: Foster Care Class Action Pending
TOYOTA MOTOR: Soy Wiring Class Action Revived
TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
TURQUOISE HILL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline

TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
TURQUOISE HILL: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
TYLER TECH: Kudatsky Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Madkudu Seeks to Certify Employers' Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dist. Ct. Declines Jurisdiction in Drivers Suit

UBER: Drivers File Class Action Over Coercive Prop. 22 Messages
UDREN LAW: Settlement in Hill Suit Wins Initial OK
UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit
UNITED PARCEL: Employee Subclass Certified in Santos Suit
UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification Denied in Fisher Suit

UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
UNITED STATES: Rivers End Outfitters et al. Seek to Certify Class
UNUM GROUP: Loomis Seeks Collective Action Status
VACATION VIP: Faces Agnes Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
VETERAN DELIVERY: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

WALMART: Sues Feds Over Prescribing Regulations
WALT: Employees File Class Action in Israel
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal
WIRECARD AG: Faces Consolidated Securities Class Action in U.S.
XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Order Denied

YALOBUSHA HEALTH: Groner FLSA Action Granted Collective Status
ZOSANO PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
[*] Bill of Law 7650 Aims to Introduce Class Action Procedure
[*] BIPA Class Action Not Barred by State Law, Court Rules
[*] Exotic Dancers Obtain Class Certification in Wages Suit

[*] Lack of Stimulus Bill May Lead to Spike in COVID Suits

                            *********

ADTALEM GLOBAL: J.D. Valderrama Appeals Approval of Versetto Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Jose David
Valderrama filed a notice to appeal the Court's order approving the
settlement in the putative class action initiated by Nicole
Versetto.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New
York Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
on April 15, 2019 and the Court granted Defendants' motion on July
29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants'
moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to
the one the Court previously dismissed. No hearing on the motion to
dismiss is currently scheduled.

The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement,
Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing
$44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within
prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of each of June 30, 2020 and September 30, 2020.

Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and
reasonably estimable. As such, the company also recorded a loss
contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within
discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income
(Loss) for the year ended June 30, 2020. The company anticipate the
potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from
the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. This loss contingency
estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional
charges or reversals in future periods.

The Court issued an order finally approving the settlement on
October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of
objector Jose David Valderrama a notice to appeal the Court's order
approving the settlement.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.

ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal from a
ruling in the Flight Attendants class action suit remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws.

The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight
attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims, in
this case, are without factual and legal merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.

On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.

The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the
federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield
inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and
agree with the Company's other bases for appeal.

For these reasons, no loss has been accrued.

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

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.

ALASKA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in Pilot Initiated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit initiated by a pilot seeking to
represent all Alaska and Horizon pilots.

In January 2019, a pilot filed a class action lawsuit seeking to
represent all Alaska and Horizon pilots for damages based on
alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

Plaintiff received class certification in August 2020. The case is
in discovery.

Alaska said, "The Company believes the claims in the case are
without factual and legal merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit."

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ward Seeks Class Certification in Refund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
law360.com reports that a proposed class of American Airlines
customers is urging a federal judge in Texas to grant them class
certification in their suit against the airline alleging they were
denied refunds for flights canceled due to COVID-19.

In a memorandum filed, the passengers, led by Lee Ward, told U.S.
District Judge Reed C. O'Connor that all of the factors a court
should consider when determining whether to grant class
certification weigh in their favor. Ward argued a class action
would be more economical than bringing individual lawsuits and that
the legal issues and evidence to be considered by the jury "will
not vary among class members."

Because there are thousands of similarly situated passengers across
the country, who were all allegedly injured in the same way because
of the cancelation and refusal to refund, class certification is
appropriate here, Ward told the court.

"Class treatment is also superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy because (i) no
class member has an interest in individually prosecuting American,
(ii) there are no pending related cases against American, on behalf
of class members, (iii) it is expedient to concentrate the
litigation before this Court, where American is located, and (iv)
there are no likely difficulties in managing a class action here,"
he argued.

The three named plaintiffs - Ward, James Saunders and William
Holloway - filed the suit on April 22, and American moved to compel
arbitration in the case on Aug. 13.

American argued that Saunders and Holloway, who bought tickets for
flights though Hotwire and Expedia, are subject to the travel
agencies' terms of use that state the purchaser "must bring claims
against travel suppliers (like American) in individual arbitration
or small claims court."

The passengers argue they were not party to those agreements and
are therefore not subject to arbitration.

Judge O'Connor requested additional information in order to rule on
the arbitration issue, and American filed a supplemental response
on Oct. 19 that includes an affidavit of David Coons, vice
president for product and technology at Expedia, in which he
confirms "the accuracy of American's description of the Expedia and
Hotwire terms of use" that apply here.

American has alternatively argued that if the court doesn't send
the case to arbitration, it should dismiss the lawsuit as barred by
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which preempts state law
clams having a connection with or reference to airline prices,
routes or services.

Counsel for American declined to comment and counsel for the
passengers did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Ward, Saunders and Holloway are represented by Allen Ryan Vaught of
Vaught Firm LLC; Daniel J. Kurowski, Steve W. Berman and Whitney K.
Siehl of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; and E. Adam Webb and G.
Franklin Lemond Jr. of Webb Klase & Lemond LLC.

American is represented by Dee J. Kelly Jr. and Lars L. Berg of
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP and Michael E. Bern, James E. Brandt and
Tyce R. Walters of Lathan & Watkins LLP.

The case is Ward v. American Airlines Inc., case number
4:20-cv-00371, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.  [GN]


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: "Rita" Beverage Mislead Consumers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new class-action lawsuit alleges that packaging for
Anheuser-Busch's "Rita" beverage products deceives consumers by
implying that the products contain wine or distilled spirits when
in fact they are flavored malt beverage products.

Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of profits, unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and an order requiring Anheuser-Busch to
revise its marketing for the Rita products and engage in a
corrective advertising campaign.

                   Anheuser-Busch's Advertising

The complaint primarily targets multipack cardboard packaging for
Anheuser-Busch's Rita products. The Rita products include
margarita-flavored products sold under the names Lime-A-Rita,
Straw-Ber-Rita, and Peach-A-Rita, among others; mojito-flavored
products sold under the name Ritas Mojito Fizz; sangria-flavored
products sold as Ritas Sangria Spritz; and rosé-flavored products
sold as Ritas Rosé Spritz.

Packaging for these products displays the name and imagery of the
cocktails that inspire the flavors of the beverages. For example,
packaging for the margarita-flavored products features the text
"sparkling margarita" and an image of a margarita. Similarly,
packaging for the mojito-flavored products features the text
"sparkling classic cocktails" and packaging for the
sangria-flavored and rosé-flavored products features the words
"Sangria" and "Rosé" along with images of wine glasses. While the
packaging does disclose that the products are "Flavored Malt
Beverage[s]," this disclosure appears on the bottom panel of the
packaging, which the plaintiffs claim is not sufficiently
conspicuous. The complaint also states that reasonable consumers
would assume that "margarita" products contain tequila, rosé and
sangria products contain wine, and mojito products contain rum.

The plaintiffs also allege that Anheuser-Busch's packaging violates
federal regulations governing advertising of malt beverages. While
the regulations permit the use of a cocktail name as a brand name
or fanciful name of a malt beverage, such names are only
permissible if the overall label does not present a misleading
impression about the identity of the product.

Anheuser-Busch responded to the complaint by stating that the
lawsuit is without merit as the Ritas product names and images
convey the margarita, mojito, rosé, spritz, and sangria flavors
included in the alcoholic beverages. Anheuser-Busch noted that "the
Rita family of products is a well-known line of malt beverages
enjoyed by consumers for their flavor-packed refreshment."

                     Regulatory Considerations

The distinction between flavored malt beverage products and wine or
distilled spirits products may impact where the product can be
sold. In New York, for example, flavored malt beverages may be sold
in grocery stores, while wine and distilled spirits are restricted
to liquor stores. Thus, the Rita line of malt beverage products can
reach significantly more consumers than similarly-positioned
products that contain wine or distilled spirits.

                         Primary Takeaway

Regardless of the outcome, this case shows that plaintiffs'
attorneys, as well as alcoholic beverage regulators, are on the
lookout for potentially misleading marketing statements and images
on the packaging of alcoholic beverages. Both alcoholic beverages
and non-alcoholic beverages have been targeted by litigants related
to arguably misleading imagery on beverage packaging and bottles.
[GN]


APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the cases, Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v.
Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219, in Oklahoma.

Apache is a party to two purported class actions in Oklahoma styled
Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH,
and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
CJ-2019-00219.

The Rhea case has been certified, and Apache's appeal of the
certification was recently denied. The case includes a class of
royalty owners seeking damages in excess of $250 million for
alleged breach of the implied covenant to market relating to
post-production deductions and alleged NGL uplift value.

The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a
group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty payments
under Oklahoma statutes. The amount of this claim is not yet
reasonably determinable.

Apache said, "While adverse judgments against the Company are
possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits
and claims."

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

Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.

APPLE INC: Prevails Against Radiation Exposure Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson at Reuters reports that a federal judge in San
Francisco has rejected a proposed class action lawsuit accusing
Apple Inc of understating the amount of radiofrequency (RF)
radiation emitted by several iPhone models.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the claims in the case
were preempted by the Federal Communications Commission's
regulations on radio frequency exposure, granting summary judgment
in favor of Apple. [GN]


APPLE: Dodges IPhone Radiation Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Court House News reports that a federal judge nixed
a class action claiming Apple failed to warn consumers about
dangerous radiation from iPhones, finding it has twice demonstrated
that its smartphones comply with the Federal Communications
Commission's radiation exposure limits.

Impelled by a Chicago Tribune article indicting iPhone and Galaxy
smartphones for surpassing federal safety limits, lead plaintiff
Andrew Cohen sued cellphone makers Apple and Samsung in August
2019. Samsung was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in the case
in January.

The plaintiffs commissioned their own independent tests in 2019 and
cited tests conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Company in 2017
and French National Frequencies Agency in 2018, all of which found
radiofrequency radiation exposure from iPhones exceeded federal
safety limits.

In response to the Tribune's investigation, the FCC's lab tested
commercially-available iPhones as well as a model iPhone at
separation distances of five millimeters, pursuant to federal
guidelines, finding they fell well within the safety limits. It
published the results of those tests in December 2019.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with Apple in a ruling
issued, since the FCC has broad authority under the Federal
Communications Act of 1934 to enact uniform regulations for
wireless radio communications devices and any related emissions.

"If successful, plaintiffs' claims could set the stage for a
patchwork of state-required testing procedures, increasing the
burden on manufacturers and thereby upsetting the efficiency that
the uniform standards and testing procedures provide," Alsup
wrote.

Alsup also found a jury trial unnecessary, as the FCC's lab tests
indicated that Apple's smartphones meet its RF exposure standards.

"The Lab found no evidence of violations of the technical
standards. Apple's iPhones have thus demonstrated compliance with
its exposure limits not once but twice," Alsup wrote. "Allowing a
federal jury to now second-guess the agency determinations would
interfere with the balance struck in the equipment-authorization
program. The federal regulations must displace plaintiffs'
claims."

Attorneys for Apple and the class did not immediately respond to
emails seeking comment.

The ruling follows a judgment in favor of a wireless industry trade
group rendered by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen earlier this year
on similar grounds.

The Cellular Telephone Industries Association had challenged the
city of Berkeley's ordinance requiring cellphone retailers to
provide guidance on avoiding radio-frequency exposure. Chen agreed
that the FCC's regulatory actions on radio frequency emissions
preempt the local law. [GN]


APPLE: Faces Class Action over F2P Gambling Applications
--------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Garcia, writing for Gambling News, reports that Apple and
Google may be facing potential federal lawsuits over allegedly
offering free-to-play (F2P) gambling applications available for
Alabama residents. Furthermore, in Connecticut, over similar F2P
games, a woman filed a lawsuit against Apple.

Despite being filed in different states, the lawsuits are similar
as plaintiffs claim to have downloaded apps that are F2P such as
blackjack, roulette, slots, poker, and bingo. Although the
plaintiffs initially played with pre-loaded free "coins", at some
point they allegedly purchased "coins" with real currency so that
they can continue playing the games.

A Lawsuit against Apple Filed in Connecticut

A lawsuit in Connecticut was filed against Apple in the US District
Court on October 22. Plaintiff Karen Workman claims that in the six
months before the lawsuit, she has spent some $3,312.19 by
allegedly using various "gambling apps".

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the giant Apple "promotes,
enables, and profits" from games that feature gambling-like
activities and are available on the App Store. According to the
legal claim by Ms. Workman, the hosting of "gambling apps" on the
App Store is a violation of the gambling laws effective in
Connecticut.

"Apple is not some minor or incidental participant in these illegal
gambling games. It is the principal promoter and facilitator of
illegal activity," reads the lawsuit by Karen Workman.

Ms. Workman seeks class-action status to the case. In other words,
this would allow plaintiffs with similar claims to also join the
lawsuit. Furthermore, the lady is asking Apple to refund the money
which she lost by purchasing in-game currency to play the "gambling
apps" allegedly downloaded from the App Store. Moreover, Ms.
Workman seeks the covering of the attorneys' fees as well as a
reward for "her services in this case on behalf of the class."

Two Lawsuits over Free-to-Play Games Filed in Alabama

Focusing on Alabama, there were two lawsuits filed by the same
lawyer John E. Norris in the state's Northern District Federal
Court on October 21. Similar to the lawsuit in Connecticut,
plaintiffs claim to have spent real currency to continue playing
free-to-play "gambling apps". Currently, gambling laws in Alabama
prohibit any type of online gambling. In contrast, the two filed
lawsuits pointed out 200 casino-like games allegedly available on
the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store.

Maria Valencia-Torres filed the lawsuit against Google, over claims
for losing $165 while playing a game called Slotmania for six
months. According to Teresa Larsen, the plaintiff in the lawsuit
filed against Apple, she claims to have spent more than $250 for
six months while playing Goldfish Casino Slots and Jackpot Party.

According to the lawsuits by the two plaintiffs, games that feature
playing with real money to extend playing time are illegal in the
Yellowhammer State. Similar to the lawsuit in Connecticut, the two
Alabama lawsuits are seeking class-action status. Furthermore, Ms.
Valencia-Torres and Ms. Larsen seek a refund of the money "paid
through the illegal gambling games" and compensation for raising
the issues to the court. [GN]


APPLE: New MacBook MagSafe Introduced Following Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Truly, writing for Screenrant, reports that Apple's MagSafe
chargers and accessories for the iPhone 12 have gained quite a bit
of attention lately, but the exact same name was used with a very
different product for MacBook devices. The older form of MagSafe
also used magnets and made charging easier, but it was discontinued
by Apple in 2017. An interesting, but much less glamorous
technology, it is sorely missed by some MacBook users.

The original MagSafe charger was introduced in 2006 with the very
first MacBook Pro. It was mostly well received, though Apple did
face a class action suit in 2009 regarding problems with the first
version. Apple updated the design in 2012 to become MagSafe 2,
changing a connector that seemed to be causing problems for some
customers and also making it a bit thinner. Technically, it's not
completely discontinued as MagSafe 2 chargers are still available
for purchase from Apple. However, the technology is no longer
incorporated in any of its laptops and the last product to use this
type of MagSafe was the 2017 MacBook Air.

The original MagSafe is quite plain when compared to the modern
iPhone version. It's a wall charger that could supply up to 85
watts of power via a magnetically attached power cord. There was no
wireless charging or sensors involved, though it would show a
colored light, amber to indicate charging or green for fully
charged. The original MacBook MagSafe is simply an electrical cord
that is guided and held in place with strong magnets. Though not as
flashy as an iPhone accessory, it solved a very important problem.
The purpose was to prevent accidental damage to a MacBook or to the
power cable when tripping over the cord. Older MacBook power cords
also tended to fray, due to the power cord's barrel connector
design holding too tightly. The magnetic attachment means the cord
can be disconnected with a pull, but will also instantly detach in
case the cord is tripped over.

Why The Original MagSafe Is Gone

The original MacBook MagSafe was very much appreciated by most
customers and forums are filled with claims that it saved their
laptop from numerous crashes. Apple, like most other large tech
companies, rarely explains its decision-making and so it may never
be known for certain why MagSafe was discontinued. However, there
are several reasons and these may have just added up to the point
where the decision Apple made is clearer. Tripping over laptop
cords used to be a big problem, since the older models often needed
a charge after only a few hours of use. However, the need to keep a
modern laptop plugged into a charging cord is greatly reduced.

Since most newer MacBook computers can run for 10 or more hours on
a single charge, it's more likely that they are plugged in for an
hour or two during the day or charged up overnight. That means the
fancy magnetic plug starts to become an unnecessary expense.
MagSafe was actually fairly large and heavy compared to modern
MacBooks and Apple is a huge proponent of thin and light
technology. Of course, moving to the industry standard USB-C makes
things simpler for the customer when traveling. There's nothing
worse than reaching a destination only to realize a rare and
critical charger has been left behind. With USB-C, that problem is
easily remedied.

Now, a new MagSafe has been introduced. Apple's iPhone 12 MagSafe
technology allows faster 15-watt charging while also aligning the
phone perfectly every time. MagSafe for the iPhone allows various
accessory items to be attached, including clear polycarbonate,
colorful silicone cases and a leather wallet. Future accessories
from Apple will include a charger that can top up an iPhone 12 and
Apple Watch at the same time, and a folio cover that has a window,
exposing a small portion of the screen to display the time when the
cover is closed. This is a clever use of the NFC sensor that
detects the type of accessory attached. The new MagSafe doesn't
release as quickly as the original, but this is by design. There is
little chance to trip over the three-foot card, but picking up and
using an iPhone 12 while its charging is a nice feature. Easy
alignment and attachment is shared with the original MacBook
MagSafe and there is always the chance that Apple will reinvent it
for the MacBook once again. [GN]


APTDECO INC: King Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unlawful Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHTON KING and TEASHAWN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APTDECO, INC., REHAM FAGIRI, and
KALAM DENNIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09865 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 23, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiffs as a collective and
class action complaint against the Defendants to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
assistants going around to deliver furniture in residences,
including in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York City
and other places. Plaintiff Ashton King began working for the
Defendants in or around June 2018 and he was terminated in or
around October 2019, while Plaintiff Teashawn Smith was hired by
the Defendants in or around December 2018 and his employment ended
in or about December 2019.

The Plaintiffs claim that although they worked more than 40 hours
per week, the Defendants paid them below the amounts due under the
New York State minimum wage, the FLSA overtime laws, and the New
York overtime laws. Throughout their employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants improperly made deductions from the
Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated delivery employees' wages
for reasons such as when customers made complaints that furniture
had been damaged by the company in the course of doing work and the
products smell like smoke, as well as when delivery employees
missed their schedules, did not keep the delivery van clean, did
not adjust the camera in the van, and did not take a picture of the
license plate.

Moreover, the Defendants had a policy of not paying their employees
"spread of hours" premium for each day that they work a shift in
excess of 10 hours, and failed to furnish them with an accurate
wage statements with every payment of wages, listing gross wages,
deductions and net wages, the Plaintiffs allege.

In addition, Plaintiff Ashton King was abruptly terminated by the
Defendants when he complained about the reimbursement of parking
ticket when he was working and driving the delivery van of the
Defendants to deliver the furniture.

AptDeco operates an online retail furniture store as well as the
AptDeco website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State
of New York and throughout the U.S. Reham Fagiri is the Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporate Defendant, while Kalam Dennis is
a co-founder. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL: Two Debris Removal Lawsuits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Schmitt, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that at least
two federal lawsuits against debris removal companies lodged by
North Bay residents whose property burned in the October 2017
wildfires have been dismissed.

The litigation against AshBritt Environmental and Tetra Tech
accused those companies of improper debris removal tactics,
including hauling away excess soil for self-enrichment, as they
were paid by the ton. In two separate cases, attorneys representing
those companies fended off claims filed on behalf of North Bay
residents, including some Sonoma County property owners who claimed
the over-excavation cost them thousands of dollars per property.

Both cases came to an end Oct. 15 when the two companies and the
plaintiffs agreed to a brief statement dismissing the case for
good. The dismissals, filed with U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, acknowledged the absence of any settlement or exchange
of payment to resolve the litigation.

For AshBritt -- a Florida-based based disaster recovery and
environmental services contractor that filed a suit of its own
against California officials this summer -- the dismissal
represented welcome legal relief more than three years after the
fires hit Northern California.

"This action reaffirms that AshBritt followed all laws and
regulations during the clean-up and met all contract requirements
for debris removal," an AshBritt spokeswoman said in a statement.
"The company is pleased with the dismissal of this case, which was
the only such case arising out of AshBritt's work in California."

Three attorneys with the Arns Law Firm in San Francisco listed in
court documents as representatives for the main plaintiff, Sonoma
County property owner Craig Mason, and other potential plaintiffs,
did not respond to requests for comment.

Deal to rebuild burned Coffey Park walls provides symbol of hope

Post-fire debris cleanup operations were overseen by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, which worked with the contractors and
subcontractors that hauled away about 2.2 million tons of debris
from more than 4,500 properties in Sonoma, Lake, Napa and Mendocino
counties after the October 2017 firestorm. The $1.3 billion cleanup
effort was deemed to be complete in June 2018.

But in August 2018, the California Office of Emergency Services
wrote to the Army Corps to cite numerous debris removal issues,
including "obvious over-scraping" of some properties. Other
properties that had been deemed clear by the Army Corps still
showed signs of "unacceptable" contamination, the state agency
alleged. An Army Corps spokesman responded by defending the debris
removal mission while acknowledging "incidental damage" caused by
the use of heavy machinery.

In a September status update filed with the court in Mason's case,
the parties appeared at an impasse.

Mason had aimed to launch a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "all
owners of real property" in four counties where AshBritt and its
subcontractor, Tetra Tech, removed fire debris.

Mason's case initially included allegations under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, but the claims
filed under RICO -- a 1970s law targeting the mafia and other gangs
-- were later dropped from the suit.

The lawsuit's key allegations were that AshBritt and Tetra Tech
"improperly removed" too much soil and structural remains that were
unaffected by the fires while leaving contaminated materials
behind.

The plaintiffs asked for unspecified damages — calculated "on the
value of soil and trees removed" — to make up for alleged
over-excavation to their properties.

In the same September joint filing, AshBritt and Tetra Tech denied
all allegations of wrongdoing.

One question that was expected to arise was whether the contractor
and subcontractor, as agents of the Army Corps for the debris
removal task, could be exempt under derivative sovereign immunity,
a legal doctrine that extends litigation protections to government
contractors.

An AshBritt spokeswoman said the dismissal forestalled the parties
from filing any briefs on that topic ahead of a deadline set for
last Monday.

The defendants also had challenged the attempt to position the suit
as a class-action lawsuit as "manifestly overbroad," according to
the September case status update. And AshBritt also outlined
another strategy: calling witnesses to determine how much of the
damage should be allocated to PG&E, which made deals worth roughly
$25.5 billion with fire survivors, insurance companies and local
governments to settle claims arising from recent wildfires.

A similar case, filed by property owners against Environmental
Chemical Corp. -- which like AshBritt received a debris removal
contract from the Army Corps of Engineers and hired Tetra Tech --
came to a similar end on the same day.

In July, AshBritt filed a lawsuit of its own against Mark
Ghilarducci, director of the Office of Emergency Services. The
civil suit argues that a "California Only" restriction improperly
excluded the company from bidding on a tree removal project
following the 2018 Camp fire. It also alleges Ghilarducci in 2015
told an AshBritt official that the company wouldn't work in the
state as long as he was in charge.

Attorneys for Ghilarducci and another state official said they
would "vigorously contest" those allegations. A judge granted the
defendants' initial motion to dismiss but allowed AshBritt to
refile its complaint - which it did Oct. 15, the same day the
debris removal cases were dismissed. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: New Allegations Added in Centrelink Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grace Ormsby, writing for nestegg, reports that new allegations
have been added in the class action against the Commonwealth
government over the robodebt scheme that saw Services Australia
illegally issue debt collection notices to more than 370,000
Australians.

An update from Gordon Legal to members of the robodebt class action
case outlined that the Commonwealth had been required to provide
the law firm working on behalf of class action members "thousands
of documents that are relevant to the operation of the robodebt
system".

According to the firm, the documents were progressively provided
"very close to the date on which the trial was scheduled to begin"
-- which was reported as 21 September 2020.

Subsequent review of the documents by Gordon Legal "bolstered the
claims that could be made against the Commonwealth in the class
action. Those claims cover specific people who were involved with
the implementation of the robodebt system. They also include new
claims for exemplary and/or aggravated damages against the
Commonwealth."

Permission was then granted by the court to add the new allegations
to the case, which resulted in the Commonwealth being granted more
time to prepare so it can attempt to respond to the new claims.

According to Gordon Legal, the rescheduled court commencement date
will be determined shortly.

With the court case taking place in Melbourne, the new date could
be as early as November this year, or it may be pushed back to
early 2021, depending on COVID-19 restrictions, the email
outlined.

Gordon Legal said it has a preference for the case to be heard
in-person "in the normal way, if that is possible. That is because
of the complexity and importance of this case to the six lead
applicants and hundreds of thousands of group members."

The firm has expressed its disappointment that the trial would not
be going ahead in line with the original schedule, but told class
action members "we think it is more important that we are able to
put the best possible case on your behalf".

Services Australia began rolling out $721 million in refunds for
the illegal scheme from July 2020. [GN]


AUTOMATED PET: Henderson Seeks to Certify Employee Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL HENDERSON on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AUTOMATED
PET CARE PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 19-cv-1640 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the proposed
      Rule 23 Class and Collective pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA):

      "all hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Automated Pet
      Care Products, Inc. employed at its Wisconsin facilities
      within the three year period immediately preceding the
      filing of the Complaint and who received non-discretionary
      forms of monetary compensation that were not included
      in said employees’ regular rate of pay for overtime
      calculation purposes or who were not compensated for daily
      meal periods lasting less than 30 consecutive minutes in
      duration, including at an overtime rate of pay";

   3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as counsel for the
      Settlement Class;

   4. designating herself as representative of the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approving the mailing of notice to members of the
      Settlement Class;

   6. establishing deadlines for putative FLSA Collective
      members to file their "Consent to Join" forms in order to
      participate in the FLSA Collective;

   7. establishing deadlines for putative Rule 23 Class members
      to opt out of the case or object to the Agreement;

   8. finding that such notice process satisfies due process;

   9. directing any member of the Rule 23 Class who has not
      properly requested exclusion from the Agreement and any
      member of the FLSA Collective who timely filed their
      "Consent to Join" form, be bound by the Agreement in the
      event the Court issues a Final Order Approving Settlement;

  10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class who wishes
      to object to the Settlement Agreement in any way must do
      so per the instructions set forth in the Notice Packet;
      and

  11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement.

The Settlement provides a Total monetary settlement payment of
$75,000.00 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant will compensate Class Counsel for the Plaintiff's
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs spent litigating this matter
to date and the anticipated amount of attorneys' fees and costs
that will continue to be spent litigating this matter through its
ultimate conclusion, i.e. $40,075.00.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nSLPME at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Dr., Ste. 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Haase, Esq.
          Aaron P. McCann, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
          200 S. Washington Street, Suite 100
          Green Bay, WI 54301
          Telephone: (920) 432-9300
          E-mail: jhaase@gklaw.com
                 amccann@gklaw.com

AXA EQUITABLE: January 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company ("AXA Equitable"), now known as Equitable Life
Insurance Company, for allegedly unlawful cost of insurance ("COI")
rate increases announced on October 1, 2015 on certain life
insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "COI Rate
Increase"). The class action lawsuit is known as In re: AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company COI Litigation, Case No.
16-cv-740, and it is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The Court has allowed this
lawsuit to proceed as a class action on behalf of two nationwide
classes and one New York class (the "Classes"), or groups of
persons or entities, that could include you. You are a potential
Class member if you owned, on or after March 8, 2016, an Athena
Universal Life II ("AUL II") policy that was issued by AXA
Equitable and subjected to the COI Rate Increase. This Notice
summarizes your rights and options. More details about the case are
available at www.AXACOILitigation.com. If you are a member of any
of the Classes, you have to decide whether to stay in the lawsuit
and be bound by any judgment in this case, or ask to be excluded
and preserve any rights to sue AXA Equitable at your own expense
and with your own attorney about the same legal claims that are the
subject of this lawsuit, as well as any related claims not asserted
in this lawsuit. There is no money available now and no guarantee
there ever will be. The Court has made no decision as to the merits
of the legal claims against AXA Equitable or AXA Equitable's
defenses, and AXA Equitable denies all claims in this lawsuit.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

Do nothing.  Stay in this lawsuit and await the outcome. Lose
certain rights. If you remain in the Classes and money or other
value is obtained from this lawsuit -- either as a result of a
ruling, trial or Court-approved settlement -- you may receive a
payment, if you are entitled to one. By doing nothing, the Court's
certification of the Classes means that any judgment in this case
will bind all Class Members who do not timely elect to be excluded
from the Classes. The Court reserved the rights for all absent
class members outside of New York and California to participate in
this case as an absent class member and also later bring any claim
not actually litigated here, as well as the rights of all absent
class members to participate in this case as an absent class member
and to assert related claims under the California Elder Abuse Law.
There is no guarantee that a later court would honor the
reservation of claims. That later court may determine that, if you
participate in this class action, you are precluded from asserting
any claims relating to the COI Rate Increase even if these claims
were not actually litigated in this lawsuit. The Court has
appointed Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel. If you stay in
the Classes, you do not need to hire your own lawyer to pursue the
claims against AXA Equitable because Class Counsel is working on
behalf of the Classes. However, if you want to be represented by
your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense and cost. If
you have questions about whether you need your own lawyer, visit
the case website at www.AXACOILitigation.com or call
1-888-681-1196.

Exclude yourself.  Get no benefits from this lawsuit. Keep certain
rights. If you ask to be excluded from this lawsuit and money is
later awarded, you will not be allowed to request a payment. But
you preserve any rights to sue AXA Equitable at your own expense
and with your own attorney about the COI Rate Increase, including
the same legal claims asserted in this lawsuit, subject to any
defenses AXA Equitable may have to each legal claim. In order to
exclude yourself from the lawsuit, you must send a letter
requesting exclusion from In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company COI Litigation class action, with your name, address,
telephone number, email address, AXA Equitable policy number(s) for
the AUL II insurance policy or policies you own, the time period
you claim to have owned the policy or policies, and your signature
to: AXA Equitable COI Litigation Notice Administrator, c/o JND
Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91238, Seattle, WA 98111. You must
mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later than January 21,
2021.

This Notice is only a summary.  Details about the case can be found
at www.AXACOILitigation.com.com.
Please do not contact the Court. [GN]


BAIDU INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIDU)

Investors Affected: April 8, 2016 - August 13, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Baidu, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business
condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/baidu-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=9462&from=1

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coty-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9462&from=1

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

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

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. The filed
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ
did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with
Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing,
and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen
production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its
ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and
Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test"
video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience
and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had
been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre
trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=9462&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Dismiss Crockrom Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DU'BOIS A. CROCKROM, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-00013-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered
an Order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2); and

   2. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
      Rule 12(b)(6); and

   3. directing the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The Court said the Plaintiff argues his noncompliance with the
Deposit Agreement's notice provision should be excused because BANA
materially breached the Deposit Agreement by assessing the
overdraft fees. The Plaintiff does not explain, however, why BANA's
coding errors -- events that the Deposit Agreement acknowledges may
occur -- and the resulting overdraft fees rise to the level of a
material breach, or a breach "so substantial that it defeats the
object of the parties in making the contract." In enforcing the
Deposit Agreement's notice requirement, the Court follows a
well-trodden path. New York courts regularly deny relief to
account-holders who "failed to timely notify the defendant [of a
problem] as required by the agreement of the parties."

The Plaintiff Du'Bois A. Crockrom brings this putative class action
against the Defendants, claiming that Defendants breached their
Deposit Agreement for personal deposit accounts. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants assessed overdraft fees for his
and other account-holders' non-recurring purchases, in
contravention of "the express terms of the Deposit Agreement."

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 17, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/379eRR9 at no
extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bid in Douglas Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAIRE DOUGLAS, et al., v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,Case No. 2:20-cv-00193-JLR (W.D.
Wash.), the the Hon. Judge entered an Order, among others:

   1. denying as moot Bank of America's motion to strike;

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      without prejudice:

      "all individuals who acquired a bank bond, bill,
      certificate, time deposit, CD, and multiple maturity non-
      negotiable time certificate of deposit ("Bond") from
      Seattle-First or Rainer [sic] Bank where the following
      conditions are met: (i) the Bond automatically renews
      unless redeemed or a notice of nonrenewal is provided by
      the issuer under the terms of the Bond; (ii) the
      owner or legal beneficiary has not redeemed the Bond; and
      (iii) the owner or legal beneficiary received no
      notification that the Bond was not being renewed, was
      abandoned, and/or had escheated to the State of
      Washington"

   3. dismissing the Defendants U.S. Bank and Key Corp. from
      this action without prejudice; and

   4. directing the Plaintiffs to file their proposed amended
      complaint within 14 days of the filing date of this order;

   6. resetting the deadline to complete discovery on class
      certification to January 22, 2021 and the deadline for
      Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification shall be
      reset to February 22, 2021.

Although the court agrees with the Plaintiffs that amendment is
warranted, the court concludes that Plaintiffs' new class
definition merits denial of their motion for class certification at
this time. District Courts in the Ninth Circuit are split over
whether a plaintiff is bound by the class definition set out in her
complaint.

This class action pertains to the allegedly unsuccessful efforts of
the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent to redeem bank
bonds originally issued by Rainier National Bank or Seattle-First
National Bank.

Ms. Douglas and Ms. Isabell initially filed suit against Bank of
America in King County Superior Court on November 21, 2019. On
December 20, 2019, Ms. Douglas and Ms. Isabell filed the operative
amended complaint and added Ms. Carlon and Ms. Pawolski as
Plaintiffs, and U.S. Bank and Key Corp. as Defendants. At a high
level, the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Rainier National Bank
or Seattle-First National Bank issued the Bonds to Plaintiffs and
members of the class.

A copy of the Court's Order denying the motion for class
certification dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m10YuT at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Gaffney Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
JIM GAFFNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION CORPORATE
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-02773-VMC-AEP (M.D.
Fla., November 24, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for its alleged failure to provide a
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) notice to
its employees in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant for approximately 20
years. He resigned on June 8, 2019 due to unbearable working
conditions related to his complaints of discrimination.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant caused Alight Solutions,
its COBRA Administrator, to mail to the Plaintiff a deficient COBRA
enrollment notice, which violated COBRA's mandates for these
reasons: (a) it failed to provide the address to which payments
should be sent; (b) it failed to explain how to enroll in COBRA;
(c) it failed to provide all required explanatory information; and
(d) it failed to provide a notice written in a manner calculated to
be understood by the average plan participant.

As a result of the Defendant's deficient COBRA notice, the
Plaintiff has suffered a tangible injury in the forms of (a) lost
health insurance coverage, (b) economic harm when he paid out of
pocket for medical and dental expenses, (c) stress and anxiety
created by the loss of his health insurance coverage, (d) lost
prescription benefits, (e) lost medical treatment, (f) lost control
over his own medical treatment, including the ability to continue
treating with is prior health care providers and the ability to
select his future health care providers, and (g) deprivation of all
information to which he was entitled.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company. It is the pan sponsor
and plan administrator of group health plan, and was subject to the
continuation of coverage and notice requirements of COBRA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabasa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel. Direct: (813) 337-7992
          Tel. Main: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Perez Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS PEREZ, Individually,
and on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BARRIER COMPLIANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02598-JWL-TJJ
(D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act, consisting of:

      "current and former "field employees" and "field leaders"
      employed by the Defendant on or after October 2, 2016
      (Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs)";

   2. authorizing the Notice be sent to all Putative Opt-in
      Plaintiffs; and

   3. directing the Plaintiff, 30 days after the Court approves
      the parties' Joint Motion, to mail/email the Notice to
      each Putative Opt-In Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this suit under the FLSA seeking a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all "field
employees" and "field leaders" who were employed by the Defendant
at any point since October 2, 2016, and who consent to join this
action.

A copy of the Parties' joint motion for class certification dated
Nov. 20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37fFjJ9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney L. Graham, Esq.
          Randall S. Strause, Esq.
          STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          804 Stone Creek Pkwy., Suite 1
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: 502-426-1661
          Facsimile: 502-126-6772
          E-mail: rstrause@strauselawgroup.com
                  cgraham@strauselawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: 913 322-3528
          Facsimile: 913 904-0213
          E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com
                  heather@duganschlozman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mitchell E. Wood, Esq.
          Kathryn A. Wright, Esq.
          HALBROOK WOOD, PC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 300
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 529-1188
          Facsimile: (913) 529-1199
          E-mail: mwood@halbrookwoodlaw.com
                  kwright@halbrookwoodlaw.com

BAYER CORP: Faces Deaugustine Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANCIS DEAUGUSTINE, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01828-DSC (W.D. Penn., November 24, 2020) arises from
the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
(WPCL), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant from on or about
May 12, 1997 until on or about July 15, 2020, alleges that the
Defendant did not pay all overtime pay that he and other similarly
situated employees are entitled to despite regularly working more
than 40 hours in workweeks since November 24, 2017, including
off-the-clock overtime hours. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to
maintain accurate records of the time worked by the hourly
employees in the Site Maintenance Department, including the
Plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendant allegedly breached its contractual
obligations because it failed to fulfill its promise to pay regular
rate of pay to the hourly employees in the Site Maintenance
Department for their hours worked. Aa a result, the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated hourly employees in the Site
Maintenance Department have been denied the benefit of the bargain,
and have suffered substantial damages in the form of unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class/collective action
complaint against the Defendant to seek unpaid overtime
compensation owed to him and all other similarly situated hourly
employees in the Site Maintenance Department, as well as other
unpaid wages, compensatory damages resulting from the breach of
contract, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Bayer Corporation is a pharmaceutical company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


BERRY CORP: Faces Torres Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS TORRES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. BERRY CORPORATION, ARTHUR T. SMITH, CARY BAETZ, GARY
A. GROVE, FERNANDO ARAUJO, KURT NEHER, KENDRICK F. ROYER, BRENT S.
BUCKLEY, KAJ VAZALES, and EUGENE VOILAND, Case No. 3:20-cv-03464-S
(N.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2020), is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Berry common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018 (the "IPO""); or (b)
Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on
Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared
effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July
25, 2018 (the "Registration Statement"). On or around July 26,
2018, Berry conducted the IPO, upon which the Company began trading
on the NASDAQ Global Select market, issuing 13 million shares of
Berry common stock at $14 per share, generating over $138 million
in proceeds before expenses. On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its
Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC ("Offering Documents").

The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary
disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its financial and
operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other
results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell
short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the
quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements
that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we
performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in
temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam
management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water
disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight
decrease in production."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or
5.28%, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020,
representing an 80.78% decline from the IPO price. As of the time
this Complaint was filed, the price of Berry securities continues
to trade below the Offering price, damaging investors.

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

The Plaintiff acquired Berry securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's
IPO, and/or purchased or otherwise acquired Berry securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and suffered
damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions.

The Defendant Berry purports to be an independent upstream energy
company and engages in the development and production of
conventional oil reserves located in the western United States. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: 972 521 6868
          Facsimile: 281 254 7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

BERT BELL: Faces Brown et al. Suit Over Retirement Plan Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE BROWN, AMON GORDON, and CHARLES GRANT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, THE NFL PLAYER
DISABILITY AND NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN, THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF
THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, and THE
DISABILITY BOARD OF THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY AND NEUROCOGNITIVE
BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06949 (N.D. Ill.,
November 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are participants in the
Retirement Plan and the Disability Plan who became Vested Players
before January 1, 2015, had not applied for T&P disability benefits
as of January 1, 2015, and are not yet receiving a Benefit Credit
Pension from the Retirement Plan.

The Bert Bell NFL Player Retirement Plan is an employee pension
benefit plan and a multiemployer plan sponsored by the Defendant
Retirement Board of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player
Retirement Plan. The Bert Bell NFL Player Disability Plan is an
employee welfare benefit plan and a multiemployer plan sponsored by
the Disability Board of the NFL Player Disability and
Neurocognitive Benefit Plan. Both Plan were established to provide
retirement, disability, and death benefits to NFL players and their
beneficiaries.

The Retirement Plan was amended in 2014 to provide that effective
January 1, 2015, it would no longer pay T&P disability benefits for
new claims and would no longer pay Line of Duty (LOD) disability
benefits at all. The amendments consequently violated the
Retirement Plan provisions for these reasons:

     -- It caused a forfeiture of Benefits Credits as of January 1,
2015, in violation of the Retirement Plan provision that a Vested
Player's Benefit Credits are nonforfeitable;

     -- It deprived the Plaintiffs and class members of rights and
benefits irrevocably vested in them under the Retirement Plan, in
violation of Article 10's prohibition on such amendments;

     -- It reduced the value of benefits already earned and payable
under the Retirement Plan, in violation of Article 10's limitation
on the Retirement Board's power to amend the Retirement Plan; and

     -- It effected a transfer of liabilities that reduced benefits
to which the Plaintiffs and class members were entitled under the
Retirement Plan, in violation of the Retirement Plan's prohibition
on such transfers.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated to seek an order declaring that the
January 1, 2015 changes to the Retirement Plan are void as to all
Retirement Plan participants who became Vested Players before
January 1, 2015, and to claim to enforce rights under the
retirement plan and for clarification of right to future benefits
under the retirement plan for members not yet receiving benefits
and for those already receiving benefits.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
          Marie E. Casciari, Esq.
          DEBOFSKY SHERMAN CASCIARI REYNOLDS P.C.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1925
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 561-4040
          E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com
                  mcasciari@debofsky.com

                - and –

          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592

                - and –

          Teresa Renaker, Esq.
          RENAKER HASSELMAN SCOTT LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-1733
          Facsimile: (415) 727-5079


BMW AG: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG ("BMW") (Other BMWYY, BAMXF) securities between November
3, 2015 and September 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until December 28, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was probing BMW's sales practices.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 6.87%, to
close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. The same day, BAMXF
ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement agreement
with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order,
from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its demonstrator and
service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and
meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator and loaner
vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s reported
retail sales in this period." Additionally, the order found that
BMW US, from 2015 to 2019, maintained a reserve of unreported
retail vehicles sales – referred to internally as the "bank" –
that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of
when the actual sale occurred. The order also found that BMW
improperly designated vehicles as demonstrators or loaners so they
would be counted as sold when in actuality they were not. Without
admitting to or denying the order's findings, BMW agreed to a
settlement to pay $18 million and cease and desist from future
violations.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2.2%,
to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020. The same day,
BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or about 3.5%, to close at $68.91.

The complaint, filed on October 27, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail
vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW
artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register
cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; (3) as a
result, BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about BMW's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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


BMW AG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Oct. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG ("BMW") (Other OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF) securities
between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until December 28, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was probing BMW's sales practices.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 6.87%, to
close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. The same day, BAMXF
ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement agreement
with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order,
from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its demonstrator and
service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and
meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator and loaner
vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s reported
retail sales in this period." Additionally, the order found that
BMW US, from 2015 to 2019, maintained a reserve of unreported
retail vehicles sales -- referred to internally as the "bank" --
that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of
when the actual sale occurred. The order also found that BMW
improperly designated vehicles as demonstrators or loaners so they
would be counted as sold when in actuality they were not. Without
admitting to or denying the order's findings, BMW agreed to a
settlement to pay $18 million and cease and desist from future
violations.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2.2%,
to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020. The same day,
BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or about 3.5%, to close at $68.91.

The complaint, filed on October 27, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail
vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW
artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register
cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; (3) as a
result, BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about BMW's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

               About Bragar Eagel & 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]


BMW AG: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF)
between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BMW
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the BMW class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1749.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) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to
meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales
actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures
by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or 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 December
28, 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-1749.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]


BMW AG: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 28
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (OTC
Pink: BMWYY (OTC Pink: BAMXF) between November 3, 2015 and
September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for BMW investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the BMW class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1749.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) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to
meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales
actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures
by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or 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 December
28, 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-1749.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.

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]


BMW AG: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Oct. 28 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW" or "the Company") (OTC: BMWYY,
BAMXF) 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 November
3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 28, 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. BMW engaged in a scheme in which a "bank"
of retail vehicle sales was maintained to manipulate monthly sales
to meet internal targets regardless of actual sales. The Company
manipulated its sales figures by having dealers register vehicles
still held in inventory as sold. The Company's key operating
metrics were inflated and misleading due to this scheme. 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 BMW, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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


BMW AG: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Bayerische Motoren Werke
AG ("BMW" or the "Company") (Other OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF), its U.S.
holding company, and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  If you purchased
BMW securities via the ticker above, between November 3, 2015 and
September 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered losses,
you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz for additional
information at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.

BMW is a German automobile and motorcycle company.  The Company's
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") trade on the OTC market under
the ticker symbols "BMWYY" and "BAMXF."

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to
meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales
actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures
by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was probing BMW's
sales practices.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 7%, to close
at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019.  The same day, BAMXF ADRs
fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60.

Then, on September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement
agreement with BMW regarding the investigation, citing BMW's
sales-volume manipulation and misclassification of vehicles.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2%,
to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020; and BAMXF ADRs
fell $2.54, or approximately 3.5%, to close at $68.91.

                        What You Can Do

If you purchased BMW securities between November 3, 2015 and
September 24, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana
Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is December 28, 2020.

               About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

         Rhiana Swartz
         Scott+Scott Attorneys
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169-1820
         (844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


BOFI HOLDING: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that on Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud class
action against San Diego-based BofI Holding Inc., now known as Axos
Bank, in In re: BofI Holding Inc. [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Class Action Mulled Over Mesh Implants
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that Queensland
mum-of-five Kathy Robertson-Cipak had a simple wish.

"All I wanted to do was jump on the trampoline with my kids and I
couldn't do that," she said.

She waited seven years on the public hospital waiting list to have
the surgery that was touted as the "miracle cure" for her
incontinence.

There were no signs, she said, that the operation she was about to
finally have in March 2018 would irrevocably change the course of
her life -- leaving her in constant and unending pain.
"When I went in to see my surgeon, she didn't mention the word
plastic or mesh at all. She said tape. I will never, ever forget
it, she said, 'It's not the mesh that people are talking about'.

"But because I had never heard the word mesh before, I didn't
question her, and I have never forgiven myself for that.

"I thought fine, she is putting some tape in. She is lifting my
bladder up and I'm never going to wet my pants again. If I sneeze,
cough, jump on something I am not going to wet."

However, Ms Robertson-Cipak's medical files would later reveal it
was plastic mesh that was implanted inside her -- a product made by
medical manufacturer Boston Scientific.

"Straight away after the operation I was in agony. It was horrific,
excruciating -- there was this absolute tightness, like there was
in clamp inside my intestines," she said.

If you have been affected by a recent mesh surgery? Contact
reporter Emily McPherson at emcpherson@nine.com.au.

Months after the operation, Ms Robertson-Cipak said she was still
in pain.

"I was bleeding for months . . . I was wearing nappies. I was going
through two a day.

"It had already cut my husband's penis when we attempted to have
sex."

A scan in July would reveal that the mesh had cut Ms
Robertson-Cipak on the inside.

"It cut open my uterus. There is also a massive cyst inside there
that wasn't there before the operation," she said.

At Ms Robertson-Cipak's insistence, doctors removed her mesh
implant in March last year, however, the pain continued, she said.

Often it is so bad she can't leave her bed.

"I can't explain being in constant pain all the time. My vagina
feels like I have a clamp sitting there on the outside and the
inside," she said.

"I have gained weight because I can't go for a run anymore. But I
am nothing compared to some of the other ladies who are completely
bedridden, crippled and using walkers to walk, it's horrific."

Sydney firm to launch class-action lawsuit against Boston
Scientific

Ms. Robertson-Cipak's operation took place almost a year after
horrific stories of the impacts of mesh implants began making
headlines in Australia.

By the end of 2017 and into 2018, different mesh products were
being recalled from the market, including three made by Boston
Scientific.

The mesh product used in Ms Robertson-Cipak's case was not
recalled, however in early 2018 the TGA ordered the company to add
warnings about possible adverse side effects such as severe chronic
pain, groin pain and bladder perforation.

In the US, women banded together to take companies like Johnson &
Johnson, American Medical Systems and Boston Scientific to court in
class actions.

In Australia, a 2018 Senate inquiry concluded surgery with mesh,
which it estimated had been performed on about 150,000 women in
Australia, should be a "last resort".

A massive class action was brought by Shine Lawyers on behalf of
1350 women in the Federal Court against Johnson & Johnson and two
subsidiaries, including Ethicon.

Johns and Johnson lose class action lawsuit

In March this year, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay almost
$2.6 million in damages to the three lead applicants in the case.
The class action is now subject to an appeal lodged by Johnson &
Johnson which will be heard next year.

At the same time all of this was going on, Ms Robertson-Cipak got
to work on social media, gathering together more than 40 Australian
women who say they were also injured by Boston Scientific mesh
products.

Amid the high-profile Johnson & Johnson case, Ms Robertson-Cipak
said she and the other women felt like their plight was being
ignored.

Ms Robertson-Cipak began ringing around law firms, hoping one would
take them on with a class action against Boston Scientific.

"What I want is justice, justice for what their product has done,
not just to me but many, many more," she said.

Now, Ms Robertson-Cipak looks set to get her day in court, with
Sydney law firm AJB Stevens confirming it is preparing to launch a
class action case against the Australian arm of Boston Scientific
in the Federal Court early next year.

Director Adrian Barakat said the firm was confident of prosecuting
a successful class action against Boston Scientific and already had
about 60 women who expressed interest in joining the class action.

Once the case got underway, Mr Barakat said he expected the number
of class members to swell into the hundreds.

Like successful class actions brought against Boston Scientific in
the US and Canada, the Australian class action will allege Boston
Scientific knew about side effects being caused by its products but
failed to warn doctors of the risks.

"We know that Boston Scientific were aware of problems with their
products from as early as 2000," Mr Barakat said.

"In Australia, we know that from late 2017, there were actions
issued by the TGA for various Boston Scientific products to be
discontinued.

"For the ones that weren't discontinued there were directives put
forward for additional cautions to be placed on labelling from
January 2018."

In a statement to nine.com.au, a spokesperson for Boston Scientific
said: "It is our practice not to comment on pending litigation.
Patient safety is always our highest priority, and we stand by the
safety and quality of our products. Boston Scientific remains
committed to helping women, and all patients, live better and
longer lives."

Last year, US health regulators ordered Boston Scientific to stop
selling surgical mesh used in pelvic repair surgeries, saying there
isn't enough evidence that the product embroiled in thousands of
lawsuits is safe or effective.

AJB Stevens is now looking for a lead applicant for the class
action and women who had a transvaginal implant made by Boston
Scientific and suffered detrimental sides effects are being
encouraged to come forward.

Mr Barakat said there were still many women who were either unaware
that mesh had been put inside them during surgery or that it was
the mesh implant that was causing their health problems.

"What we have found is that there are women who just don't know
what their rights are. Our focus at the moment is making sure that
the manufacturers of these implants are held to account so that
these women get justice.," he said.

'My life will never be what it was'

Elise Taylor, from Lismore in NSW, is another woman looking to take
on Boston Scientific in court.

Ms Taylor, 52, had a mesh implant put in to deal with a pelvic
organ prolapse in 2015.

Elise Taylor is looking to join a class action lawsuit against mesh
maker Boston Scientific.

The TGA has since said the specific type of implant placed inside
her should not be used for pelvic organ prolapses because the
benefit of the treatment does not outweigh the risks.
Ms Taylor said the mesh implant ruined her life.

Unable to work because of constant pain, she is now reliant on the
disability support pension.

"My life will never be what it was and my future will never be what
it should be," she said.

"I have reached the point over the last few years where I can no
longer be sexually active because of the pain. I can't work in my
previous job.

"It's so hard to explain the level of debilitation and how it
continues. [GN]


BRAVO ARKOMA: McKnight Balks at Late Oil and Gas Interest Payments
------------------------------------------------------------------
MCKNIGHT REALTY COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAVO ARKOMA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:20-cv-00428-KEW (E.D. Okla., November 23, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards
Act (PRSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff owns mineral interests in
the Stroehmer-1 well located in Section 17-3N-14E in Pittsburg
County, Oklahoma. Because the Defendant operated the Plaintiff's
Stroehmer-1 well, the Defendant is obliged to pay oil-and-gas
proceeds to the Plaintiff pursuant to leases or pooling orders,
including revenue and interest. Although the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff late under the timelines imposed by the PRSA, the
Defendant does not automatically pay the statutory interest owed to
the Plaintiff on any late payments which is a violation under PRSA
Section 570.10(D)(1)-(2).

Bravo Arkoma, LLC operates the Plaintiff's Stroehmer-1 oil and gas
well. [BN]

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
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com


BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: California Settlement Class Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL VILLAFAN, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BROADSPECTRUM
DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06741-LB (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion and conditionally
      certifying the provisional California class for settlement
      purposes only, preliminarily approving the settlement, and
      authorizing the notice:

      The "California Class" or "Members of the California
      Class" means:

         "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
         Broadspectrum or TRSC who performed work in California
         between November 6, 2014 through the date of
         Preliminary Approval, excluding (i) any staff, other
         administrative employees, and maintenance workers, and
         (ii) employees who have previously released all of
         their claims pursuant to the settlement agreement in
         Kevin Woodruff v. Broadspectrum Downstream Services,
         Inc., 3:14-CV-04105-EMC. A "Class Member" is a member
         of the Class. There are approximately one thousand
         eight hundred and sixty-two (1,862) Class Members.";

   2. confirming its June 11, 2019 order conditionally
      certifying the collective and approving the settlement of
      the Fair Labor Standards Act collective;

   3. approving JND Legal Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator;

   4. provisionally appointing the named plaintiff Angel
      Villafan as class representative and provisionally
      appointing Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class
      counsel; and

   5. appointing the named plaintiff as the collective
      representative and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP
      as counsel for the collective.

The Settlement Amount and Allocation:

   --  The total non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount is
       $5,000,000, and the Net Settlement Amount recovered by
       the class is $3,216,730.00 after these deductions:

            (1) $31,500 to the Labor & Workforce Development
                Agency (LWDA) for the PAGA claim;

            (2) up to $15,000 for an enhancement payment to the
                named plaintiff;

            (3) an estimated $30,130 for the claims
                administrator's expenses; and

            (4) attorney's fees of no more than one third of the
                Gross Settlement Amount (or $1,666,666.66) plus
                costs not to exceed $40,000.

The class members will receive a settlement check without
submitting a claim form.

The plaintiffs -- current and former nonexempt employees who
provide safety and support services at Broadspectrum's oil
refineries -- challenge Broadspectrum's alleged failure to pay them
for their off-the-clock work, provide meal-and-rest breaks, or
reimburse expenses, in violation of federal and state
wage-and-hours laws. The case is a putative collective action under
the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA),and a putative class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. is located in Houston,
Texas, and is part of the Oil & Gas Field Services Industry.
Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. has 2000 total employees
across all of its locations and generates $57.64 million in sales
(USD).

A copy of the Court's preliminary approval order dated Nov. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36jlBwP
at no extra charge.[CC]

BROOKLYN, NY: Landlords Hit With Class Actions
----------------------------------------------
Rachel Holliday Smith at The City reports that to many tenants, a
month or two taken off the yearly rent sounds like a good deal.
But a slate of class-action lawsuits filed claim those popular
discounts have been used fraudulently by some landlords - including
billionaire developer and potential mayoral candidate John
Catsimatidis - to get around rent stabilization rules.

Lawyers who filed the suits on behalf of tenants in four Brooklyn
buildings say current and former residents of the roughly 400
apartments could be due a cumulative millions in rent
overpayments.

The suits allege property owners who took big tax breaks through
the city's 421-a program gave rental discounts to tenants in
stabilized units - but never reflected the new, lower price with
the state housing agency.

By registering the higher, non-discounted rent price with the
state, landlords are then able to use that incorrect price as the
basis for calculating future rent increases, according to Aaron
Carr, executive director at Housing Rights Initiative, a housing
watchdog group that investigated the tactic.

"They're setting the initial rent at an inflated amount and now
every subsequent increase will also be inflated," Carr said. "What
happened in the past is now screwing everyone in the future."

'Creative' Accounting Alleged

For example, the landlord of a new Bedford-Stuyvesant building, 180
Franklin Ave., gave tenant Ruthie Marantz a two-month discount,
known as a rent concession, when she signed a lease in 2017, making
her average monthly rent $2,484.44, according to a court filing.

But the owner had listed $2,775 for the unit in 2016 with the
state's Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which oversees
rent regulation, and put a "preferential rent" of $2,795 on
Marantz's lease. Until rent-law reforms passed in Albany last year,
a preferential rent was an option some landlords used to set rents
initially lower than the maximum permitted for rent-regulated
apartments, then spike the price when tenants renewed their
leases.

When Marantz tried to renew her lease in the summer of 2019 - just
after the reforms passed and went into effect - the building owner
jacked the rent to $2,836.93, her attorneys say.

"This is a preferential rent by another name," said Roger Sachar
who, with Lucas Ferrara of the law firm Newman Ferrara, filed the
four class-action lawsuits.

"It's just a creative way to circumvent this statutory protection,"
Ferrara added.

Martin J. Heistein, an attorney representing the owner of 180
Franklin, Muss Development, said the lawsuit is "frivolous and has
absolutely no merit whatsoever."

"Our client has acted above board and the facts bear that out. We
will defend this case vigorously and we expect a dismissal of the
case," he said.

Lawyers say the practice is not particularly hard to spot, if you
know where to look. In some of the buildings, the discounted rental
price was listed on the real estate site StreetEasy, which can then
be compared to what is listed on an apartment's rent history
records, kept at DHCR.

"You look at the DHCR registry, and then you look at the tenant's
first lease," Sachar said. "That's it."

That was the case at 670 Pacific St., the lawsuit alleges, owned by
Red Apple 670 Pacific Street LLC, a subsidiary of Red Apple Group,
the company chaired by Catsimatidis.

The building advertised its rental prices on StreetEasy, including
a one-month-free discount, the court filings say. When tenant Jason
Flynn signed his lease in August 2016 to be the first tenant in a
newly constructed unit there, that discount made his net effective
rent $3,092.30.

But the owner registered the undiscounted price of $3,350 with DHCR
and "all subsequent increases were based off that higher,
impermissible figure," the court filing reads.

Newman Ferrara also filed suits against 3052 Brighton First LLC,
owner of a building in Brighton Beach, and Spruce 1209 LLC, a
subsidiary of Spruce Capital Partners that owns 1209 Dekalb Avenue,
a Bushwick development decried by locals when it opened for its
controversial name, Colony 1209.

The owners of the four properties did not immediately return
requests for comment.

The owners of those properties as well as 670 Pacific St. did not
immediately return requests for comment.

                       'Tip of the Iceberg'

The class-action lawsuits could take years to conclude, Sachar
said. But if they are successful, current and former tenants in the
four buildings may recoup millions in rent overcharges dating back
six years, the statute of limitations for such claims.

If the attorneys, for example, could prove a tenant was overcharged
$300 a month for five years, the rent-payer would be entitled to
$18,000, Sachar said - with the caveat that those figures, at this
stage, are hypothetical.

If all the tenants in the roughly 400 units affected by the
lawsuits had a comparable claim, the four building owners would owe
$7.2 million.

Ferrara maintains these four buildings are "just the tip of the
iceberg" when it comes to rent concession issues and 421-a.

"We believe there are countless thousands of other tenants whose
landlords have failed them and whose government has failed them,"
he said.

All four of the properties received a 421-a tax break under a
version of the abatement program that required all units in the
building to be rent stabilized, the attorneys said. A newer version
of the 421-a program created in 2016 drops that requirement for
many high-rent apartments, while mandating set-asides of affordable
apartments in every project.

Housing Rights Initiative, which aims to keep landlords in check
through investigations of public records, uncovered the
discrepancies by sending letters to tenants in buildings that
receive a 421-a tax abatement, a program that costs New Yorkers
$1.4 billion a year in lost revenue according to a 2017 report by
the Independent Budget Office.

"Landlords are committing dual theft - on tenants and taxpayers -
by registering rents at inflated amounts," Carr said.

The lawsuits' claims come to no surprise to Public Advocate Jumaane
Williams, who has repeatedly called for reforms to the 421-a tax
program, which he described to THE CITY as a way to "subsidize
market-rate housing." He also sought more enforcement by city and
state authorities to ensure compliance from landlords.

The city Department of Housing Preservation and Development "has to
take more responsibility here and, frankly, so does DHCR," he said.
"Time and time again, we see that leaving it to people to honestly
report things doesn't work."

Jeremy House, spokesperson for HPD, said the agency "will not stand
for 421-a owners skirting their lawful obligations."

"Had these complaints been brought to HPD's attention, we would
have taken action. Since 2016, an entire new unit has been created
within HPD to oversee enforcement of tax benefits and since we have
brought over 60,000 units into compliance," he said.

"We will continue to aggressively work on behalf of tenants to
ensure landlords receiving tax benefits afford tenants the
appropriate protections."

Inquiries to DHCR were not returned.

                      Lax Enforcement Cited

The state did, however, hit city landlords for 421-a violations
recently. Attorney General Letitia James fined four developers in
Brooklyn and Queens who violated the terms of the tax break
program, her office announced, doling out $613,000 in penalties.

Both the city and state agencies charged with overseeing the
enforcement of rent regulation have long struggled with the task,
as chronicled by a 2015 investigative series by ProPublica.

More recently, THE CITY documented how the 2019 rent reforms
brought a deluge of tenant complaints that have overwhelmed DHCR.

Enforcing this particular issue, however, should be easy for the
agency, Carr said, because it boils down to DHCR checking rental
prices within its own records.

"We shouldn't have to be doing their jobs for them," he said. "They
should be putting our organization out of business."[GN]


BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay OT to Social Workers, Franco Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-05735-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Franco was hired by the Defendants as social worker.

The Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. provides healthcare services.
The Company provides services which includes adult nursing home,
geriatric services, inpatient surgery, recovery room and diagnostic
radiology services, cardiology, psychiatric, and diagnostic medical
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
          Diana M. McManus, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
          E-mail: CCollotta@laborlawsny.com
                  DMcManus@laborlawsny.com


BURLINGTON COAT: Goodman, et al. Seek Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuits against Burlington Coat Factory, et
al., the Plaintiffs Steven Goodman, Barbara Kawa, Theresa Massey,
and Danielle Solecki ask the Court for an order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), 23(h), and 54(d)(2):

   1. granting final approval of the proposed settlement of this
      action, including the final certification of the state law
      settlement class and approval of the settlement as
      adequate, fair and reasonable as to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective and the state law Settlement
      Class;

   2. granting approval to pay the settlement administrator, JND
      Class Action Administration, LLC, in an amount up to but
      not more than $35,000;

   3. granting an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
      costs, in the amounts of $6,537,966.67 (fees) and $348,000
      costs and expenses); and

   4. granting service payments to each named plaintiff in the
      amount of $10,000.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

"STEVEN GOODMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE
CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:11-cv-04395-JHR-JS (DNJ)"; and

"BARBARA KAWA, THERESA MASSEY and DANIELLE SOLECKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v.
BURLINGTON STORES, INC., BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE
CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-2787-JHR-JS (D.N.J.).

Burlington is an American national off-price department store
retailer, and a division of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation with 740 stores in 40 states and Puerto Rico, with its
corporate headquarters located in Burlington Township, New Jersey.


A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36iHBI4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Christopher Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          www.klafterolsen.com
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200

               - and -

          Michael Leh, Esq.
          Neel D. Bhuta, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          www.lockslaw.com
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200

               - and -

          Erik Kahn, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Zachary Green, Esq.
          JAVERBAUM WURGAF HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
          www.javerbaumwurgaft.com
          1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Telephone: (856) 596-4100

BURROWS PAPER: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in Ransom Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Ransom, v. Burrows
Paper Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03824-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Parties ask the Court for an Order:

   1. granting the parties' joint motion for conditional
      certification of this case as a collective action;
      and

   2. approving the proposed Notice to potential collective
      action members.

Burrows Paper Corporation operates as a supplier of paper and
packaging solutions, specializing in innovative light weight paper
applications and new product development.

A copy of the joint motion for class certification dated Nov. 20,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qfY0Fl
at no extra charge.[CC]

C.R. ENGLAND: $3.6MM Settlement in Gradie et al Suit Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. GRADIE, MILTON
HARPER, RONNIE STEVENSON, and JONATHAN MITCHELL, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-00768-DN (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
David Nuffer entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Parties' settlement;

   2. dismissing the action on the merits and with prejudice,
      permanently barring the the Plaintiffs and Participating
      Class Members from prosecuting any of the Claims Released
      by Participating Class Members against the Defendant or
      any of the other Released Parties. The Plaintiffs are
      further barred from prosecuting any of Plaintiffs'
      Released Claims.;

   3. confirming the appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class
      Representatives for the Class for purposes of the
      Settlement;

   4. confirming the appointment of the law firms of Blumenthal
      Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP and The Van Vleck Law Firm
      as Class Counsel for the Class for purposes of Settlement
      and the releases and other obligations;

   5. directing the Defendant to pay the Settlement Payment in
      the amount of $3,600,000.00 and to forgive the Class
      Members' debts;

   6. directing C.R. England to pay an additional payment equal
      to $53,224.21 (the Additional Payment). The Additional
      Payment shall be distributed by the Settlement
      Administrator to the 126 Participating Class Members who
      made a payment to C.R. England in an amount exceeding the
      principal of their tuition loan balance.;

   7. awarding Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $1,440,000.00
      and costs of $90,000;

   8. approving the payment of settlement administration costs
      in the amount of $74,146.00 to the Settlement
      Administrator for services rendered in connection with the
      Settlement.

   9. awarding the Plaintiffs the Service Payments in the amount
      of $12,000.00 each for their contributions to the Action,
      the risks they undertook to represent the Class, and for
      their execution of general releases;

   10. approving the payment in the amount of $54,000.00 to the
      California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)
      for its 75% portion of the Private Attorney General Act
      claims released by the Settlement, with the remaining 25%
      portion (or $18,000.00) being paid to the Participating
      Class Members on a pro rata basis based on the number of
      workweeks worked by each individual; and

   11. directing the Settlement Administrator to make the
      foregoing payments to Class Counsel, the Settlement
      Administrator, the Plaintiffs, and the LWDA in accordance
      with the terms of the Stipulation. These payments shall
      come out of the Qualified Settlement Fund.

C.R. England, Inc. provides transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39u2W3k at no extra charge.[CC]

CANADA DRY: Settles Another False Ads Lawsuit for $218,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Buckingham at msn.com reports that in January 2019, a man
in Vancouver, Canada filed a class-action lawsuit against Canada
Dry Ginger Ale for deceptive labeling and false advertising and
after nearly two years, the verdict is finally in.

Victor Cardoso alleged the soda company misinformed consumers of
the beverage's actual health benefits, which is what prompted him
to launch the lawsuit on behalf of "all Canadian resident persons
who purchased any Canada Dry Ginger Ale product marketed as 'Made
from Real Ginger.'"

Cardoso says he routinely bought Canada Dry Ginger Ale for 10 years
to help alleviate stomach issues, believing the drink had
"medicinal benefits." During the proceedings, it was found that the
pop beverage only includes a trace amount of processed ginger
root.

"They do buy actual ginger, but then what they do is they boil it
in ethanol, and that essentially destroys any nutritional or
medicinal benefits," Lawyer Mark Canofari said, as quoted by
Food&Wine. He explains that Canada Dry uses a ginger concentrate.
"One drop fills 70 cans [. . .] and a drop is .05 ml. So that's how
little, even of the concentrate, is actually in one drink."

Canada Dry Mott Inc. agreed to settle for $218,000 in February,
under the condition that it doesn't have to change its products'
marketing and labeling. And, in a decision issued, a judge from the
Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that both Cardoso and
another plaintiff from Alberta will each receive $1,500. The
attorneys, who spent over $220,000 researching and litigating the
case, will be given $100,000 in fees and disbursements. The rest of
the money will go to the nonprofit Law Foundation of British
Columbia.

Similar class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S., however,
not only did they result in settlements, but also came to the
agreement that the Canada Dry label would no longer include "Made
from Real Ginger." [GN]


CANADA: 10,000 60s Scoop Survivors' Claims Still Being Assessed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ka'nhehsi:io Deer, writing for CBC News, reports that a group of
Sixties Scoop survivors are calling on Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau to apologize for the Canada-wide practice that removed
thousands of Indigenous children from their families and
communities.

"It's not enough, just giving us money," said Colleen
Hele-Cardinal, co-founder of the Sixties Scoop Network, a
grassroots collective of survivors based in Ottawa.

"It needs to be on record that this happened in Canada. It needs to
be acknowledged."

Between the 1950s and early 1990s, over 22,500 Indigenous children
in Canada were apprehended by child welfare agencies and placed
with non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents and lost their
cultural identities as a result.

In 2018, the Government of Canada announced a $875 million class
action settlement agreement with First Nations and Inuit survivors
of the Sixties Scoop. As of September 2020, over 10,000 out of the
34,768 claims submitted were still being assessed.

The House of Commons e-petition, initiated by the Sixties Scoop
Network (formerly the National Indigenous Survivors of Child
Welfare Network), asks for the prime minister to work with the
network and survivors on a ceremony with the intent of asking for
forgiveness and issuing a national apology in the House of
Commons.

"It's kind of a personal thing for us. It's up to us whether we
decide to forgive them or not instead of just accepting an apology.
I want them to ask for forgiveness for what they've done to our
families," said Hele-Cardinal.

She said the idea has come up at the network's survivor gatherings,
and has been on their minds for a while.

Provincial apologies not enough

A number of provinces have issued apologies in their legislatures
including Manitoba in 2015, Alberta in 2018, and Saskatchewan last
year. Hele-Cardinal said while the provincial apologies are
important, they're not enough to address the legacy of the Sixties
Scoop.

"Those apologies, for people who aren't from those provinces and
don't live in those provinces, are kind of meaningless because they
don't acknowledge the displacement, especially for people who got
taken out of the country," she said.

The petition, which closes for signatures on Dec. 15, is being
promoted by Amnesty International Canada. Electronic petitions in
the House of Commons require at least 500 signatures before it can
be presented or tabled by a member of Parliament.

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said while
the settlement represents a historic milestone in Canada's efforts
to address the harm done by the Sixties Scoop, it is only the first
step.

"The Sixties Scoop is a dark and terrible chapter in Canada's
history. Working together to bring a meaningful resolution to its
painful legacy is an important step in our journey of
reconciliation with Indigenous peoples," said a statement from the
federal department.

"We know that there are other claims that remain unresolved, and we
are working to address the harm suffered by other Indigenous
children as a result of the Sixties Scoop. We remain committed to
listening to those affected by the Sixties Scoop and ensuring they
have what's needed to heal." [GN]


CANADA: Class Action Over Africville Demolition Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Moore, writing for CTV News Atlantic, reports that descendants
of a Black Nova Scotia community demolished more than 50 years ago
gathered on Oct. 24 to demand reparations.

"I'm here still, waiting to be compensated," says John Carvery, who
was just 11-years-old when his family was forced out of Africville
in the late 1960s. "Thank God, I'm still here, but I'm going to die
myself, wondering when are we going to be compensated?" Africville
was once a close-knit community in Halifax's North End, with a
predominant Black population dating back to 1848. After years of
discrimination and inadequate municipal services, Halifax city
council made the decision to destroy Africville in 1964. Official
apologies and commemorations have since been offered but the fight
for compensation is still unresolved. "We've been in court for
approximately eight years, and right now we're trying to be
certified as a class action," says Denise Allen, an organizer of
the Oct. 24 event.  "We're waiting on a response to that
application." The group 'Justice for Africville: Reparations Now'
was represented by approximately 50 marchers and 40 vehicles in the
Oct. 24 peaceful rally. "Use your conscience and realize if we're
all going to get on the same page, then we better pay attention to
what happened in Africville, and use that as an example that it
will never happen, and put it back, put our community back," says
Africville descendent Eddie Carvery. There is, however, an
understanding among march attendees of what compensation can and
can't do. "I mean, it's never going to heal the emotional and
psychological scars that we suffer," says Allen. [GN]


CANADA: Class Action Over Missing Indigenous Women Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News, with files from Bonnie Allen, Alex Soloducha, Trent
Peppler and The Canadian Press, reports that Diane BigEagle said
she started a class-action lawsuit for families of missing and
murdered Indigenous women because she was desperate for answers.

BigEagle's daughter, Danita Faith BigEagle, has been missing since
2007.

"It's something I just can't put away. I've got to have some kind
of closure," said BigEagle.

BigEagle has said the lawsuit is not about the money. She's looking
for closure, and compensation would go toward helping her
daughter's children, for whom she is the caretaker.

"It's just something that I have to do. And I'm not the only one."


For years, she has advocated for her daughter's story and for
others facing a similar loss. BigEagle said other families who have
lost loved ones are left heartbroken to the point where it takes
over their lives.

On Sept. 21, a Federal Court certification hearing began in Regina
for the proposed class-action lawsuit against the federal
government and RCMP.

About 60 families involved in the suit are alleging they have been
wronged by the way the RCMP handled the deaths and disappearances
of Indigenous women and girls.

The proposed suit alleges systemic negligence.

Feds oppose certification
Speaking before the hearing started, Tony Merchant of the Merchant
Law Group said he remains surprised the federal government is
fighting against the lawsuit.

"It's really inappropriate for the government to oppose
certification," he said.

Merchant has said the opposition to the suit seems to contradict
the recommendations laid out in the final report of the National
Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

BigEagle said she remains hopeful for a successful outcome.

"I hope they see what our concerns [are] and are sympathetic to
what's been happening to us, myself, our families, all the families
across Canada."

In a statement to CBC News, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said
the Government of Canada is opposing the class-action certification
for legal reasons.

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

BigEagle said the police never helped her in her search for her
daughter. She's still looking for accountability.

"They never did nothing for us," she said.

"All they do is talk and then all of a sudden they show a picture
of Danita and other family members. What is that going to do? What
are they going to help us like? Like really help us? Come and
search or at least tell us we don't know where she is or we can't
help you. I think I'd rather hear that than be ignored."

The Regina Police Service cold case unit is now handling the
missing person's case of Danita Faith BigEagle. However, the RCMP
were previously involved. Diane BigEagle says she has met with the
RCMP more than 50 times over the years -- but says officers never
took notes and did not pay attention.

BigEagle said the national inquiry has done little to help.

The final report made 231 recommendations, termed "calls for
justice," in response to what it called a "Canadian genocide"
spurred by "state actions and inaction rooted in colonialism and
colonial ideologies."

However, people across Canada have given Ottawa a "failing grade"
and denounced the lack of progress made in response to the
recommendations.

Merchant agreed.

"This is a circumstance where they haven't done anything. The
government said that they accepted the [MMIWG] inquiry report, but
nothing has happened," he said.

The proposed class-action suit is seeking $500 million in damages
and $100 million in punitive damages.

The hearing was expected to last five days. Justice Glennys
McVeigh, who is originally from Saskatchewan, flew from Ottawa to
oversee the proceedings. The primary lawyer for the Crown is
Christine Ashcroft. [GN]

CANADA: Settlement in Ex-Kelowna Social Worker Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Michaels, writing for Infotel, reports that the class action
settlement for victims of former Kelowna social worker Robert Riley
Saunders was approved, meaning those who suffered harm while under
his care may soon see some financial compensation.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Alan Ross certified the suit Oct. 23,
and Gratl & Company Barristers and Solicitors posted an update to
the settlement agreement, said Jason Gratl, the lawyer hired by the
B.C.'s Public Guardian and Trustee to represent Saunders's former
clients.

While it was certified, Saunders's victims who have yet to identify
themselves have until October 2022 to do so.

Saunders generally neglected children in the care of the Ministry
of Children and Family Development assigned to his guardianship.

"Most of the children for whom Saunders was acting as guardian were
Indigenous children, and their cultural and spiritual development
was ignored and neglected," reads the statement on Gratl's
website.

The terms of the settlement provide for payment to Class Members
without proof of harm for a minimum of $25,000. An additional
$44,000 is available for Indigenous children, for a total payment
of $69,000.

In addition to the basic payments, class members may apply for
elevated damages for increased harms caused or contributed by
Saunders using a simplified procedure.

Those who suffered homelessness are eligible for an extra $25,000;
psychological harm $45,000, sexual exploitation $75,000;
educational delay $20,000 to $50,000; and bodily harm an extra
$15,000.

The maximum amount in total for elevated damages for an individual
is $181,000.

The maximum combined total award for basic payments and Elevated
Damages for an individual is $250,000.

Legal fees in the amount of 12.5 per cent plus GST and PST will be
deducted from Basic Payments and Elevated Damages.

The province has admitted that Saunders harmed children in the
director's care for whom he had responsibility in his capacity as a
social worker and it is vicariously liable for the harm caused by
Saunders.

"This harm includes neglect, misappropriation of funds and failure
to plan for the children's welfare and, with respect to Indigenous
children, failure to take steps to preserve their cultural
identities," reads the court document.

Initially, more than 100 people were identified as potential
beneficiaries of the class action.

Saunders not only abused his role, but he also wasn't qualified for
it and that's something this class action suit helped reveal.

In March of 2019, Gratl got a tip that Saunders had forged his
University of Manitoba diplomas and had never graduated a degree
program.

One of the exhibits in the case is an email string from Gayle
Gordon, an Associate Registrar of the University of Manitoba, which
confirms that Saunders did not graduate from the University of
Manitoba with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology or a Bachelor of
Social Work.

Whether safeguards against that and other things that allowed this
situation to happen have been put in place remains to be seen.

"I expect that the magnitude of the settlement will cause the
ministry to implement some system of change, but it was difficult
in the context of this claim to make systemic and institutional
change an aspect of the settlement agreement," Gratl said during an
earlier interview.

"It's in part because the depth of Robert Riley Saunders'
self-serving deception puts the focus on his misconduct rather than
on systemic failings of the ministry."

Those who will be covered by the settlement are people who were in
Saunders' care starting April 1, 2001 for at least 90 consecutive
days and were under the age of 19. Saunders has yet to face
criminal charges. [GN]


CARAHSOFT TECH: Wegner Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the captioned as SHERLENE WEGNER, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, v. CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP., Case No.
8:20-cv-00305-PJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte
entered an Order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification; and

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Tolling.

Carahsoft is a software company. The Company provides information
technology (IT) solutions, offering hardware, software, and support
solutions to federal, state, and local government agencies.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fEPdId at no extra charge.[CC]

CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Nix Generic Pharmaceutical Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by indirect
purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail
pharmacies, is pending.

In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including us were
added as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail
pharmacies.

The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation
consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical
distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided
anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and
improperly engaged in customer allocation.

Cardinal said, "We have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves."

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.

CARDINAL HEALTH: Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action complaint initiated by
the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund.

In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015
and May 2018.

In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in September 2020.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by
making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition
integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain
problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover
unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged
misstatements and omissions.

The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of
Cardinal Health stock during the time period.

Cardinal said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
them."

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.

CARNIVAL CORP: Court Examines Viability of Class Action Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., Alex Oxyer,
Esq., and Jennifer Riley, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that in a recent decision from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, the Court
examined the viability of class action waivers in the face of
claims that the defendants' negligence led to an outbreak of
COVID-19. Ultimately holding that the class waivers previously
signed by the plaintiffs were enforceable, the Court's analysis
gives some hope to employers that class action waivers signed by
employees may be enforceable even against claims involving
COVID-19. The opinion -- in Archer v. Carnival Corp. and PLC, et
al., No. 2:20-CV-04203, 2020 WL 6260003 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020)
-- is a must-read for all employers and class action practitioners.
     

Case Background

Plaintiffs in this case were passengers aboard Defendants' Grand
Princess cruise ship on February 21, 2020, when it departed from
San Francisco bound for Hawaii. Prior to the departure for Hawaii,
the ship had been on a roundtrip voyage from San Francisco to
Mexico. Upon arrival back in San Francisco, the plan was for the
ship to off-load all but 62 passengers and then board passengers
for the Hawaii cruise. However, some of the passengers on the
cruise to Mexico had contracted COVID-19, which led to an outbreak
on the ship.

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Defendants asserting claims
of negligence and infliction of emotional distress, alleging that:
(i) Defendants knew or should have known about the risk of a
COVID-19 outbreak on the ship, as they knew ships created a
heightened risk of a viral outbreak; (ii) several international
organizations had issued statements recognizing the severity of the
situation; (iii) Defendants had an outbreak on another of their
ships; and (iv) at least one passenger had been suffering from
COVID-19 symptoms, but the ship set sail without providing personal
protective equipment or putting in place other measures to prevent
spread.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. Defendants opposed
the motion, primarily arguing that Plaintiffs were precluded from
bringing a class action because they had signed a class action
waiver as part of their Passenger Agreement with the cruise lines.

The Court's Opinion

In considering Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the
Court examined Defendants' argument that the class waiver signed by
Plaintiffs in the Passenger Agreement precluded the class from
being certified. To determine whether the class waiver was
enforceable, the Court analyzed the waiver using the "reasonable
communicativeness test" under federal common law and maritime law,
which is used to ascertain the enforceability of contractual
provisions attached to passenger tickets. The test involves two
prongs: first, the Court examines the physical characteristics of
the provisions in question to determine the ease with which the an
individual can read them; and second, the Court looks at the
circumstances surrounding the purchase and retention of the ticket
and corresponding contractual provisions and the opportunity for
the individual to review them.

Hence, the Court examined the physical characteristics of the class
action waiver. When passengers booked tickets through Defendants,
the passenger was first required to review the Passenger Agreement
and affirmatively agree to its provisions before finalizing the
booking. The Agreement also contained several examples of advisory
language to passengers, including bold language reading "IMPORTANT
NOTICE" relative to the waiver of certain rights of the passengers.
The Court found that these provisions were conspicuous enough to
pass the first prong of the test.

As to the second prong, the Court noted that after passengers
agreed to the provisions of the Passenger Agreement, a PDF copy of
the Agreement was sent to their email addresses, allowing them to
review the provisions at any time. The Court determined that this
satisfied the second prong of the reasonable communicativeness
test, as passengers had access to familiarize themselves with the
Agreement's terms whenever they chose.

Although the class action waiver satisfied the reasonable
communicativeness test, Plaintiffs argued that the waiver should
not be enforced based on the principles of fundamental fairness and
unconscionability, as well as a matter of public policy. However,
because Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence of a bad faith
motive, fraud, overreaching, or that Defendants attempted to limit
passengers' substantive rights to bring a claim against the cruise
line, the Court rejected these arguments. Instead, it held that the
waiver was enforceable.

In light of the enforceability of the class action waiver, the
Court declined to address any other arguments relative to class
certification and denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

Implications

The ruling in Archer gives some hope to employers that class action
waivers signed in the employment context may be enforceable even in
cases involving outbreaks of COVID-19. Although this case falls
outside of the employment realm and involved interpretations of
maritime law, employers should note the general principles that
agreement terms involving the waiver of rights or otherwise
available procedures, like class action waivers, should be
conspicuous and easily accessible and apply such principles to
their own agreements with employees.

This case was one of the first to interpret these principles in the
era of COVID-19, and developments in this area will continue to be
tracked by us here. [GN]


CELSION CORP: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Celsion Corporation
(NASDAQ: CLSN) securities between November 2, 2015 to July 10, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 28, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug
company that focuses on the development and commercialization of
directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based
therapies for the treatment of cancer.

Celsion's lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a heat-activated
liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III
clinical development for treating primary liver cancer.

In February 2014, Celsion announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had reviewed and provided clearance for the
Company's planned pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase
III trial of ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation
("RFA") in primary liver cancer, also known as hepatocellular
carcinoma ("HCC"), called the "OPTIMA Study." The trial design was
purportedly based on a comprehensive analysis of data from the
Company's Phase III HEAT Study, which purportedly demonstrated that
treatment with ThermoDox resulted in a 55% improvement in overall
survival ("OS") in a substantial number of HCC patients that
received an optimized RFA treatment.

On July 13, 2020, Celsion announced that "it ha[d] received a
recommendation from the independent [DMC] to consider stopping the
global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox® in combination with
[RFA] for the treatment of [HCC], or primary liver cancer."
According to the Company, "[t]he recommendation was made following
the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the
DMC on July 9, 2020," which "found that the pre-specified boundary
for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an
actual value of 0.903."

On this news, Celsion's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or
63.97%, to close at $1.29 per share on July 13, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of ThermoDox;
(ii) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval and
commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Celsion 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

                         About Bragar Eagel

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


CHEROKEE COUNTY: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class of Teachers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as Shannon Burgess, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Cherokee County School
District; and Principal Gavin Fisher, individually and in his
official capacity, Case No. 7:19-cv-02704-DCC (D.S.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed class of:

     "all current and former Teachers who performed non-
     academic nonexempt hourly work within the statutory period
     for the Defendants and who did not receive the requisite
     minimum wage for all hours worked in a workweek that
     totaled less than 40 hours and who also worked more than 40
     hours in a workweek without being paid proper overtime
     compensation during the time period beginning August 1,
     2017 through the present";

   2. requiring the Defendants to produce the names and last
     known email and mailing addresses of putative class members
     in an electronic format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) within 20
     days of conditional certification;

   3. approving the Plaintiff's proposed court-authorization
     Notice and Consent Form; and

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notices and
     contact members of the proposed class in order to notify
     them of the existence of this action and their right to
     join this action as a member of the class and to obtain
     their written consent to join the class.

The Plaintiff, who is a former employee of the Defendants, filed
this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act seeking payment of unpaid
minimum wage, overtime and other wage compensation. The unpaid
minimum wage and overtime are the only two claims being sought for
conditional certification.

The Cherokee County School District manages the 40 schools in
Cherokee County, Georgia, United States. The school district's
leadership consists of an elected seven-member school board.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pZCOmW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC
          Post Office Box 314
          Mauldin, SC 29662
          Telephone: (864) 248-0436
          Facsimile: (864) 326-5940
          E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com

CINGULAR GROCERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zuniga Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANET ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CINGULAR GROCERS; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV45157 (Cal. Super., Nov. 24,
2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Zuniga was employed by the Defendant as waitress.

Cingular Grocers is a California Corporation doing business in
Huntington Park, California. It operates within the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com


CURALLUX LLC: Count V in Cooper Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANICE COOPER, Plaintiff, v. CURALLUX LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02455-PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i)
granted in part and denied in part Curallux's motion to dismiss,
and (ii) denied its motion to strike.

Janice Cooper filed the putative class action against the Defendant
on April 10, 2020 asserting claims for (1) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of
the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (4) breach of express
warranty; and (5) unjust enrichment.  After the Defendant filed a
prior motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed the operative First
Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which asserts the same five claims as
the complaint.

Defendant Curallux is a Florida limited liability company that is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.  It manufactures and distributes a
series of hair regrowth products including CapillusUltra,
CapillusPlus, Capillus X+, and Capillus Pro, which are
baseball-style hats with lasers in them.  These lasers provide low
level light treatment to the scalp, which the Defendant claims
stimulates and energizes cells with hair follicles.

In March 2018, the Plaintiff purchased one of the products and
alleges that she relied upon advertising and marketing of the
products as being "without side effects" and "physician
recommended."  These advertising claims appeared in television
commercials, on the products' packaging and label, and on the
Defendant's website.  She developed several side effects after
using the product including itchy scalp, dry scalp, dandruff,
headaches, and dizziness.

According to the First Amended Complaint (FAC), scientific studies
and experts in the field of hair restoration state that there are
several side effects associated with the use of low level laser
therapy for hair loss.  The Plaintiff also alleges that defendant
relied on eight physicians to endorse the products and further
alleges that these physicians have a financial incentive to make
the purported recommendations.  She alleges that a reasonable
consumer would interpret "physician recommended" to mean a
physician without financial incentive to recommend the product.

Thus, the Plaintiff alleges that the statements "without side
effects" and "physician recommended" are false, deceptive, and
misleading in violation of the CLRA, FAL, and UAL.  Further, she
seeks to certify a class of all persons who purchased the Products
in the United States or, alternatively, in California, for personal
consumption and not for resale during the time period of four years
prior to the filing of the complaint through the present.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to
strike.

The Plaintiff brings three claims using three different California
statutes: the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.   She alleges two statements,
made by the Defendant, are false or misleading.  First, that
Curallux's products offer hair growth "without side effects," and
second, that the products are "physician recommended."  The
Defendant moves to dismiss her three false advertising claims
because it characterizes these statements as substantiation claims
-- that is, the claim lacks substantiation -- rather than false
advertising claims.

Judge Hamilton denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first through third causes of action.  First, at the
pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege factual matter to
allow the court to infer that she could state a claim.  The Judge
cannot say that the Plaintiff fails, as a matter of law, to state a
claim based on this statement.  Second, the Defendant does not
address whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by a
company failing to disclose that "physician recommended" really
means paid physician recommended.  Nor does it argue that it did
not have a duty to disclose a material fact.  Third, because he has
determined that the Plaintiff's claims are not substantiation
claims, the Defendant's reprise of its substantiation argument is
unpersuasive.  Instead, because the Plaintiff's allegations are
sufficient to state a claim under the reasonable consumer standard,
they are likewise sufficient to state a claim for breach of express
warranty.

The Plaintiff's fifth claim alleges unjust enrichment because the
Defendant knowingly received and retained wrongful benefits and
funds from her and the class members.  The Defendant argues that,
under California law, unjust enrichment is not a cause of action.
The Plaintiff fails to address unjust enrichment in her
opposition.

The Judge agrees with the Defendant.  Unjust enrichment is not a
valid cause of action in California.  It is not a cause of action,
or even a remedy, but rather a general principle, underlying
various legal doctrines and remedies.  It is synonymous with
restitution.  There are several potential bases for a cause of
action seeking restitution.  The Plaintiff, however, has not
articulated a cause of action or theory permitting restitution.
Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fifth
cause of action for unjust enrichment is granted.  Because the
Plaintiff has failed to articulate other facts that could be plead
in an amended complaint, further amendment of the claim is futile
and the dismissal is with prejudice.

The Defendant moves to strike the Plaintiff's request for
attorneys' fees.  It states that the FTC already investigated it
and required it to change its advertising from "no side effects" to
"no adverse side effects" and "recommended by physicians" to
recommended by physicians within its network.  Because the FTC
motivated the change in advertising, the Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff could not be the reason the Defendant changed its
advertising.

The Judge denied the Defendant's motion to strike.  He finds it is
premature to strike the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and
takes no position on whether the Plaintiff can prevail in seeking
attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1021.5 and the Defendant is free to raise its argument at a
later stage.  He also finds that even though the Defendant appears
to have already made some changes to its advertising, the Plaintiff
may be able to demonstrate that further equitable relief is
warranted.  At the very least, the Defendant has not demonstrated
that the request for injunctive relief could have no possible
bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.  Finally, the
Judge makes no finding whether the Plaintiff's claims in this
instance are suitable for class certification.  Rather, it is clear
that striking the class allegations at this time is not warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hamilton granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fifth cause of action, and the
claim is dismissed with prejudice.  He denied the motion in all
other respects.  The Defendant's motion to strike is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4rfdh9r from Leagle.com.


CUYAHOGA, OH: Beck Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAVANDA BECK, et al., v.
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00818-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs Shavanda Beck, Tracy D. Reid, Revell Whitney and
Melchezidek K. Muhammad ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as an FLSA collective
      action under section 16(b) against the Defendant County of
      Cuyahoga on behalf of Plaintiffs and all others similarly
      situated;

   2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to:

      "all current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of the
      County who performed work for its Juvenile Court Division
      at any time during the last three years, i.e. April 12,
      2016 to present, who were not compensated at a rate of one
      and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
      worked over 40 in a workweek";

   3. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such current and former
      employees of the pendency of this collective action and
      permitting them to opt into the case by signing and
      submitting a Consent to Join Form;

   4. directing the County to provide within 14 days a roster of
      such current and former employees that includes their full
      names, their dates of employment, their last known
      home addresses, and their personal email addresses;

   5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
      Court, be sent to such current and former employees within
      30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the
      roster; and

   6. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event of new, updated, or corrected mailing
      addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of
      such current or former employees.

Cuyahoga County is located in the northeastern part of the U.S.
state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the
U.S.-Canada maritime border.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pTs9db at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Horace F. Consolo, Esq.
          Frank consolo, Esq.
          CONSOLO LAW FIRM CO., LPA
          627 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5400
          Facsimile: (216) 696-2610
          E-mail: fconsolo@consololaw.com
                  hconsolo@consololaw.com

DAVITA INC: Investors Seek Approval of $135MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that DaVita
Inc. investors asked a federal judge in Colorado to preliminarily
approve a $135 million settlement they reached with the dialysis
company to resolve a would-be class suit.

Investors accused DaVita of misleading them about a purported
scheme to steer patients toward private health plans with higher
reimbursement rates for its dialysis services. The deal follows
"more than three years of hotly contested litigation," investors
told the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Sept. 18.

The recovery would be "the second largest all-cash settlement of a
securities class action in this District's history," the investors
said. [GN]


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal on Order Denying Bid to Vacate Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal in a
consolidated putative class action suit before the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, is pending.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws by
making material misrepresentations and omitting required
information in the December 4, 2015 registration statement filed
with the SEC in connection with the Merger.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on
behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their
shares for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, to
stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and to
stay all proceedings pending resolution of the Federal Class
Action.

On August 2, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motions to stay
discovery and to stay all proceedings. On August 21, 2019, the
Company filed a notice of appeal of that decision. Briefing has not
yet commenced on that appeal. On September 26, 2019, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims.

The associated judgment was entered on September 30, 2019. On
October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
motion to dismiss the decision and the judgment.

On November 4, 2019, the Company filed a notice of cross-appeal of
select rulings in the Court's motion to dismiss decision. On
October 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to
vacate or modify the judgment and grant plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint.

On February 4, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On
March 5, 2020, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal from
the denial of their motion to vacate or modify the judgment and for
leave to amend their complaint.

The Plaintiffs have filed their opening appellate brief and the
Company has filed its response.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Court Decision in Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
still awaiting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on its motion to dismiss a putative
class action suit.

In December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain individual defendants.

The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims
as those asserted in the State Court Class Action. In addition, the
plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws
by making false and misleading statements in quarterly and annual
reports and other public statements between February 20, 2014, and
August 7, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was served on
August 15, 2019.

Briefing was completed on October 21, 2019 and the Company is
awaiting the decision of the Court.

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

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bid for Class Cert. in Olivares & Holt Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for
class certification in the putative class action suit initiated by
Henry Olivares and Calethia Holt, is pending.

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly
situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff
class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours
laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and
meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime.

The parties have engaged in written and other discovery. On
February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the same
counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.


On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

The Company has resolved the Cato lawsuit and continues to
vigorously defend against the Olivares and Holt matters. In
Olivares, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on
September 14, 2020. The response is due on December 31, 2020.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.

DENVER, CO: Provisional Class Status Bid in Homeless Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denver Homeless Out Loud
et al v. Denver, Colorado et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02985 (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class
      Certification without prejudice to filing a motion
      for class certification later in the litigation; and

   2. denying as moot the Defendants' Joint Motion for
      Extension.

The Defendants filed a Joint Motion For Extension Of Time To
Respond To Motion For Provisional Class Certification on November
6, 2020. In that motion, the Defendants stated that "[s]hould a
preliminary injunction issue, Defendants would be enjoined from
certain identified actions and that relief would be a complete
prohibition on conduct -- not just limited to the named
Plaintiffs."

Prior to the filing of the motion, the Plaintiffs were not aware
that this was the Defendants' position as to the preliminary
injunction, and its binding effect as to the entirety of Denver's
homeless population. With the above stipulation, the Plaintiffs do
not oppose the relief in the Defendants' motion. The Plaintiffs
believed that provisional class certification was necessary, and
appropriate, to ensure that Defendants would be bound as to the
preliminary injunction with respect to all class members (as has
been held appropriate in numerous cases seeking provisional class
certification in conjunction with preliminary injunctive relief
where that relief was made necessary by COVID-19). However, with
the Defendants' concession, the Plaintiffs concerns about the
enforcement of the preliminary injunction are assuaged and
Plaintiffs agree that the Court need not decide, provisionally,
whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the strictures of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. Therefore, the Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants'
Joint Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To Motion For
Provisional Class Certification.

The Court said, "In light of Defendants' concession, the Plaintiffs
state that their "concerns about the enforcement of the preliminary
injunction are assuaged and the Plaintiffs agree that this Court
need not decide, provisionally, whether Plaintiffs' proposed class
meets the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23."  Given the foregoing
statements by both parties, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Provisional Class Certification.

The City and County of Denver is the capital and most-populous city
of the U.S. state of Colorado.[CC]


DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Class Suit in Investment Case Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bronskill at The Canadian Press reports that a class-action
suit over personal investments can proceed against a Montreal-based
financial services firm, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

Between 2005 and 2007, Ronald Asselin purchased principal-protected
term deposits from a Desjardins Group caisse populaire that were
not redeemable before maturity.

In March 2009, shortly after the major financial crisis that struck
the global economy, Asselin was told the investments would not
yield any return and would still continue to be uncashable until
the end of their terms.

In 2011, Asselin filed an application to pursue a class action
against Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc., alleging it had
failed to adequately inform him and other customers of the risk
involved with the investments.

He also included Desjardins Global Asset Management Inc. in the
action on the basis it purportedly made risky transactions that
exposed the investments to market fluctuations.

A judge dismissed Asselin's application for the class action, but
the decision was overturned by Quebec's Court of Appeal, prompting
Desjardins to take its case to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, a majority of the Supreme Court said the Court of
Appeal was correct to authorize the class action, though the top
court also clarified the scope of the claim for punitive damages.

"As we know, the threshold for authorizing a class action in Quebec
is a low one," Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote on behalf of the
majority.

Once the relevant conditions set out in the province's Code of
Civil Procedure are met, the judge mustauthorize the action and
"has no residual discretion to deny authorization on the pretext
that a class action is not the most appropriate vehicle," he
wrote.

The burden of establishing an arguable case in light of the facts
and the applicable law is met in this case, Kasirer said.

Mr. Asselin's proposed cause of action is neither frivolous nor
clearly unfounded." [GN]


DRAKES: Faces $20-Mil. Class Action Over Alleged Underpayments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that South Australian family-owned
supermarket chain Drakes has been hit with a potential $20 million
class action alleging it underpaid staff. [GN]


EI DU PONT: Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that on
September 30, 2020, two lawsuits were pending, one brought by a
local water utility and the second a putative class action, against
the company (EID) alleging that perfluorooctanesulfonic acid from
EID's former Chambers Works facility contaminated drinking water
sources.

The putative class action was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the plaintiff.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.



EI DU PONT: Various Drinking Water Contamination Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend several suits including class action
suit related to perfluorinated chemicals and compounds (PFC).

At September 30, 2020, several actions are pending in federal court
against Chemours and the company (EID) relating to perfluorinated
chemicals and compounds (PFC) discharges from the Fayetteville
Works facility.

One of these is a consolidated putative class action that asserts
claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of
putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or
who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River.

Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North
Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive
damages as well as injunctive relief.

In another action over 200 property owners near the Fayetteville
Works facility filed a complaint against Chemours and EID in May
2020.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for their
claims of private nuisance, trespass, and negligence allegedly
caused by release of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.

ELECTROLUX HOME: Settlement Conference in Gorczynski on Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference was held before Judge Renee Marie Bumb via
video on December 3, 2020, in the class action lawsuit captioned as
THOMAS GORCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-10661-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.).

The Court will host a settlement conference on January 8, 2021, at
10:00 a.m. by Zoom.

In November, Judge Bumb entered an order:

   1. administratively terminating the Plaintiff's motion to
      certify;

   2. administratively terminating the Daubert hearings
      involving Dr. Bak and Dr. Kytomaa, the Daubert Motions
      relating to those experts;

   3. administratively terminating remaining Daubert Motions,
      given the fact that resolution of the Daubert Motions
      relating to Dr. Bak and Dr. Kytomaa may affect the
      resolution of the remaining Daubert Motions, which
      themselves may require additional Daubert hearings.

Electrolux manufactures and distributes electrical appliances. The
Company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum
cleaners, cookers, air-conditioners, and microwave ovens.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o68Sna at no extra charge.[CC]


EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against certain officers of Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:EOLS). The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 20-cv-09053, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
Evolus securities between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Evolus securities during the
class period, you have until December 15, 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.

Evolus is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newport Beach,
California. The Company operates as a medical aesthetics company,
and develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the
treatment of aesthetic concerns. Evolus' sole product is
Jeuveau(TM), which is a purified botulinum toxin indicated for the
temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe frown
lines in adults. As such, Evolus directly competes with Botox(R),
which is manufactured by Allergan plc and Allergan Inc.
("Allergan") and distributed by Medytox Inc. ("Medytox"). Botox(R)
has been the gold standard of the industry since its approval by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") more than two decades
ago.

Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to
hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole
leading product Jeuveau(TM). To secure an aggressive growth and
rapid influx of revenue, Defendants disseminated dozens of public
statements in which they promoted Jeuveau(TM) as a proprietary
formulation of the botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly
developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong through years
of clinical research and millions of dollars' worth of investment
in research and development. Among other things, Evolus promised
investors that it would attain the number two U.S. market position
within twenty-four months of launch.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial
strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop
Jeuveau(TM) originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox;
(ii) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations
that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); which in turn (iv) seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the U.S.
and generate revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale
of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including
the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing
processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

The investing public learned the truth about Jeuveau(TM) on July 6,
2020, when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued
its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by Allergan and
Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole certain trade
secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). Coming as a great surprise to
unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that Evolus
misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the
manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. Additionally, the ITC Judge recommended a
ten-year-long ban on Evolus' ability to import Jeuveau(TM) into the
U.S. and a ten-year-long cease-and-desist order preventing Evolus
from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the U.S.

This news caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price
of Evolus shares, which fell 37% over the course of two trading
days, to close at $3.35 per share on July 8, 2020, on unusually
high trading volume. Following the news of the ITC's Initial Final
Determination and the subsequent price drop of Evolus' common
shares, several securities analysts downgraded Evolus' rating and
significantly lowered the Company's price target.

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


EVOLUS INC: Robbins Geller Alerts of Securities Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ:EOLS) common stock
between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Malakouti v. Evolus, Inc., No.
20-cv-08647, and is assigned to Judge Paul G. Gardephe. The Evolus
class action lawsuit charges Evolus and certain of its senior
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Evolus common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Evolus class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Evolus class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Evolus class action lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the Evolus class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Evolus class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Evolus 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 Evolus class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December
15, 2020.

Evolus operates as a medical aesthetics company that develops,
produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the treatment of
aesthetic concerns. Evolus's sole product is Jeuveau(TM), which is
a purified botulinum toxin indicated for the temporary improvement
in the appearance of moderate to severe frown lines in adults.
Evolus's direct competitor in this space is Botox®, which is
manufactured by Allergan plc and Allergan Inc. and distributed by
Medytox Inc.

The Evolus class action lawsuit alleges that, to secure an rapid
influx of revenue for Jeuveau(TM), defendants disseminated dozens
of public statements in which they promoted Jeuveau(TM) as a
proprietary formulation of the botulinum toxin type A complex,
purportedly developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong
through years of clinical research and millions of dollars' worth
of investment in research and development. Among other things, the
Evolus class action lawsuit alleges that Evolus promised investors
that it would attain the number two U.S. market position within
twenty-four months of launch.

The Evolus class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the real source of Evolus's botulinum
toxin bacterial strain, as well as the manufacturing processes used
to develop Jeuveau(TM), originated with Medytox and were
misappropriated therefrom; (ii) sufficient evidence supported the
allegation that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets
relating to the botulinum toxin strain and the manufacturing
processes for the development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii) any revenues
generated from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus's
unlawful activities, including the misappropriation of trade
secrets and secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan
and Medytox; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing facts, Evolus
faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court action, threatening
Evolus's ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States
and generate revenue.

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by
Allergan and Medytox against Evolus alleging that Evolus stole
certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). The ITC found that
Evolus had misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain, as well as
the manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture, and recommended a ten-year ban on Evolus's ability to
import Jeuveau(TM) into the United States and a cease and desist
order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the United
States for ten years. On this news, the price of Evolus stock fell
more than 37%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.

         Michael Albert
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel No: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


EXPLORICA: Class Action Seeks Cancelled School Trip Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Manchester, writing for Castanet, reports that an Oyama father
is among thousands across Canada fighting for reimbursement of lost
money for student school trips that never happened.

Two class-action lawsuits have been launched after student travel
firm Explorica cancelled international trips during the height of
the COVID-19 pandemic.

Russ Bennett says his son Jake was scheduled to take a week-long
Taste of Italy tour during spring break.

But, like hundreds of other school trips, the tour was cancelled
"as soon as the pandemic got out of hand in Italy. It was a real
hot spot at the time."

Bennett says the trip was cancelled about a month before it was to
happen, "with the expectation we would all be reimbursed . . .
everybody bought cancellation insurance."

The one-week trip cost $4,300.

"It's not just us. This affects thousands of families right across
Canada," says Bennett, who has been waiting months for
restitution.

The crux of the argument, says Bennett, is that Explorica believes
it doesn't have to pay because the families had insurance.

"But, the insurance companies say Explorica should simply reimburse
the funds to the families or pay the insurance firms, so they can
refund the families.

"There's been a litany of emails denying responsibility," says
Bennett.

"It's a real comedy of errors . . . this affected trips all over
the world. We're all in the same boat."

Indeed, a Facebook group created by families trying to get their
money back has more than 2,000 members.

The insurance underwriters involved are Arch Insurance and Old
Republic Group.

Lawyer Sivan Tumarkin at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in Toronto is
representing the families. [GN]


EXXON: Plaintiffs Want Class Action Heard by State Judge
--------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that like other
climate change plaintiffs, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison
wants his case heard by a state judge rather than federal.

Ellison's office on Sept. 10 filed its motion to remand the lawsuit
against Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and three Koch
Industries entities. The suit alleges they deceived the public
about climate change science in order to safeguard their business
interests.

Exxon calls the lawsuit the culmination of a plan concocted by
plaintiffs lawyers, activists and special interests to force an
agenda that has gained no traction with lawmakers or regulators.

In the other climate change cases filed in places like California,
Baltimore, Rhode Island and Colorado, the key issue being litigated
so far is state vs. federal jurisdiction.

"Five district courts and three appellate courts have rejected
Defendants' attempts to remove substantially similar cases,"
Ellison's motion says. "These cases considered and rejected six of
the seven grounds for removal Defendants assert here . . ."

The lawsuit was said to be put in Ellison's head by a group called
Fresh Energy last year shortly after he was sworn in. The AG -- and
several of his colleagues -- has taken in two assistants who are
paid by climate change advocate Michael Bloomberg, through a
fellowship program at New York University School of Law.

A resulting lawsuit against Exxon that claimed it misled its
shareholders about the impacts climate change would have on the
company failed spectacularly in a New York state court.

Exxon is also fighting to have the other climate change lawsuits
filed by private lawyers working for government entities on
contingency fees heard in federal court.

When two federal judges asserted jurisdiction and ruled on motions
to dismiss, they granted them on the grounds that plaintiffs are
trying to impose climate change policy on the rest of the world --
a job more appropriate for regulators and lawmakers.

Plaintiffs will likely have more success in state courts, if they
are allowed to litigate there. Ellison says his complaint only
involves alleged violations of state law and does not require the
disposition of any federal issues.

It's also not a class action, he says, and not subject to the Class
Action Fairness Act, which allows defendants to remove certain
class actions to federal court.

"Contrary to Defendants' assertions, this case does not seek to
limit the extraction of fossil fuels or otherwise regulate
greenhouse gas emissions," the motion says.

"Rather, the complaint seeks damages, civil penalties, disgorgement
of profits and an order enjoining Defendants from continued
violations . . ." [GN]


FACEBOOK: UK Firm Launches Cambridge Analytica Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meganne Tillay, writing for Law.com, reports that a litigation
boutique in the United Kingdom has launched a group action, similar
to a class action, against American social media giant Facebook
following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The firm is launching a claim on behalf of almost a million users
in England and Wales who were affected by the scandal. [GN]


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Certification Bid in Chassen Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR CHASSEN, et al., v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case No.
3:09-cv-00291-PGS-DEA (DNJ), the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan
entered an order denying certification of a class defined as:

   "all those persons:

    a) who purchased and/or financed residential real property
       located within the State of New Jersey ('Property') at
       any time beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2010;

    b) for whom a Closing Service Letter was issued by Defendant
       Lawyers Title;

    c) who tendered funds to a Lawyer's Title Agency or to a
       'Settlement Agent' retained by Lawyers Title to
       facilitate the purchase and/or finance of such Property
       in accordance with Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
       (RESPA);

    d) whose HUD-1 for the settlement documents show they were
       charged fees for:

       i. the recording of Deeds and Mortgages at least $20 in
          excess of those fees actually paid by the Settlement
          Agent for the recording of such Deeds and Mortgages
          in accordance with NJS.A. 22A:4-4.1; and

      ii. for whom the amount actually paid by the Settlement
          Agent can be determined from Deeds, Mortgages and
          other instruments either filed in the public record
          with the county clerk, or copies thereof retained in
          the Title Agent's file, the class member's personal
          file

    e) who purchased title insurance at a real estate closing
       from Defendant Lawyers Title, through a Lawyers Title
       Agency;

    f) for whom the[re] currently exists, in either the class
       member's personal file, or the files of the Title Agency:

       i. The HUD-1 from the closing; and

      ii. an Arbitration Endorsement for the Title Insurance
          Policy."

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' motion fails because this action
would likely give rise to numerous mini-trials to determine whether
(1) each settlement agent or closing attorney breached the CSL by
committing a fraud or misapplication; (2) each class member was
refunded or offered a refund; and (3) each settlement agent or
closing attorney acted as Defendant's agent. Indeed, courts
routinely deny class certification applications where, as here,
class members would be required to prove their claim on a
case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the motion for class certification
is denied."

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order denying class
certification dated Nov. 10, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lL4Yzq at no extra charge.[CC]


FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Cert. in Early Access Cash Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for
class certification in the consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-851), is pending.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate
(APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was
misleading.

Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible
customers with checking accounts.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank).

Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851).


On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On
March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA).

On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal.

On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the
breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and
remanded for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract
claim exceed $280 million. The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was filed on April 20, 2020, and is now fully briefed
and awaiting decision. No trial date has been set.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

FIFTH THIRD: Christakis and Fox Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative class
action suits entitled, Lee Christakis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill) and  Dr. Steven Fox, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third
Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2020CH05219, have been consolidated and
an amended complaint has been filed.

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Christakis filed a putative class
action against Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third President and Chief
Executive Officer Greg D. Carmichael, and Fifth Third Chief
Financial Officer Tayfun Tuzun in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entitled Lee Christakis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third
Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill).

The case brings two claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection
with the alleged unauthorized opening of credit card, savings,
checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010
through 2016.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 29, 2020, the Court appointed Heavy & General Laborers'
Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead plaintiff, and
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff.


On September 14, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its amended
consolidated complaint.

In July 31, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action
captioned Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No.
2020CH05219 was filed on behalf of former shareholders of MB
Financial, Inc. in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court.

The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain
of its officers and directors made material misstatements and
omissions regarding the alleged improper cross-selling strategy in
filings made in connection with the Bancorp’s merger with MB
Financial, Inc.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

FILTERS FAST: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that an air and
water filter company acted negligently and violated unfair trade
practices law by failing to protect user information from a nearly
year-long cyberattack, according to a proposed class action.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Filters Fast LLC's inability to guard data
from the breach puts customers' identities and financial accounts
at risk, alleged Virginia resident Jennifer McCreary in a lawsuit
filed on Oct. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

Cyberattackers added malicious code to Filters Fast's website in
July 2019, allowing bad actors to capture information during the
checkout process until it was removed in July.

COURT: W.D.N.C.
TRACK DOCKET: No. 3:20-cv-595
COMPANY INFO: Filters Fast LLC
[GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

First American Financial Corp. (FAF)

Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-first-american-financial-corp-securities-litigation
     
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                       About ClaimsFiler

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

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


FIRST AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of First American Financial Corp.
(NYSE: FAF), between February 17, 2017 and October 22, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for First American investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the First American class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1662.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company failed to implement basic security standards
to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and data;
(2) the Company faced a heightened risk of cybersecurity failure
due to its automation and efficiency initiatives; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
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 December
24, 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-1662.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.

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]


FIRST CONNECTICUT: Karp Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated shareholder litigation captioned RE FIRST
CONNECTICUT BANCORP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02496-RDB (D. Md.), the
Lead Plaintiff Selwyn Karp asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action;

   2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Monteverde & Associates PC as Class Counsel.

First Connecticut is a Maryland-chartered stock holding company
that wholly owns Farmington Bank.

A copy of the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Nov. 20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2V9laim at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, Minton Decl.21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711


               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383

FIRST HORIZON: Searles Suit v. Capital Bank Financial Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the putative class action suit against Capital Bank
Financial Corp., entitled, Searles v. DeMartini et al., remains
pending.

In the first quarter of 2020, a former shareholder of Capital Bank
Financial Corp. filed a putative class action suit, Searles v.
DeMartini et al, No. 2020-0136 (Del. Chancery), against certain
former directors, officers, and shareholders of CBF, alleging,
among other things, that defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties in connection with CBF's merger with FHN in 2017.

Plaintiff claims unspecified damages related to the merger
consideration and opportunity loss.

FHN is unable to estimate an reasonably possible loss range for
this matter due to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a
class will be certified and, if so, the composition of the class;
the amount of potential damages that might be awarded, if any; of
any such damages amount, the amount that FHN would be obliged to
indemnify; the availability of applicable insurance; and the
outcome of discovery, which has not yet begun.

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

First Horizon National Corporation began as a community bank
chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.

FOREST CITY TECH: Nagy Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASSANDRA NAGY, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FOREST CITY
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02290-TMP (N.D. Ohio),
the Parties ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a settlement class consisting of:

      "Plaintiff and 288 other individuals (289 total) who
      formerly or currently work for Forest City Technologies,
      Inc. under the job title machine operator, or its
      equivalent, based out of Forest City's Wellington, Ohio
      locations during any workweek from July 20, 2017 to July
      20, 2020;

   2. approving, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), the
      settlement of this action as "fair, reasonable, and
      adequate;

   3. approving class members' waiver of their wage and hour
      claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement;

   4. approving the payment of a $7,500 service award to the
      Plaintiff;

   5. appointing the law firm of Scott & Winters, LLC to serve
      as Class Counsel; and

   6. approving a payment to Class Counsel of $233,376.50 in
      attorneys' fees and $16,621.00 in litigation expenses
      including third-party settlement administration expenses.

Cassandra Nagy filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint in
this Action on October 1, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged she and other
similarly situated employees were not paid for all time worked,
including compensable time at the beginning and end of their shifts
as a result of Defendants' alleged unlawful time editing and
rounding policies, and are owed overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the FLSA. The
Defendants denied Plaintiff's claims and asserted affirmative
defenses.

After comprehensive and extensive investigations, discovery
including analysis of wage-and-hour information and other data and
documents comprising of over 2,000,000 data points from the records
produced by the Defendants, and contentious negotiations, the
parties were able to reach a final resolution on June 9, 2020. The
Defendants have agreed to pay the total settlement amount of
$750,000 which will be in full and final settlement of: (1) the
claims released by Plaintiff and other Class Members; (2)
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursed Litigation Expenses; (3) Costs of
Administration; and (4) Service Award.

A copy of the joint motion for certification of settlement class
dated Nov. 16, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lZQxrq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Secrest, Esq.
          Sara H. Jodka, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          150 East Gay Street, Suite 2400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 744-2938
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: jsecrest@dickinson-wright.com
                  sjodka@dickinsonwright.com

FSD PHARMA: Ends Class Action Lawsuit With $5.5 Million Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
FSD Pharma announced that it has settled a class action lawsuit
that was filed against the firm in 2019. The class action itself
was related to the build-out of its facility in Cobourg, Ontario,
which in February 2019 took a turn for the worse when things fell
apart with construction partner Auxly Cannabis (TSXV: XLY).

FSD this morning indicated that it has entered into a settlement
agreement due to the desire to avoid the expense of court
associated with forging ahead to fight the lawsuit. The company
admitted no fault or liability in connection with the settlement.

Under the terms of the arrangement, the company will pay $5.5
million to settle the lawsuit, of which $4.6 million will be
covered by insurance the company currently has in place. The
remainder, $900,000, needs to be covered by the company directly.

To provide further clarity to our readers, this class action was
filed February 22, 2019, by a shareholder of FSD whom filed a
statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court. Among other
items, the claim alleged that FSD Pharma had made statements
containing misrepresentations related to the build-out of the
Cobourg facility.

The lawsuit was not filed by Auxly, as certain message boards seem
to have misinterpretated. Rather, within regulatory filings, FSD
Pharma explicitly states that "to date, neither party has taken
further legal action against the counter party," when referencing
the events that transpired with Auxly.

FSD Pharma last traded at $2.14 on the CSE. [GN]


FSD PHARMA: Negotiates C$5.5-Mil. Settlement in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FSD Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ:HUGE) (CSE:HUGE) ("FSD Pharma" or the
"Company") on Oct. 29 disclosed that, subject to court
certification and other customary conditions, it has entered into a
definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with
respect to the class action litigation commenced by a plaintiff
shareholder in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in February
2019 relating to the build-out of its facility in Cobourg, Ontario
(the "Settled Action").

The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement in order to avoid
the expense, burden and inconvenience associated with the
continuance of the Settled Action. In entering into the Settlement
Agreement, the Company made no admissions of liability whatsoever.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a full and final release of
the Company, its officers, directors and various other related
parties from any and all claims that arose or could have arisen
from the claim issued by the plaintiff within the Settled Action.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay
C$5,500,000, approximately C$4,600,000 of which the Company expects
to be funded with the proceeds of insurance, leaving the Company
with a net payment of approximately C$900,000.

                       About FSD Pharma

FSD Pharma Inc. is a publicly-traded holding company, since May
2018.

FSD Pharma BioSciences, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, is a
specialty biotech pharmaceutical R&D company focused on developing
over time multiple applications of its lead compound FSD-201, by
down-regulating the cytokines to effectuate an anti-inflammatory
response. [GN]


GARRISON PROPERTY: Roberts Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Roberts, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Garrison
Property Casualty and Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01232-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. granting her Motion for Class Certification and enter an
      order certifying a class of insureds on Plaintiffs' claims
      of breach of contract, injunction, and declaratory relief
      against USAA under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), (b)(2), and/or
      (c)(4);

   2. appointing her as class representative; and

   3. appointing her counsel as class counsel.

According to the complaint, USAA's standard policy promises
worldwide coverage for personal property up to the applicable
amount of insurance listed on the declarations page, except for
property usually located at a residence other than the one listed
on the declarations page. (i.e., the principal residence, also
called the "residence premises," for which premiums are paid). For
those "other" residences, the limit of liability is 10% of the
amount of insurance available for the principal residence. Despite
its promise of worldwide coverage of insured property, USAA applies
the 10% cap to any personal property located outside the primary
home at the time of the loss, even if there is no other residence
or it is not usually located at a secondary residence.

As a result of USAA's overarching claims adjustment practices and
personnel and the common leadership and day-to-day management of
all USAA insurance affiliates, when adjusting claims under the
personal property coverage of the policies held by class members,
USAA routinely, systemically, and persistently erred in determining
when a limit on the amount of insurance available to class members
applied. USAA errs in applying the limit ("10% cap") and even today
it misunderstands when the limit properly applies. The error was
uniform across the class, resulting in a breach of contract and
Plaintiff and her fellow insureds receiving one-tenth of the
coverage owed. Because of USAA's systemic error, Garrison breached
the contract.

Garrison is part of The United Services Automobile Association.
USAA is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial
services group of companies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39ig8by at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          John M. DeStefano, 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
                  johnd@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathan D. Meyer, Esq.
          K. Michelle Ronan, Esq.
          JABURG & WILK, P.C.
          3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          E-mail: ndm@jaburgwilk.com
                  kmr@jaburgwilk.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Butler, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: tbutler@maynardcooper.com

GCI LLC: HFPF Suit vs Parent Company Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
GCI, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that GCI Liberty continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Hollywood Firefighters'
Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al.

On October 9, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by
two purported GCI Liberty stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware under the caption Hollywood Firefighters'
Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al. On October 11,
2020, a new version of the complaint was filed, and the case has
been assigned Case No. 2020-0880.

The lawsuit names as defendants GCI Liberty, as well as the members
of the GCI Liberty board of directors. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that Messrs. Gregory B. Maffei and John C. Malone in
their purported capacities as controlling stockholders and
directors of GCI Liberty, and the other directors of GCI Liberty,
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Combination.

The lawsuit also alleges that various prior and current
relationships between the members of the GCI Liberty special
committee and Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei render the members of the
GCI Liberty special committee not independent. The lawsuit further
alleges that the Combination violates Section 203 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL")  and that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus that was filed in connection with
the Combination misstates and omits material information.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class action, declarations
that Messrs. Maffei and Malone and the other directors of GCI
Liberty breached their fiduciary duties and that the Combination
violates Section 203 of the DGCL, an injunction barring the
stockholder vote and the Combination, and the recovery of damages
and other relief.

On October 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On October 27, 2020, after a hearing, the Court
granted the motion.

GCI Liberty believes this lawsuit is without merit. However, the
outcome of this lawsuit or any other lawsuit that may be filed
challenging the Combination or the other transactions contemplated
by the transaction documents is uncertain.

GCI, LLC, through its subsidiaries, operates as an integrated
communication services provider primarily in Alaska.  It offers a
range of wireless, data, video, voice, and managed services to
residential customers, businesses, governmental entities, and
educational and medical institutions under the GCI brand.  The
company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Englewood,
Colorado. GCI, LLC is a subsidiary of GCI Liberty, Inc.

GENERAL CONSULATE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Mohammad FEHA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants General Consulate of the State of Kuwait in Los Angeles,
et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled RASHA MOHAMMAD and all persons similarly situated v. THE
GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT (a.k.a. CONSULATE OF THE
STATE OF KUWAIT IN LOS ANGELES, aka THE ROYAL CONSULATE OF THE
STATE OF KUWAIT, THE STATE OF KUWAIT aka THE NATION OF KUWAIT) and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02513-MWF-MAA, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act based on gender
expression or identity. She alleges that the Defendants harassed
her and intimidated her, often criticizing her ancestry (Syrian)
and the Syrian ongoing war, often stating directly to her and or in
her presence that all Syrians should be exterminated.

The appellate case is captioned as Rasha Mohammad v. General
Consulate of Kuwait LA, et al., Case No. 20-56255, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 30, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Appellant General Consulate of the State of Kuwait in Los
Angeles Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 7, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on January 25, 2021;

   -- Appellant General Consulate of the State of Kuwait in Los
Angeles opening brief is due on March 5, 2021;

   -- Appellee Rasha Mohammad answering brief is due on April 5,
2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RASHA MOHAMMAD, and All Persons Similarly
Situated, is represented by:

          Richard L. Knickerbocker, Esq.
          KNICKERBOCKER LAW GROUP
          The Water Garden
          2425 Olympic Blvd
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 260-9060
          Facsimile: (310) 260-9063
          E-mail: knieklaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT IN LOS
ANGELES, AKA The General Consulate of the State of Kuwait, AKA The
Nation of Kuwait, AKA The Royal Consulate of the State of Kuwait,
The State of Kuwait, is represented by:

          Carol Yur, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 623-9300
          E-mail: carol.yur@dentons.com

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Orders Dismissal of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Oct. 28 ordered a district
court to dismiss Godiva Chocolatier's $6.3 million settlement of a
Florida class action, finding the lead plaintiff lacked standing.
The 35-page en banc opinion authored by Circuit Judge Britt Grant
garnered three separate dissents from Judges Charles Wilson,
Beverly Martin and Aldaberto Jordan. [GN]


GODIVA: 11th Cir. Tosses Muransky FACTA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that the en banc 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Muransky v. Godiva that a shopper who
alleged the chocolatier violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by including too many digits of his credit card
number on his receipt did not meet constitutional requirements to
sue.

The en banc court, in an opinion by Judge Britt Grant, tossed David
Muransky's class action, even though he and Godiva settled the case
in 2016 for $6.2 million.

Muransky contended that when Congress passed FACTA in 2003, it
intended, among other things, to reduce the risk of identity theft
by barring retailers from reproducing more than five digits of
customers' credit card numbers on their receipts. Under that
theory, he asserted, Godiva inflicted a concrete injury on him and
other shoppers because its violation of the statute exposed
consumers to what Congress deemed an increased risk. That's enough,
Muransky argued, to meet constitutional standing requirements.

The 11th Circuit, however, said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in 2016's Spokeo v. Robins establishes that Congress alone cannot
confer Article III standing on plaintiffs. "What Muransky asks is
for us to abandon our judicial role by merging the ordinary steps
in the analysis — concluding that because the statute protects a
concrete interest, any violation automatically threatens that
interest and thus supports standing," wrote Judge Grant, in a
decision notable for its colloquial tone. "Although that approach
would simplify our job, it is inconsistent with Spokeo and with
what the Constitution demands of us."

Muransky counsel Michael Hilicki of Keogh Law did not respond to my
email about the 11th Circuit decision. The 11th Circuit ruling
seems to leave open the possibility that Muransky can file a new
complaint with more specific allegations about his risk of identity
theft, but for now, the $6.2 million settlement - which was to have
included $2.1 million in attorneys' fees and a $10,000 service
award for Muransky - is off. (Godiva, represented by Bowman &
Brooke and Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, told the 11th
Circuit that the settlement agreement precluded the company from
taking a position on Muransky's standing.)

The 11th Circuit decision is a win for class member Eric Isaacson,
who objected to the settlement, and his counsel, Mitchell Reich of
Hogan Lovells. (Isaacson is himself an appellate lawyer who
specializes in representing class action objectors but Reich argued
his case before the 11th Circuit.) "Courts have an independent
obligation to determine if a plaintiff has standing," Reich said.
When it comes to FACTA, he said, it's not clear that Congress even
intended to imply that the risk of identity theft was a concrete
injury that established plaintiffs' constitutional right to sue.
But even if that was Congress' intent, Reich said, the 11th Circuit
en banc decision makes clear that "the plaintiff has some burden to
show actual risk."

The 11th Circuit's reasoning aligns with that of the 3rd Circuit in
2019's Kamal v. J. Crew, which also held that a FACTA plaintiff
"must plausibly aver" that a store's printing of extra credit card
digits on his receipt "presents a material risk of concrete,
particularized harm." The en banc 11th Circuit also cited 2nd, 7th
and 9th Circuit decisions dismissing FACTA class action on standing
grounds. Only the D.C. Circuit, the 11th Circuit said, has found
otherwise in the wake of Spokeo - and that case involved a receipt
reproducing the customer's entire credit card number and expiration
date.

Godiva and Muransky struck their $6.2 million settlement before the
Supreme Court issued its Spokeo ruling. Judge Grant said that both
sides told lower courts that their deal reflected uncertainty about
the impact of the looming Supreme Court decision, since Muransky's
complaint alleged only a statutory violation of FACTA.

By the time of the fairness hearing on the proposed settlement in
the fall of 2016, the Supreme Court had said in Spokeo that mere
statutory violations do not confer standing. Isaacson raised an
objection to the Godiva deal on standing grounds. The settlement
was nevertheless approved by the trial court.

In a 2019 decision affirming approval of the settlement, a
three-judge 11th Circuit panel said Muransky met constitutional
standing requirements by alleging the concrete injury of an
increased risk of identity theft. The panel specifically
highlighted the role of Congress in legislating against consumer
injuries. By enacting FACTA, lawmakers "judged the risk of identity
theft Dr. Muransky suffered to be sufficiently concrete to confer
standing," the panel said. "And where Congress elevates the risk of
harm to a concrete interest to the status of a concrete injury, the
risk need be no more than an 'identifiable trifle' to be
concrete."

Two of the judges on the original 11th Circuit panel - Judges
Beverly Martin and Adalberto Jordan - wrote lengthy dissents from
en banc ruling. (The third judge on the panel was D.C. Circuit
Judge Douglas Ginsburg, sitting by designation. He was not part of
the 11th Circuit's en banc reconsideration.) 11th Circuit Judge
Charles Wilson also wrote a dissent from the en banc decision.

"Not all statutory violations result in a concrete injury," Judge
Martin said in her dissent. "The Supreme Court told us so in
Spokeo. Today, the majority extends this principle from Spokeo to
conclude that courts may ignore the judgment of Congress when
assessing whether a party has met the concreteness requirement of
Article III."

The 11th Circuit en banc majority, however, concluded that the
Supreme Court's Spokeo decision means courts can look at Congress'
intent when it comes to standing – but that the inquiry does not
end there. "Spokeo cautioned that 'Congress' role in identifying
and elevating intangible harms does not mean that a plaintiff
automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a
statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize
that person to sue to vindicate that right,'" Judge Grant wrote.
"So although a congressional judgment may be 'instructive and
important' to this court's analysis, we need to come to our own
conclusion."

Isaacson counsel Reich told me the 11th Circuit's decision will not
affect other post-Spokeo rulings in which the appeals court
concluded that plaintiffs asserting statutory violations met
Article III standing requirements. The en banc court mentioned, for
instance, 2017's Perry v. Cable News Network, in which the 11th
Circuit found that a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
could constitute a concrete injury because it was analogous to the
common law tort of invasion of privacy; and 2017's Pedro v.
Equifax, which drew parallels between a violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the tort of defamation.

"There are still lots of ways for plaintiffs to show a real injury
or risk of injury," Reich said. "This ruling does not disturb
that." [GN]


GROWERS' CHOICE: Lizarraga May File Prelim. Approval Bid by Jan. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit entitled RAMON LIZARRAGA, and JAIME
CARDENAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GROWERS' CHOICE, INC.; ROBERT LONGSTRETH, an individual, and
DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-00526-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), District
Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an order extending deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file their motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

Based on the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue the December 7,
2020 Deadline for Plaintiffs to File to Their Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for good cause
shown, Judge Nunley ruled that the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement will be filed no
later than January 21, 2021.

Virginia Villegas -- virginia@e-licenciados.com -- Felicia
Goldstein -- felicia@e-licenciados.com -- of VILLEGAS CARRERA,
INC., in San Francisco, California; and Cynthia L. Rice --
crice@crla.org -- Veronica Melendez, Cecilia Guevara Zamora --
cguevarazamora@crlaf.org -- of CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION, in Sacramento, California, represent Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated November 30, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyozw49w from Leagle.com.


GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Buber Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Satchidananda Buber and
Joseph Trejo, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, v. GrowersHouse LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; GG Growth, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Nathan Lipton and John/Jane Doe Lipton, a married couple;
and Paul Lipton and John/Jane Doe Lipton, a married couple, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00219-RM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a class of:

   "all former and current employees of GrowersHouse, LLC ("GH")
   or GG Growth, LLC ("GG") who, at any time between May 21,
   2017 and the present: (1) worked in sales or performed sales-
   related activities relating to commercial cultivation
   equipment purchasing accounts or clients purchasing
   commercial cultivation equipment; (2) worked more than 40
   hours in any given workweek; and (3) were not paid overtime."

The complaint alleges that the Defendants implemented a policy,
common to those employees encompassed within the scope of the
prospective class definition, that resulted in the
misclassification of such employees as exempt under the FLSA, thus
depriving them of overtime pay for those hours worked beyond 40 in
each workweek.

Growers House is a family owned and operated hydroponics supplies
and indoor gardening center.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o0AD0j at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberto C. Garcia, Esq.
          Jacob R. Valdez, Esq.
          FARHANG & MEDCOFF
          4801 East Broadway Boulevard, Suite 311
          Tucson, AZ 85711
          Telephone: 520 214.2000
          Facsimile: 520.214.2001
          E-mail: rgarcia@farhangmedcoff.com
                  jvaldez@farhangmedcoff.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Greg Coulter, Esq.
          Monica M. Ryden, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2111 East Highland Avenue, Suite B-250
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          E-mai: greg.coulter@jacksonlewis.com
                 monica.ryden@jacksonlewis.com

GRUBHUB: Sued for Listing Restaurants Without Permission
--------------------------------------------------------
Jaya Saxena, writing for Eater, reports that two restaurants have
initiated a potential class-action lawsuit against GrubHub for
allegedly listing 150,000 restaurants to its site without the
businesses' permission. The Farmer's Wife in Sebastopol, California
and Antonia's Restaurant in Hillsborough, NC filed the suit with
Gibbs Law Group, accusing Grubhub of adding their restaurants to
its site despite not entering into a partnership, which causes
"significant damage to their hard-earned reputations, loss of
control over their customers' dining experiences, loss of control
over their online presence, and reduced consumer demand for their
services."

Grubhub has explicitly made this false partnership part of their
business strategy. Last October, CEO Matt Maloney said the company
would be piloting a new initiative of adding more restaurants to
its searchable database without entering into an official
partnership with them, so customers would believe they had more
delivery options with Grubhub, and wouldn't switch to competitors.

It works like this: if you happened to order from a non-partnered
restaurant, "the order doesn't go directly to the restaurant," says
the lawsuit. "It goes instead to a Grubhub driver, who must first
figure out how to contact the restaurant and place the order.
Sometimes it's possible to place orders with the restaurant by
phone, but other times the restaurant will only accept orders in
person. The extra steps often lead to mistakes in customers' orders
and often the restaurant won't receive the order at all." Grubhub
also wouldn't warn restaurants before they were listed, which led
to restaurants suddenly being inundated with Grubhub orders they
never expected.

Often, Grubhub would list outdated menus with the wrong prices, or
include restaurants that don't even offer take-out, leading to
canceled orders. The lawsuit includes screenshots from the pages
Grubhub created for The Farmer's Wife and Antonia's, using their
respective names and logos. The Farmer's Wife alleges the pages are
"inaccurate and suggests that The Farmer's Wife is offering to make
food that it does not actually make and has never made," which the
lawsuit claims hurts the restaurant's reputation, and leads
customers to become frustrated with service the restaurant never
agreed to provide in the first place. And both restaurants say the
language Grubhub uses suggests a partnership that doesn't exist,
and in Antonia's case, was actively declined when Grubhub
approached them.

Grubhub declined to comment to Eater about the lawsuit. Last year,
a Grubhub representative told Eater it was adding restaurants
without their permission "so we will not be at a restaurant
disadvantage compared to any other food delivery platform," but
said it would "without hesitation remove any restaurant who reaches
out to us and doesn't want to be listed on our marketplace,"
putting the onus on any restaurant owner to proactively check
Grubhub to be sure their business isn't being listed. However,
according to the lawsuit, Grubhub has not removed The Farmer's
Wife's or Antonia's from its site, despite multiple requests to do
so.

The same rep also previously told Eater that Grubhub essentially
hoped that adding restaurants without their permission would
convince them to join. "When we add restaurants they'll see orders,
and see the benefit of the Grubhub platform," she said.
Unfortunately, this has been a common practice with the third-party
delivery industry. In 2015, DoorDash got in trouble for delivering
In-N-Out without its permission, and Postmates has also added
restaurants without their permission. There's also the practice of
delivery services confusing restaurants. Last January, chef Pim
Techamuanvivit noticed her restaurant Kin Khao was listed on
DoorDash, even though it doesn't offer delivery, and the menu
looked totally different. It turns out DoorDash had listed the
ghost kitchen Happy Khao Thai as Kin Khao. Grubhub has also been
sued over its phone practices. Munish Narula of Philadelphia
restaurant Tiffin sued the company for "charging commissions on
those phone calls that are routed through Grubhub, without his
knowledge, even if the phone calls don't result in a customer
placing an order."

The lawsuit comes at a time when in-person dining restrictions and
safety concerns are driving more restaurants than ever to use
delivery to stay afloat, and when there has been renewed scrutiny
of the practices of third-party delivery services. Over the past
few months, Instagram posts outlining just how much delivery
services like Grubhub and DoorDash charge restaurants have gone
viral, with diners outraged at how much of their money isn't going
to the restaurant they wanted to support. "For example, one
restaurant owner recently posted a statement from Grubhub showing
that out of $1,042.63 in 46 pre-paid orders, he received only
$376.54 from Grubhub," says the lawsuit, presumably referring to a
post from Giuseppe Badalamenti, owner of food truck Chicago Pizza
Boss, about his March earnings. Brooklyn restaurant Hunky Dory also
recently shared its delivery fee breakdown, saying $619 in sales on
a rainy Friday night was only $464.25 after Caviar/DoorDash fees.

Third-party delivery services have proliferated because they allow
a restaurant to outsource delivery, which can be costly and
time-consuming to implement in-house. But this transparency has led
to more calls to order from restaurants directly, and multiple
cities to cap the commissions these services can collect.
California Governor Gavin Newson also recently signed the Fair Food
Delivery Act, which would make the practice of adding restaurants
to delivery platforms without their permission illegal.

"Restaurant owners should be able to affirmatively decide whether
to affiliate with Grubhub to offer delivery and takeout services,"
said Steven Tindall of Gibbs Law Group in a statement. "For Grubhub
to unilaterally add restaurants to its platform without their
permission or authorization, the company is improperly denying
restaurant owners the right to make their own business decisions
and to control the reputations they have built." [GN]


HERITAGE SENIOR: Hoaglan Seeks to Certify Employee Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE HOAGLAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, V. HERITAGE SENIOR
LIVING, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-1361 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying proposed Rule 23 Class and Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Collective for settlement purposes only:

      "all hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by
      Heritage within the three (3) year period immediately
      preceding the filing of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) who
      received non- discretionary compensation in addition to
      their straight time rate of pay during workweeks in which
      said employees worked in excess of 40 hours";

   3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing herself as representative of the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approving the mailing of the Notice Packet to class
      members;

   6. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to
      opt out of the case or object to the Agreement;

   7. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to
      opt in to the FLSA Collective;

   8. finding Notice process satisfies due process;

   9. directing that any member of Rule 23 Class who has not
      properly requested exclusion and FLSA Collective members
      who have chosen to participate to the FLSA Collective
      shall be bound by the Agreement in the event the Court
      issues a Final Order Approving Settlement;

  10. granting direction that any member of the Rule 23 Class
      or FLSA Collective who wishes to object to the Agreement
      in any way must do so per the instructions set forth in
      the Notice Packet; and

  11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement after the expiration of 30 days after approval
      of this Joint Motion.

The settlement provides a total monetary settlement payment of
$75,590.24 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant will compensate Class Counsel for the Plaintiff's
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs spent litigating this matter
to date and the anticipated amount of attorneys' fees and costs
that will continue to be spent litigating this matter through its
ultimate conclusion, i.e. $44,964.43.

A copy of the Plaintiff's request dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KxiqJn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Kaplan, Esq.
          Katelynn M. Williams, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          150 East Gilman Street, Suite 5000
          Madison, WI 53703-1482
          Post Office Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701-1497
          Telephone: 608 258 4231
          Facsimile: 608 258 4258
          E-mail: dkaplan@foley.com
                  kmwilliams@foley.com

               - and -

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

HILTON HOTELS: White et al. File Second Renewed Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as VALERIE R. WHITE, et al., v. HILTON
HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of persons who:

       (a) Are former or current employees of Hilton Worldwide,
           Inc. or Hilton Hotels Corp., or the surviving spouses
           or beneficiaries of former Hilton employees;

       (b) Submitted a claim for vested retirement benefits from
           Hilton under the claim procedures ordered by the
           District Court and the Court of Appeals in Kifafi, et
           al., v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., C.A.
           98-1517; and

       (c) Have been denied vested rights to retirement benefits
           by the Hilton Defendants':

           (1) Use of "fractional" years of vesting service
               under an "elapsed time" method to count periods
               of employment before 1976 with no resolution of
               whether the fractions constitute a "year of
               service" under ERISA;

           (2) Refusal to count "non-participating" service for
               vesting purposes, notwithstanding that the
               service was with a hotel property that Hilton
               operated under a management agreement, that the
               Hilton Defendants counted service at the same
               "Hilton Properties" in Kifafi and represented to
               this Court and the D.C. Circuit in Kifafi that
               Hilton had counted "non-participating" service
               with Hilton for vesting, and that the "records
               requested and received from Defendants do not
               identify any non-participating property that is
               also not a Related Company"; and

           (3) Denial of retroactive/back retirement benefit
               payments to heirs and estates on the basis that
               the claimants are "not the surviving spouse" of
               deceased vested participants.";

   2. appointing Valerie White, Eva Juneau, and Peter Betancourt
      as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as Class counsel.

After the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 16, 2018, the Defendants opposed the motion on the ground
that the Plaintiffs' claims did not satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 23's
commonality and typicality prerequisites. The Plaintiffs replied to
that opposition, but concurrently moved for leave to add an
additional named representative for the second subclass. The
Plaintiffs' motion for leave was denied on March 31, 2019, and a
motion to reconsider was denied on December 17, 2019. The Court
rescheduled the motion for class certification for filing on
January 31, 2020.  That motion was denied on October 7, 2020
"without prejudice" on October 7, 2020, and this second renewed
motion was scheduled.

A copy of the plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class
certification dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q83CBd at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class, are:

          Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
          Allison C. Pienta, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
          1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 410
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 289-1117
          E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net
                  acaalim@verizon.net

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Andrew M. Lacy, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          Shannon K. McGovern, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP
          900 G ST. NW
          Washington, DC 20001

HOME DEPOT: Hankey Seeks Class Status for Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD W. HANKEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
HOME DEPOT USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JAM-CKD (E.D . Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on December 15, 2020 for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all non-exempt employees in retail stores in California
      who received a "Success Sharing" bonus within one year
      prior to the filing of the complaint in this action until
      resolution of this lawsuit ("Class Members"); and

   2. appointing James Hawkins, APLC, as class counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Home Depot issues inaccurate wage
statements. The lawsuit says class members are non-exempt
California employees who received inaccurate wage statements for
"Success Sharing" bonuses. These bonuses are earned over a period
of six months, but the Defendant's wage statements identify the
dates for which employees are paid the bonus as an unrelated
two-week period. Because the wage statements issued for these
bonuses were inaccurate due to the Defendant's uniform practice,
and because there are no individual issues to adjudicate,
certification should be granted, the complaint says.

The Defendant Home Depot operates retail stores in California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2UULblj at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES R. HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Dr Ste 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com

HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Certification Bid OK'd in P.J.E.S. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as P.J.E.S., a minor child,
by and through his father and next friend, Mario Escobar Francisco,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CHAD F.
WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02245-EGS-GMH (D.C.), the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
entered an Order:

   1. adopting Magistrate Judge Harvey's Report and
      Recommendation;

   2. provisionally granting the Plaintiff's Motion to
      Certify Class;

   3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
      Injunction; and

   4. denying the Government's request to stay the Court's
      Order while it decides whether to appeal and/or
      pending appeal.

The Court said, "The Government has objected to several of
Magistrate Judge Harvey's recommendations. Raising no objections to
the R. & R., the Plaintiff asks this Court to adopt  Magistrate
Judge Harvey's recommendations to grant both motions. Upon careful
consideration of the R. & R., the Government's objections,
Plaintiff's response, and the relevant law, the Court hereby adopts
the R. & R., provisionally grants Plaintiff's (1) Motion to Certify
Class, and grants Plaintiff's (2) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction."

P.J.E.S., a 15-year-old minor from Guatemala who entered the United
States as an unaccompanied minor in August 2020, brings the
Defendants for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
("TVPRA"), the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 ("FARRA").

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39lvBr4 at no extra charge.[CC]


HOMELAND SECURITY: Gatore Class Status Bid Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICA GATORE, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No.
1:15-cv-00459-RBW (D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered
an Order:

   1. denying as moot the Individual Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), due
      to the plaintiffs' filing of a subsequent motion
      requesting identical relief;

   2. directing plaintiffs on or before December 10, 2020, to
      file a reply in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification and the Individual Plaintiffs' Second
      Amended Motion for Leave to Add Plaintiffs to the
      Complaint, and to File that Amended Complaint;

   3. vacating the status conference currently scheduled for
      December 4, 2020; and

   4. directing the parties to appear before the Court for a
      motions hearing on January 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., via
      teleconference by calling 1-877-873-8017 and entering the
      Court's access code (8583213) followed by the pound key
      (#).

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HCQUcu at no extra charge.[CC]

HOMELAND SECURITY: Mulangu Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH MULANGU, et al.,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No.
1:19-cv-02682-RBW (D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered
an Order:

   1. granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment,
      because the relief requested by the plaintiffs has been
      provided to them;

   2. entering summary judgment for the Defendant on the
      plaintiffs' Complaint;

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification;

   4. denying as moot the Mulangu's Motion for Leave to File  
      Supplemental Authorities;

   5. vacating the status conference scheduled for December 4,
      2020; and

   6. closing the case.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KtRUR5 at no extra charge.[CC]

HOMELAND SECURITY: Noncitizen Children's Class Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as P.J.E.S., a minor child, by and through
his father and next friend, Mario Escobar Francisco, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02245-EGS-GMH (D.C.), the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
entered an Order:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey's Report
      and Recommendation;

   2. provisionally granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
      Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

      "all unaccompanied noncitizen children who (1) are or will
      be detained in U.S. government custody in the United
      States, and (2) are or will be subjected to expulsion from
      the United States under the CDC Order Process, whether
      pursuant to an Order issued by the Director of the Centers
      for Disease Control and Prevention under the authority
      granted by the Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 16559-01,
      or the Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 56,424-01";

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   4. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel from the ACLU
      Immigrants' Right Project as Lead Class Counsel and
      appointing his other counsel as Class Counsel; and

   5. granting the plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
      Injunction;

   6. enjoining the Defendants, their agents, and any person
      acting in concert with them from expelling the Class
      Members from the United States under the CDC Order
      Process, whether pursuant to an Order issued by the
      Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      under the authority granted by the Interim Final Rule, 85
      Fed. Reg. 16559-01, or the Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg.
      56,424-01; and

   7. denying the Government's request to stay this Order while
      it decides whether to appeal and/or pending appeal.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pQdAY1 at no extra charge.[CC]

HORIZON STARS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Haider Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMAD HAIDER, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. HORIZON STARS, LLC d/b/a THE MUGHAL RESTAURANT, a Florida
Corporation, and Arif Kazi, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-62394-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 23, 2020) alleges the
Defendants of failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a chef at the
Defendants' restaurant, claims that he worked an average of 74
hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less
than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the
hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants allegedly
withheld monies from the Plaintiff in excess of $10,000.00 during
the course of his employment from February 25, 2020 through August
1, 2020. When the Plaintiff confronted Defendant Kazi on or about
August 2020 about the remaining sums due and the failure to pay
overtime, the Plaintiff was unceremoniously terminated by the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay him minimum wages by retaining certain
monies from him which comprised his wages and/or minimum wages from
on or about February 25, 2020 through August 21, 2020.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
FLSA and NYLL.

Horizon Stars, LLC d/b/a The Mughal Restaurant operates a
restaurant owned by Arif Kazi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett Feinstein, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN MENDEZ COBREIRO
          2600 S. Douglas Rd., Suite 506
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 636-8938
          Facsimile: (786) 636-8941
          E-mail: brett@fmclawfirm.com


HUUUGE INC: Court Approves Amazon's Agreed Rider in Wilson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action styled as SEAN WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUUUGE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 18-cv-05276-RSL (W.D. Wash.), District Judge
Robert S. Lasnik approved a stipulation and order relating to an
agreed rider to protective order regarding the use and disclosure
of discovery produced by non-party Amazon.com, Inc.

The agreement is entered into between nonparty Amazon.com, Inc. and
Plaintiff Sean Wilson in the class action. The Plaintiff and Amazon
anticipate that Amazon will produce documents in this action that
contain sensitive consumer information that is necessary to provide
notice of the Class Action Settlement Agreement to members of the
Settlement Class because Defendants do not possess this
information.

The Stipulation and Order provides that Amazon Protected Material
designated under the terms of this Rider shall be used by the Class
Action Administrator and Parties solely for the purpose of
providing notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount
owed to each member of the Settlement Class. Amazon Protected
Material shall not be used directly or indirectly for any other
purpose whatsoever.

No Amazon Protected Material provided by Amazon to the Class Action
Administrator under the terms of this Rider may be shared with any
of the Parties, unless specifically authorized by this Rider. It is
the intention of Amazon and the Plaintiff that the Rider will
protect all materials produced by Amazon in the Actions unless
otherwise specified.

The protections conferred by the Rider cover not only the Amazon
Protected Material governed by this Rider as addressed, but also
any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all
copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Plaintiff or his
counsel in court or in other settings that might reveal Amazon
Protected Material.

The Stipulation and Order also provides, among other things, that
nothing in the Rider shall prevent or restrict Amazon's own
disclosure or use of its own Amazon Protected Material for any
purpose, and nothing in the Rider shall preclude Amazon from
showing its Amazon Protected Material to an individual who prepared
the Amazon Protected Material.

Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC, in San
Francisco, California; and Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com --
of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, represent
the Class.

Eric J. Weiss -- Eweiss@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP, in
Seattle, Washington, represent Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated
November 30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2pmwhk2
from Leagle.com.


IRWIN NATURALS: Batista Sues Over Mislabeled Ginkgo Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISABELLA BATISTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRWIN NATURALS, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-10737 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action suit
arising out of the Defendant's false advertising of its Ginkgo
Smart Products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant claims that Ginkgo Smart
will provide actual, meaningful, and significant benefits for the
memory, concentration, mental sharpness of all consumers who ingest
the Products. These advertising claims are false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public. The purported cognitive
health benefits of Gingko Smart are the only reason a consumer
would purchase the Products, and had Plaintiff and putative class
members known the truth about the Products' effectiveness, they
would not have purchased Ginkgo Smart.

Reliable scientific evidence demonstrates that Ginkgo Smart has no
efficacy, is ineffective in the improvement of cognitive health,
and provides no benefits related to increasing the memory or
concentration of consumers’ brains. Numerous scientific studies,
performed by independent researchers and published in reputable
medical journals, have been conducted on ginkgo biloba, and they
have universally demonstrated that ginkgo biloba does not improve
cognitive function, and is not effective in the treatment or
improvement of memory or concentration.

Irwin Naturals retails health supplements. The Company offers
nutritional supplements, healthy, multivitamins, beauty, and other
related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com


JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Action Over Land Rover Turbocharger
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Land
Rover turbocharger lawsuit alleges these vehicles enter limp mode
and can't accelerate safely when the turbochargers fail:

   * 2012-2017 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
   * 2015-2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport
   * 2013-2015 Land Rover LR2

One of the plaintiffs, New York owner Loretta Flynn-Murphy,
purchased a used 2015 Land Rover LR2 in 2017 but didn't know the
turbocharger was allegedly defective.

The plaintiff says the LR2 turbocharger failed in 2020 which caused
the engine to completely fail. She says the vehicle was brought to
the dealer multiple times for service, and the dealership noted
there was a "crack in manifold/turbo."

Plaintiff Flynn-Murphy says she was forced to replace the
Turbocharger because Land Rover didn't tell her when she purchased
the vehicle that the turbocharger was defective.

  "Had Defendant disclosed that the defects in the Turbocharger
  would require Plaintiff to spend thousands of dollars to repair
  or replace the Turbocharger, other engine parts, and/or the
  engine, Plaintiff would not have purchased her vehicle, or would
  have paid less for her vehicle." - Land Rover turbocharger
lawsuit

The class action says if the automaker would have admitted the
turbochargers would fail, the plaintiffs, owners and lessees would
have demanded that Land Rover perform repairs or replacements of
the turbochargers during the warranty periods.

The plaintiffs say owners and lessees were provided with warranty
and maintenance schedules that do not show any turbocharger
inspection or maintenance within the first 100,000 miles.

In addition, Land Rover placed the turbocharger in a location in
the engine that replacement requires more than a day of highly
skilled shop labor, adding to the cost of replacing the
turbocharger.

According to the turbocharger lawsuit, the internally-mounted
volute (the part that channels the force of the exhaust to the
turbine) and its supporting structure in the exhaust manifold
portion of the turbocharger assembly experience accelerated metal
fatigue and premature failure.

The volute allegedly becomes loose and although remaining
contained, it may rattle around in the exhaust manifold.

Eventually, the loose volute can allegedly no longer maintain
clearances with the turbine and makes contact with the turbine
(which is spinning at a high rate of speed), "causing breaking,
chipping, and erosion of the metal turbine blades."

The lawsuit alleges the turbocharger may fail immediately or it may
continue to run while the "damage worsens and performance is
increasingly degraded as the turbine blades are eroded."

The turbine allegedly cannot extract power from the exhaust and the
compressor fails to make the desired level of boost, then provides
no boost at all.

The Land Rover vehicle will allegedly become sluggish and emit high
emissions. The engine is also allegedly derated to prevent further
damage, the check engine light illuminates and the vehicle is
unable to accelerate safely.

The plaintiffs also claim if an owner decides to sell their
vehicle, they will be forced to sell the vehicle at a loss due to
the alleged turbocharger defects.

The Land Rover turbocharger lawsuit says the automaker hasn't
issued a recall and refuses to repair the vehicles for free outside
of their warranty periods. This allegedly transfers the repair or
replacement cost onto Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Discovery
Sport and LR2 customers.

The Land Rover turbocharger lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey: Flynn-Murphy, et al., v.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Seeger Weiss LLP, and Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Oct. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan" or
the "Company") (: JPM) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of JPMorgan between February 23, 2016 and
September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for JPMorgan investors under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at JPMorgan,
with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the
precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing fake orders to
generate the appearance of market demand; (2) JPMorgan had
insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to
identify and stop the misconduct; (3) JPMorgan's earnings in the
physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4)
such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5)
JPMorgan provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at
early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6)
resolution of the governmental investigation into JPMorgan would
result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result,
Defendants' statements about JPMorgan's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of JPMorgan
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
December 23, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)
between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JPMorgan
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the JPMorgan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.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) traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of
their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by
"spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of
market demand; (2) the Company had insufficient controls and
compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the
misconduct; (3) the Company's earnings in the physical commodity
market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would
result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company provided
misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the
investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the
governmental investigation into the Company would result in a
record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.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.

CONTACT:

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]


JUBILANT RADIOPHARMA: Magistrate Judge Tosses Antitrust Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Jubilant
Radiopharma should escape monopolization claims over certain
"radiopharmaceuticals" used in medical imaging, cancer therapies,
and thyroid treatments, a federal magistrate in Alabama said,
recommending dismissal of the lawsuit's core antitrust
allegations.

Those claims are doomed by the suit's failure "to allege the
existence of a competitor willing and able to enter the respective
markets" and by the "entirely theoretical" nature of any damages,
Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson wrote.

The proposed class action alleges a "multi-faceted scheme" by
Jubilant, centering on an illegal "tying" arrangement requiring
pharmacies to make all their radiopharmaceutical purchases from it
if they want access. [GN]


JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Motion for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS BENJAMIN, et al.,
v. JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00556-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings
entered an Order:

   1. denying without prejudice the motion for declaration of
      rights to the continuing claim for relief sought in the
      complaint; and

   2. denying the motion for class certification.

The Court said it will deny the motion for class certification
because the pro se Plaintiffs are not adequate class
representatives able to "fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."

The Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet is an agency of the
U.S. Commonwealth of Kentucky that is responsible for providing law
enforcement, criminal justice and correctional services to the
citizens of Kentucky.

A copy of the Court's Order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nZ4577 at no extra charge.[CC]

JUUL LABS: School Board Considers Joining Vaping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Casey Chapter at Tallahassee Democrat reports that as the COVID-19
pandemic has put the issue of youth vaping on pause, a law firm now
is asking the local public school district to join a class-action
lawsuit against vaping manufacturers and distributors for targeting
young adults in their marketing.

In a presentation to the Leon County School Board, members were
told of the litigation against Juul Labs, one of the country's top
vaping companies.

The multi-district federal lawsuit, first filed October 2019 in the
Northern District of California, has hundreds of plaintiffs,
ranging from unnamed minors to school districts around the country,
including the Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Broward County School
Boards in Florida.

Defendants besides Juul include its owner, the Altria Group tobacco
conglomerate, and its Phillip Morris subsidiary.

Eric Romano of West Palm Beach-based Romano Law Group invited the
Leon board to join the suit, saying school districts will face
extra costs to battle what has been termed a vaping "epidemic."

But when later asked by board member Alva Striplin, administrators
could not say what, if anything, vaping has cost local schools;
Chief Financial Officer Kim Banks was not at the meeting. No
decision to join the case was immediately made.

Class-action suits, however, can be very profitable for law firms,
which can earn into the millions of dollars in fees, especially
after settlements.

The strategies Juul used in its early advertising campaigns
marketed vaping devices as a safe alternative to cigarettes, Romano
added. Research shows the opposite: One Stanford Medicine study
found that young people who vape were five times as likely to
contract COVID-19, for instance.

In early June, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody took legal
action against two Florida companies for marketing their vaping
products to young people.

In the 2018-19 school year, the Leon County school district
recorded 173 instances of students caught vaping at school. Of
those, 94 were reported at high schools and 78 were reported at
middle schools, according to district data.

During that same year, Assistant Superintendent Alan Cox had the
idea to create a cessation course for students to go through if
they were caught vaping at school to decrease the number of
suspensions.

Cox said he was in the middle of piloting the program when the
COVID-19 pandemic shuttered schools.

Romano said that Leon is the first Florida school district the law
firm had presented to in a response to a question from School Board
member Rosanne Wood.

He said if the school district joined the litigation, the district
would not pay any costs associated with the litigation and would be
protected from costs if the case was not successful.

Superintendent Rocky Hanna said while the issue of vaping among
students is concerning, the school district is typically "on the
other side of the equation" when it comes to lawsuits.

School Board attorney Opal McKinney-Williams told Board members
that the school district has heard from other law firms
representing other Florida school districts about the issue before.
[GN]


KANSAS CITY: Ellis & Winters Discuss Ruling in Senne Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Carson Lane, Esq., of Ellis & Winters LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that in the past five years, approximately
two-thirds of companies faced at least one labor and employment
class action, and within this category, companies overwhelmingly
reported that wage and hour matters were of top concern. To defeat
class certification by employees, companies commonly utilize two
strategies. The first is showing that the employees' claims are too
distinct to be brought as a class.  The second is arguing that the
employees submitted inadequate evidence in support of class
certification. Major League Baseball (MLB) recently employed these
strategies in a claim brought against it by minor league players,
and the Ninth Circuit was asked to call balls and strikes.

In Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918 (9th
Cir. 2019), thousands of minor league baseball players brought
minimum wage and overtime claims against the MLB as a class.  The
minor leaguers were paid a total of $3,000 to $7,500 during the
five-month season, during which they worked between fifty and
seventy hours per week.  For the remaining seven months of the
year, the MLB effectively required attendance at spring training,
extended spring training, and instructional leagues. However,
players were not compensated for attendance. In their class action
lawsuit, the minor league players argued that they should have
received overtime pay during the season, and minimum wage for hours
worked during training and instructional leagues.

The district court denied certification of two out of four proposed
classes of minor league players for failure to meet the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The parties
cross-appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. A divided Ninth
Circuit panel held that all four classes should have been
certified. As a threshold matter, the court agreed with the
district court that each class satisfied the four familiar elements
required for class certification under Rule 23(a): (1) numerosity;
(2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of
representation.

The court next analyzed whether the district court erred in finding
that the classes did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement, under which the players must show that "questions of
law or fact common to the class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual class members." The Ninth
Circuit observed that for the players' minimum wage claims, the
common issues in the case were: (1) whether the players qualified
as "employees" of the MLB; and (2) whether the activities performed
during training and instructional leagues constituted "compensable
work." The issue in the case was whether these questions
predominated over individual issues, such as what activities each
player actually performed while at the ballpark, and variations in
the players' arrival and departure times.  

As evidence of predominance, the players submitted a survey in
which they reported the average time they arrived at and departed
from the ballpark.  This survey, they claimed, served as
representative evidence of hours worked and established that the
issue predominated over individual questions.  On the other hand,
the MLB argued that the survey was not reliable and thus did not
demonstrate a common issue concerning hours worked.  Because
players often spent time at the ballpark without working, the
survey's failure to ask which activities the players preformed at
the ballpark rendered it useless. Moreover, the survey revealed
significant variations in the players' average arrival and
departure times, and therefore required individualized inquiries.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the players that the survey
established predominance. It held that the survey could be admitted
to prove the wage an hour claims on a class basis so long as a jury
could conclude that the survey, in combination with other evidence,
was probative of the amount of time the players spent performing
compensable work at the ballpark. Moreover, while the survey
demonstrated meaningful variations in players' arrival and
departure times, this did not preclude certification.

Before Senne, it was unclear what standard applied to evidence
submitted in support of class certification in the Ninth Circuit.
Under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S. Ct. 2541
(2011), district courts are required to "rigorously analyze"
evidence submitted in support of class certification. However,
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1036
(2016), held that in wage and hour claims, where the evidence would
be "sufficient to sustain a jury finding as to hours worked if it
were introduced in an individual action," it should be admitted in
support of class certification. The MLB argued that the Tyson
exception did not apply, and Wal-Mart's "rigorous analysis"
requirement excluded the survey.

In Senne, the Ninth Circuit broadened the Tyson exception, creating
a relaxed rule for the admissibility of class certification
evidence in wage and hour class actions. Under Tyson, held the
court, the district court must admit evidence unless "no reasonable
juror could find it probative of whether an element of liability is
met."

Hoping for a comeback in the bottom of the ninth inning, the MLB
petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court,
arguing that the lower court's decision would "make it radically
easier to certify wage-and-hour classes—the single most prevalent
kind of class action—in the Ninth Circuit than anywhere else in
the country." However, on October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court denied
the MLB's petition for certiorari, cementing the Ninth Circuit
decision.

So, what does this decision mean for other companies facing wage
and hour claims by employees? First, the Ninth Circuit's decision,
undisturbed by the Supreme Court, established a low standard for
the admission of evidence to certify a class of employees in wage
and hour claims.  Whereas an employer might have previously argued
that the evidence presented must withstand "rigorous analysis,"
now, the evidence must simply be relevant. Second, the decision
prevents companies from arguing, as did the MLB, that variations in
employee's arrival and departure times defeat the predominance
requirement of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
Ultimately, the decision has made it somewhat easier for employees
to get on base in their wage and hour claims against employers.
[GN]


KELLY SERVICES: Larry Seeks to Certify Salaried Recruiters Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIAH LARRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLY SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-11481-BAF-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing
      notice be sent to a class consisting of:

      "all current and former recruiters that worked for Kelly
      Service, Inc. and were paid a salary without overtime
      within the past three years (Salaried Recruiters)";

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms;

   3. authorizing the mailing and emailing of notice, along with
      a reminder notice;

   4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Putative Class
      Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and
      Consent forms return undeliverable;

   5. directing Guidant to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each of the Putative Class Members; and

   6. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
      Members to join the case.

The Plaintiff contends she and the Salaried Recruiters regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week. In fact, she and the Salaried
Recruiters typically worked 45 to 55 hours per week. However, Kelly
Services never paid them overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

As a staffing agency, Kelly Services bills itself as offering "a
full suite of outsourcing, consulting, and staffing solutions" and
having "provided employment to 440,000 employees in 2019."  Kelly
Services employs recruiters to make Internet job postings, place
phone calls, and generally field candidates according to the
criteria established by its customers. Kelly Services pays these
recruiters a salary and classifies them as exempt from overtime
pay.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2V4M1Mb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
                  cfitz@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

KINKISHARYO INT'L: Armendariz Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOE ARMENDARIZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08757-JAK-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 1, 2021 for an
order:

   1. certifying these classes;

     -- Rounding Class:

        "all individuals employed by Defendant in hourly-paid or
        non-exempt positions in California at any time since
        September 11, 2015, for whom each such individual's
        total hours paid since September 11, 2015 is less than
        the total hours recorded as worked in Defendant's
        timekeeping records"; and

     -- Hourly Employee Class:

        "all individuals employed by Defendant in 3 hourly-paid
        or non-exempt positions in California at any time since
        September 11, 2015";

   2. certifying sub-classes that are necessary to manage the
      proposed classes, including penalty sub-classes;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff Noe Armendariz as representative
      of the classes proposed or later proposed and approved by
      the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise;

   4. appointing Kane Moon and H. Scott Leviant of Moon & Yang,
      APC, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
      and

   5. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
      Court's certification Order.

This is wage and hour class action lawsuit involving more than 790
hourly employees that worked for a train car manufacturing company
in California. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant modified
employees' timeclock entries by shifting or rounding them forwards
to the next tenth of an hour, and required off-the-clock work as a
result of security procedures and timeclock access problems.

Kinkisharyo delivers a full range of customized and
customer-focused products and services including overhaul,
maintenance, and repair work on passenger rolling stock.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2UZ3q8Z at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com

KINKISHARYO INT'L: Loaiza Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LOAIZA, JOSE
LANDAVERDE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, v. KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL
LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07662-JAK-KS (C.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on February 1, 2021 for an order:

   1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      -- Class:

         "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
         employees who worked for the Defendant Kinisharyo
         International, LLC within the State of California at
         any time during the period from July 10, 2015 up to the
         deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later
         date, by which class members may opt-out after being
         provided notice of certification (the Class Period)";

      -- Meal Period Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who worked at least one shift
         of more than five hours at any time during the Class
         Period";

      -- Rest Period Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who worked at least one shift
         of three and one-half hours or more at any time during
         the Class Period."

      -- Meal Premium Regular Rate Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who received a meal premium
         payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at
         anytime during the Class Period";

      -- Rest Premium Regular Rate Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who received a rest premium
         payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at
         anytime during the Class Period";

      -- Wage Statement Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who received a meal or rest
         period premium payment and/or was required to work off-
         the-clock during the Class Period";

      -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who were not reimbursed for
         necessary business-related expenses incurred, including
         work-related cell phone use, purchase of tools,
         clothing, and personal protective equipment, and use of
         personal vehicles for work purposes"; and

      -- Security and Bag Check Subclass:

         "all members of the Class who were subject to security
         checks and/or bag checks off-the-clock at any time
         during the Class Period";

   2. appointing themselves as the class representatives;

   3. appointing Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Jeffrey D.
      Klein of Lawyers for Justice, PC as class counsel;

   4. requiring the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
      Plaintiffs a list of all potential class members including
      their names, social security numbers, last known telephone
      numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known
      addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days
      following this Court's order granting class certification;
      and

   5. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant's counsel
      promptly meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the
      class and submit either an agreed upon form or their
      respective requested forms to this Court within 20 days
      following this Court's order granting class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege Kinkisharyo's uniform policies, practices,
and procedures require putative class members to work off-the-clock
without receiving even a minimum wage, fail to provide legally
compliant meal and rest periods, fail to compensate employees with
the meal and rest period premiums to which they are entitled, and
require the putative class members to incur unreimbursed expenses.

The Plaintiff Anthony Loaiza worked for Defendant from January 2017
to March 2018 as an hourly-paid Sub Assembly Technician in the
Palmdale facility. The Plaintiff Jose Landaverde was an hourly-paid
Wire and Lead Technician from December 2013 to May 2017.

Kinkisharyo operates in seven locations in California. The
Defendant operates in locations in Palmdale, El Segundo, Monrovia,
Long Beach, Crenshaw, Lawndale, and Santa Monica (Metro
Sites).Throughout the class period, the Defendant has employed
hourly-paid employees, some of whom are members of a union, and
others who are not. All union positions are non-exempt.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35Z9K76 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
                  arby@lfjpc.com
                  jeff@calljustice.com

KRAFT HEINZ: Mawby Seeks to Certify Missouri Consumers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAREL MAWBY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS
COMPANY, Case No.4:20-cv-00827-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   2. certifying a class of Missouri consumers defined as:

      All consumers who purchased the Maxwell House Coffee
      Products (i.e., those displaying the representation that
      the ground coffee inside "MAKES UP TO 6 FL OZ CUPS") in
      the State of Missouri for personal, family or household
      purposes at any time since August 27, 2015 (the "Class")."

      Excluded from the Class are (1) the Defendant, its
      subsidiaries and affiliates, and its directors and
      officers and members of their immediate families;
      (2) federal, state, and local governmental entities;
      and (3) any judicial officers presiding over this
      action, their judicial staff, and members of their
      immediate families.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim against the Defendant under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).

Kraft Heinz operates as a food and beverage company. The company
offers sauces, meals, soups, snacks, and infant nutrition
products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36krzgZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
          Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
          David L. Heinemann, Esq.
          SHANK & MOORE, LLC
          1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100
          Mission Woods, KS 66205
          Telephone: 816 471-0909
          Facsimile: 816 471-3888
          E-mail: chriss@shankmoore.com
                  sjm@shankmoore.com
                  davidh@shankmoore.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          Alexander C. Smith, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          633 W. 5th Street, Ste. 3600

               - and -

          Brian C. Fries, Esq.
          Lathrop GPM LLP
          2345 Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64018

L'OREAL: Judge Dismisses False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Metzinger, Esq. -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com -- and Caitlin
Hickey, Esq. -- chickey@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye, reported
that a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed
a putative class action alleging that L'Oreal's "EverSleek Keratin
Caring" hair products deceived consumers into believing the
products contained keratin. United States District Court Judge
George B. Daniels rejected these allegations, finding that the
challenged statements were clear both on their own and when read in
context of the entire label.

Judge Daniels analyzed all of the Plaintiff's claims (which
included breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of several
consumer protection statutes) under the "reasonable consumer"
standard.  He relied on three aspects of the "EverSleek Keratin
Caring" labels to conclude that reasonable consumers would not
interpret the labels in the same way manner that the Plaintiff
alleged.

First, both the front and back of the labels stated that the
products were 100% vegan.  Given that the Plaintiff affirmatively
alleged that keratin was "a protein naturally present in human
hair, skin and nails," the Court found that it was not reasonable
for her to assume that a vegan product would contain keratin.

Second, the ingredient lists on the product labels did not include
keratin.  As the Second Circuit has previously held, it is
unreasonable to assume that a product contains an ingredient when
that ingredient is not included in the ingredient list.  See
Jessani v. Monini N. Am., Inc., 744 Fed. App'x 18, 19 (2d Cir.
2018). (finding that "truffle flavored" olive oil did not deceive
consumers into believing that the product contained truffles,
especially where the ingredient list did not include truffles).

Finally, the labels repeatedly stated that the products are
"Kertain Caring," and the product description itself stated that
the "EverSleek Keratin Caring system with sunflower oil, gently
cleanses chemically straightened hair while caring for the
essential protein and keratin that is found in hair" (emphasis in
the opinion).  The Court ruled that these statements, "read in
conjunction with the fact that the ingredient list is extremely
clear, leads to the conclusion that Plaintiff has therefore not met
the burden of demonstrating that a reasonable consumer could find
that the Products claim to contain keratin."  The Complaint was
dismissed in its entirety.

As Judge Daniels aptly noted, "a simple reading of the label would
have resolved" the Plaintiff's issues.  This is good news for
companies that have been plagued by these types of suits, and shows
that courts are willing to dismiss cases in which consumers close
their eyes to plain language on a label in favor of their own
contrary and conclusory interpretations of the words before them.
[GN]


LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in
the putative class action suit filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a motion for class certification, and that
motion is pending.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In
July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

On October 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these
claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the
suit at this time."

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Klein Law Reminds of Dec. 12 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 26 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Las Vegas
Sands Corp.  There is no cost to participate in the suit.  If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS)

Class Period: February 27, 2016 - September 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 21, 2020

According to the complaint, Las Vegas Sands Corp. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands' casino
control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay
Sands' casino was consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that
implicated, among other issues, the transfer of customer funds to
unauthorized persons and potential breaches in the Company's
anti-money laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably
increased the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as
investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities;
(iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were
untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in LVS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form?id=10440&from=1

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

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

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


LAS VEGAS: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS)
between February 27, 2016 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important December 21, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Las Vegas Sands investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Las Vegas Sands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1948.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) Marina Bay Sands, a Las Vegas Sands resort in Singapore,
casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers had
weaknesses; (2) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone
to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the
transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential
breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (3) the
foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the
Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; (4) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures; (5) consequently, all the
foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (6) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1948.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.

CONTACT:

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]


LG: Agrees to Settle Class Suit on Refrigerator Defect Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Action News reports that appliance giant LG has agreed to
settle a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit over
refrigerator defect claims. More than 1.5 million consumers may be
eligible for a payout.

According to the case filed in federal court, hundreds of consumers
reported problems with dozens of different LG models made between
2014-17.

Settlement payouts will include:

- Up to 100% of labor and parts costs

- Up to $1,000 for delayed repairs

- Up to $3,500 for spoiled food/property damage

Delores Falco, a mother of three and one of the plaintiffs, said
her LG fridge broke down months after she bought it brand new in
2016.

Falco says the fridge went on the fritz a total of 15 times in four
years and LG was slow to make repairs.

"I haven't had ice since May," Falco said, estimating she has had
to throw out $2,000 worth of food.

ABC Action News reached out to LG but has not heard back. According
to the lawsuit, the company denied any wrong-doing but agreed to
settle in the interest of consumers and to avoid lengthy
litigation.

Consumers have until Jan. 11 to file a claim, and payouts are
expected in 2021. [GN]


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend a complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, remains pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  

In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated litigation styled, In re:
Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  
Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. First-Penn Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that First
Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP") continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific
Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.  

Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: LLANY Facing Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is defending a putative
class action suit initiated by Andrew Nitkewicz.

Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed
on August 24, 2020.  

Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust,
seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which
planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for
any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's
death.  

Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in
violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in
connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain
insurance policies.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on
behalf of the various classes and sub-class.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter. The Plaintiffs own universal
life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now
LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and the company (LNC) breached the terms
of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policy owners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LINK: Faces Class Action Over Woodford Fund Collapse
----------------------------------------------------
Harry Banks, writing for City A.M., reports that the first of what
could be many legal claims relating to the collapse of the Woodford
Equity Income fund is expected to be launched by the end of the
year, reports emerged on Oct. 26.

London laywers Harcus Parker are co-ordinating a class action
lawsuit and are believed to be 'further down the track' than rivals
in preparing a case against Link, the firm's 'authorised corporate
director.'

The Mail on Sunday first reported the news.

The legal firm have previously brought claims related to the Arch
cru scandal against Link's predecessor, Capita Financial Mangers.

The fund was closed last year after a redemption request it
couldn't fulfil. Star fund manager Neil Woodford's reputation was
left in tatters and a number of investors are still waiting on
receiving what is left of their cash.

Harcus Parker state on their website: "Link, as the Authorised
Corporate Director of the Woodford Funds, has made millions in fees
charged for adopting responsibility for safeguarding investors and
ensuring that the Woodford Fund follows the rules.

"Our clients will allege that it failed adequately to supervise the
Woodford Funds. This failure has proved to be catastrophic to those
who invested their savings into the Woodford Fund and whose
investments were locked into the Woodford Fund at suspension."

It is understood by the Mail on Sunday that the key element of the
claim will be that the firm did not ensure sufficient liquidity and
that it had moved away from the objectives of the fund.

A spokesman for the firm told the Mail: It added: 'The claim is
going ahead and we expect to file soon on behalf of several
thousand clients. Some 15,000 investors have expressed an interest
in supporting the claim, of which 3,000 have gone on to become
Harcus clients." [GN]


LOGITECH INC: California Court Junks Three Suits by James Porath
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup has dismissed three lawsuits filed by
James Porath -- JAMES PORATH v. LOGITECH INC., JAMES PORATH v.
OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and JAMES PORATH v. LOGITECH INC., Case Nos.
3:18-cv-03091-WHA, 3:20-mc-80089-WHA, 3:20-cv-03571-WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Logitech
Inc. by Plaintiff James Porath. On November 18, 2019, the Court
denied class certification on the grounds that the proposed class
representative, a three-time convicted felon, could not be trusted
as a fiduciary to lead any class. The Court allowed the Plaintiff's
counsel the opportunity to seek a new class representative, an
opportunity which the counsel declined.

The Court then instructed the Plaintiff's counsel to submit a
proposed notice to absent class members of the demise of the class
action, as well as a plan of distribution of such notice. Counsel's
plan to effectuate notice to the class included service of
subpoenas on certain third-party retailers in order to obtain email
addresses for the putative class members. The Court approved the
Plaintiff's proposed notice and distribution plan, stating that
pending further order, the case would be dismissed on April 14,
2020. Subsequently, two third-party retailers that were subpoenaed
pursuant to the Court's order, Office Depot, Inc. and Amazon.com,
Inc., objected to the subpoenas, resulting in the filing of two
related cases seeking to compel those third-party retailers'
compliance with the Court's order, 3:20-mc-80089-WHA and
3:20-cv-03571-WHA.

The Court finds that after the passage of so much time, there is no
longer any need to give the putative class notice of the collapse
of the case. Earlier, Judge Alsup notes, the Plaintiff's counsel
was given the opportunity to find a new class representative and
class counsel advised they would not do so. Many months have now
passed, and no one has sought to intervene and pick up the fallen
banner.

According to the Order, there is no need to subpoena Office Depot,
Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in order to identify persons, who bought
the at-issue product, who conceivably might be relying on the
pendency of the action. Therefore, the subpoenas as to Office
Depot, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. are QUASHED. All three related
cases are DISMISSED with prejudice as to Mr. Porath and without
prejudice to the putative class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated November 30, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dhafuv from Leagle.com.


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Loop Industries, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LOOP). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Loop Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOOP)

Class Period: September 24, 2018 to October 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Loop's scientists, under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie
about the results of the company's process internally." The report
also stated that "Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to
its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and
industrially impossible,'" according to a former employee.
Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of
key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance
agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on
'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and
complexities of its process."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 13, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of
Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (2) that Loop did not have
the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a
recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced
partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; 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.

For more information on the Loop class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/Loop

               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]


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against certain officers of Loop Industries, Inc.
("Loop" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOOP). The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 20-cv-09031, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise, acquired Loop securities between September 24, 2018 and
October 12, 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 Loop securities during the
class period, you have until December 14, 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.

Loop is a technology company that purports to own proprietary
technology that depolymerizes no- and low-waste PET plastic and
polyester fiber.  The resulting material is used to create PET
resin for food-grade packaging.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent
the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (ii) Loop
did not have the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals
at a recovery rate of 100%; (iii) as a result, the Company was
unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced
partnerships with Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited
("Indorama") and thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG
("thyssenkrupp"); and (iv) 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 October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Loop's scientists, under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie
about the results of the company's process internally."  The report
also stated that "Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to
its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and
industrially impossible,'" according to a former employee.
Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of
key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance
agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on
'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and
complexities of its process."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.78 per share, or
over 32%, to close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby
damaging investors.

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

CONTACT:

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


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Oct. 26 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of Loop Industries, Inc.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  There will
be no obligation or cost to you.

Loop Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOOP)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/loop-industries-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10441&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

Class Period: September 24, 2018 - October 12, 2020

Allegations against LOOP include that: (1) Loop scientists were
encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop's purportedly
proprietary process; (2) Loop did not have the technology to break
PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) as a
result, the Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits
of Loop's announced partnerships with Indorama Ventures Public
Company Limited and thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions; 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.

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

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

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


LYFT INC: Independent Living Resource's Class Status Bid Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDEPENDENT LIVING
RESOURCE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, et al., v. LYFT, INC., Case
No.3:19-cv-01438-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an Order denying a renewed motion to certify a class
consisting of:

   "Individuals who use wheelchair accessible vehicles ("WAVs")
   due to their mobility disability and have been or will be
   denied access to Lyft's on demand transportation service in
   San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties due to the
   lack of available WAVs through Lyft's service."

During oral argument on the motion, the Court asked Lyft's counsel
why it would not prefer to have a class certified so that class
members would be bound by the outcome in the event Lyft prevails at
trial and thus unable to sue individually later on due to res
judicata. Lyft's counsel stated they were "willing to take that
chance" and continued to oppose class certification. "Thus, when we
dispose of this case on the merits, only the named plaintiffs will
be bound by the outcome, and any other individuals will be free to
sue on the same issues without the barrier of res judicata. In
addition, although Lyft may try to settle with the individual
plaintiffs, counsel should not in any way try to settle on a
class-wide basis, having spurned that opportunity," the Court
said.

A copy of the Court's Order denying renewed motion for class
certification dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3720gqJ at no extra charge.[CC]

LYFT INC: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDEPENDENT LIVING
RESOURCE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, a California non-profit corporation,
JUDITH SMITH, an individual, JULIE FULLER, an individual, SASCHA
BITTNER, an individual, TARA AYRES, an individual, and COMMUNITY
RESOURCES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, a California non-profit
corporation, v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01438-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting in part and
denying in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs filed the action in March 2019 alleging a violation
of the American with Disabilities Act and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in December 2019, on behalf of: all adults in San
Francisco, Contra Costa, and Alameda County who use wheelchair
accessible vehicles due to their disability and have downloaded or
will have downloaded the Lyft app by the end of this litigation. A
March 2020 order denied the motion without prejudice, finding the
class definition to be insufficient. Both parties now move for
summary judgment.

The Court said, "Lyft has already instituted WAV programs using not
only the partnership model, but other models in other geographic
regions -- it cannot argue that something it is already doing would
fundamentally alter its business, though doing so might be cost
prohibitive in our region. Accordingly, plaintiffs' and defendant's
motion for summary judgment is denied as to this claim. Lyft is
well-versed in the types of practices and procedures to use in
creating a WAV program because it has done so in other regions. It
thus, at a minimum, understands the contours of what actions to
take if an injunction is ordered. There is no need explain how to
enforce the injunction by, for example, delineating how many
third-party drivers are necessary, how many WAVs to rent, or what
combination of the above-mentioned policies and procedures to
implement, especially given, as defendant alleges, the complexities
of certain procedures such as a rental program. Plaintiffs thus
have standing, and summary judgment is granted in favor of
plaintiffs and against defendant as to this issue."

Lyft provides riders with an "Access" mode to indicate their need
for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle  (WAV). Lyft offers such
services in Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York,
Philadelphia, Portland, Phoenix, and San Francisco. It does not
offer WAV services in Alameda or Contra Costa County.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35sBBMx at no extra charge.[CC]

LYFT: Wants Judge to Skip Arbitration Discovery in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New Jersey federal judge should send a
proposed class and collective action against Lyft Inc. into
arbitration without discovery based on abundant rulings from courts
across the country indicating Lyft drivers are covered under
federal arbitration law, the ride hailing service argued while
opposing a magistrate judge's contrary recommendation. [GN]


MARS PETCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Fishon Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD FISHON, LILLY
PEREZ, and TANA PARKER on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00816 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.
entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Mars' Motion to
      Dismiss and to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint;
      and

   2. dismissing with prejudice Fishon's New York unjust
      enrichment claim, and dismissing without prejudice the
      Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, Fishon's claims
      for a violation of the MMWA and breach of implied warranty
      of merchantability under New York law; and Perez's claims
      for a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA)
      and breach of express and implied warranty under Tennessee
      law.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs assert claims for violating the
MMWA, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, which the Complaint defines as follows:

   "All persons residing in the United States and its
   territories who, during the maximum period of time permitted
   by law, purchased IAMS [Grain-Free Recipe] primarily for
   personal, family or household purposes and not for resale."

Mars has moved to strike these nationwide class allegations,
arguing that "variations in state law make Plaintiffs' claims
untenable for class treatment." Mars' motion to strike relies
heavily on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Pilgrim v. Universal
Health Card, LLC that affirmed the district court's decision to
strike class allegations at the pleading stage “because each
class member's claim would be governed by the law of the State in
which he made the challenged purchase, and the differences between
the consumer-protection laws of the many affected States would cast
a long shadow over any common issues of fact plaintiffs might
establish." The Court does not find Pilgrim controlling because the
potential class members here allegedly suffered the same
overpayment injury regardless of where they may have purchased IAMS
Grain-Free Recipe. Here, too, Mars' motion to strike Plaintiffs'
nationwide class allegations will be denied as premature, without
prejudice to renewal at the class certification stage."

The Plaintiffs brought this action against Mars Petcare for
allegedly misleading consumers by mislabeling a particular product
line of dog food as grain and soy free.

Mars designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells
premium-priced dog food known as IAMS (TM) Proactive Health
Sensitive Skin & Stomach Grain-Free Recipe with Chicken & Peas
(IAMS Grain-Free Recipe).

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 20, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36nBfHv at no
extra charge.[CC]

MARS WRIGLEY: Faces Brown Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARS WRIGLEY CONFECTIONERY US, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-08292-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly markets its
Vanilla Ice Cream Bars under its Dove brand.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly
markets its Dove Vanilla Ice Cream Bars to consumers as containing
only vanilla flavor from vanilla (i.e. the vanilla plant) and not
from non-vanilla sources. Unfortunately for consumers, this is
untrue, as much of the vanilla flavor comes from non-vanilla plant
sources.

In fact, Dove Vanilla Ice Cream Bars have, at most, only a trace of
real vanilla and what consumers taste is vanilla flavor provided by
non-vanilla sources.

Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC manufactures and distributes
confectionery products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Residents Mull Class Action Over Flu Shot Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Reed, writing for WWLP, reports that some Massachusetts
residents are pushing back on Governor Charlie Baker's flu shot
mandate.

Opponents of the flu shot mandate say this is a huge overreach on
the government's part and now, they're planning on taking their
case to court. A private Facebook group called 'Flu you Baker' is
currently collecting signatures of people who oppose the mandate.

The group, with more than 10,000 members, intends to file a
class-action lawsuit against the state. Gov. Baker stood by the
mandate citing public health concerns as a reason for putting it in
place now.

"From a care delivery point of view, from a capacity point of view,
having the flu and COVID-19 surge in the Commonwealth at exactly
the same time would be an incredibly difficult situation," Gov.
Baker said.

The governor is asking that all students ages six months and up
receive the flu vaccine by the end of the year.

A second rally opposing the mandate is scheduled to be held in
Boston sometime in early October. [GN]


MATSON MONEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Kanell, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that lawyers on Oct. 28 filed a class-action suit against a
missing investment adviser alleging that he bilked about 100 people
in a Ponzi scheme.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against Christopher W. Burns, 37, of Berkeley Lake, as
well as Matson Money, Inc., a company "to whom Burns referred all
of his clients," according to lawyers.

Attorneys from The Doss Firm and Gaslowitz Frankel are asking that
Burns be ordered to repay their clients, but do not put a dollar
figure on the request.

"Burns appeared to be a charismatic, competent and trustworthy
family man," said attorney Jason Doss. "We now know that Burns was
at the center of a Ponzi scheme."

Reached by phone, a representative of Matson Money declined comment
on Oct. 28. But Oct. 29, the firm issued a statement denying
involvement in any wrongdoing.

"Matson Money has never sold, offered or provided custody for
promissory notes, particularly those at the heart of the
allegations against Christopher Burns," the statement said.

Matson Money, founded in 1991, has $8 billion in assets under
management, according to the company's website. The firm lists
among its advisers Nobel-winning economist Harry Markowitz and
supply-side economist Arthur Laffer.

The lawsuit identifies Matson as Ohio-based, but it also has
offices in Arizona.

Burns was reported missing Sept. 24, the day his abandoned vehicle
was discovered.

Earlier, a warrant for Burns' arrest was issued. He's wanted on a
mail fraud charge, according to a statement earlier by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the office of the U.S. Attorney.

Burns is founder of Dynamic Money and a podcast of the same name.
He purchased air time from WSB radio for a weekly radio show and
had appeared a number of times on Fox News programs. [GN]


MATSU FUSION: Chen & Fan Suit Wins Collective Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUANGFU CHEN and PEIZHENG
FAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
MATSU FUSION RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a Matsu Japanese Fusion, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11895-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M.
Furman entered an Order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification of a collective action, on behalf of:

      "all current and former non-managerial tipped and non-
      tipped employees employed at the Defendants' restaurant at
      any time from December 30, 2016, until the date of the
      notice";

   2. directing the Defendants, within 21 days of the Memorandum  
      Opinion and Order, to produce to Plaintiffs a Microsoft
      Excel spreadsheet listing all members of the collective
      (the Class List), including first and last names, all
      known mailing addresses, all known telephone numbers, all
      known email addresses, location(s) of employment, dates of
      employment, and positions;

   3. directing the Defendants, in the first instance, not to
      produce any Social Security numbers. If a notice is
      returned as undeliverable, Defendants shall provide the
      Social Security number of that individual to Plaintiff's
      counsel. Any Social Security numbers so produced will be
      maintained by Plaintiff's counsel alone and used for the
      sole purpose of performing a skip-trace to identify a new
      mailing address for notices returned as undeliverable. All
      copies of Social Security numbers, including any
      electronic file or other document containing the numbers,
      will be destroyed once the skip-trace analysis is
      completed. Within 14 days following the close of the opt-
      in period, the Plaintiff's counsel will certify in writing
      to the Court that the terms of this Order have been
      adhered to and that the destruction of the data is
      complete. These procedures are sufficient to safeguard the
      privacy information of potential plaintiffs.;

   4. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent
      Form, except that: (1) Mei Fong Chan's name shall be
      removed as a Defendant, and the opt-in period shall be
      changed from 90 days to 6 days;

   5. directing the Plaintiffs to send the Notice and Consent
      Form to all individuals on the Class List via first-class
      mail and email within ten days of receipt by Plaintiffs of
      the contact information from Defendants. The Plaintiffs
      shall also send, by first-class mail and email, reminder
      notices to members of the collective who, 45 days through
      the opt-in period, have not submitted a consent to join
      form. Potential opt-ins shall be permitted to file consent
      to join forms until sixty days after the mailing of the
      first Notice;

   6. directing the Defendants to post copies of the Notice, in
      all relevant languages, in a conspicuous non-public
      location at their place of business, and the Notice shall
      remain so posted throughout the opt-in period; and

   7. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to promptly docket
      redacted copies of any consent forms received.

The Plaintiffs Guangfu Chen and Peizheng Fan bring this action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State
Labor Law, against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime pay.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Jaiazy
at no extra charge.[CC]

MCDONALD'S: Black Franchisees Allege 'Pipeline Of Discrimination'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Taylor at Business Insider reports that McDonald's Black
franchisees filed a class action suit against the fast-food giant,
following in the footsteps of former franchisees who allege the
chain sent them on "financial suicide missions."

A federal civil rights class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
current Black McDonald's franchisees in the US District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Named
plaintiffs are James Byrd, Jr. and Darrell Byrd, two brothers who
own four McDonald's locations between them in Tennessee.

"Although the Byrds risk retaliation (and potentially any chance at
saving their only remaining restaurants) in bringing forth this
action, they cannot allow other Black McDonald's franchisees to be
misled and injured by the same pipeline of discrimination that has
plagued Black franchisees for decades," the complaint reads.  

The new lawsuit follows a racial-discrimination suit filed by 52
former McDonald's franchisees in late August. According James L.
Ferraro, who is representing plaintiffs in both lawsuits, the
original suit led to roughly 50 current franchisees reaching out
with similar allegations.

"We've had literally dozens and dozens of former owners calling us
about their desire to go after McDonald's, but also the fear that
they have that McDonald's would literally close them down," Ferraro
told reporters.

There are 186 current Black franchisees within the McDonald's
system, according to Ferraro, a significant decrease from 377 in
1998. Ferrero said that the decision to be a part of the class will
be made by individual Black franchisees at some point in 2021.

All of McDonald's current Black franchisees could be included in
the class in the lawsuit, which is seeking between $4 million and
$5 million in damages per store. As most franchisees own multiple
locations, plaintiffs could seek damages far exceeding $1 billion.

McDonald's said in a statement it is reviewing the complaint and
takes the allegations in the case seriously.

"McDonald's has an obvious interest in franchisees maintaining
successful and profitable restaurants, which is why McDonald's
supports all franchisees, including those facing economic
hardships," the statement reads. "With respect to the named
plaintiffs in this complaint, Jim and Darryl Byrd, McDonald's has
invested significantly in each of their respective businesses after
they ran into business difficulties caused by mismanagement of
their organizations."

Current and former Black franchisees allege in both lawsuits that
McDonald's locations owned by Black franchisees were less
profitable than those owned by white franchisees. One former
franchisee said in the complaint that acquiring McDonald's
locations as a Black franchisee was a "financial suicide mission,"
due to the unequal treatment.

A Business Insider investigation in 2019 found that there was a
documented gap between the two groups. According to internal 2017
data from the National Black McDonald's Owners Association, the
average McDonald's location brought in more than $60,000 more than
Black franchisees' locations on average every month.

Both former and current franchisees claimed that McDonald's
restricted Black operators to neighborhoods with lower sales and
higher costs. According to the franchisees' complaint, Black
franchisees are primarily offered opportunities to buy locations in
Black neighborhoods and less likely than white franchisees to be
offered new opportunities.

Darrell and James Byrd, the named plaintiffs in the complaint filed
on Thursday, allege that McDonald's restricted their opportunities
to "Black, inner-city, or rural and economically depressed
neighborhoods." Meanwhile, white franchisees in their areas with
similar performances were given significant growth opportunities,
the complaint alleges.

"Mr. Byrd has become a captive tenant of McDonald's no way out but
to sell on McDonald's terms at a loss or operate at a loss," the
complaint alleges. "By continually denying Mr. Byrd profitable
locations, which were instead given to White franchisees, and
isolating him every step of the way, McDonald's placed Mr. Byrd in
a financial hole that only McDonald's can get him out of."

James Byrd spoke with Business Insider last year about the
financial gaps between Black and white franchisees at McDonald's.

"All franchisees and McDonald's are held theoretically to that same
standard, so that you spend a lot of time just doing what you're
supposed to do," Byrd said at the time. "And you don't really want
to realize that the deck is not really stacked in your favor. It's
a bitter pill to swallow."

Franchisees say there are 'two standards' for Black and white
franchisees

Current and former franchisees' complaints further allege that
Black franchisees face harsher inspections and renovation
requirements.

One former consultant who left McDonald's in 2016 told Business
Insider last year that she faced pressure to treat restaurants
owned by Black franchisees more harshly than their white
counterparts.

She said she saw Black franchisees get written up for minor
infractions, while white franchisees did not face consequences for
safety violations. In one instance, she said, a white franchisee
got off scot-free after half of a dead mouse was discovered in his
location's the ice machine.

"We have said for many, many years as African American operators,
there's two standards," Ken Manning, one of the plaintiffs in the
ex-franchisee case, told Business Insider last year. "There is one
for us and there's one for our general market operators."

McDonald's has denied current and former franchisees'
racial-discrimination allegations. McDonald's filed a motion to
dismiss ex-franchisees' lawsuit, arguing that the complaint is
"illogical" and falls short on legal grounds.

"We take the allegations in this case very seriously," McDonald's
said in a statement, saying that the company is moving forward with
actions to foster an equitable environment for franchisees,
suppliers, and employees. [GN]


MEDACCESS NETWORK: Latronico Balks at Fraudulent ERISA Health Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERI LATRONICO, CAREY CARATINI and BROOKE WOLF, individually and
on behalf of their minor children and all others similarly situated
v. MEDACCESS NETWORK HEALTH CARE PLAN, THE MEDICAL ACCESS NETWORK,
LLC, RISEMED HEALTH, DEMARIS SERRANO, JENNIFER ACOSTA and EMMA
MANZANO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01653-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2020)
arises from the practice of the Defendants to market a series of
purported "employee-benefits plans" in a scheme to defraud plan
participants out of the premiums paid under such plans, in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

According to the complaint, the Defendants made numerous
misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs regarding the viability of the
MedAccess Plan, including but not limited to representations that
these plans were administered in accordance with the provisions
governing ERISA. The Defendants knew that the MedAccess Plans were
not ERISA-compliant, and moreover, knew that the MedAccess Plans
were too undercapitalized to pay medical benefit claims on an
ongoing basis. The Defendants repeatedly misrepresented the
characteristics of these plans to the Plaintiffs and others, using
mail and wire in interstate commerce to solicit premiums and
mislead plan participants about the true nature of the scheme, in
violation of RICO.

As a result of the fraudulent scheme, MedAccess Plan participants
who justifiably believed in the legitimacy of the plan, including
the Plaintiffs, paid for health insurance they did not actually
receive. The Plan participants lost dutifully paid premiums, and
are now facing large unpaid medical bills that should have been
paid, in whole or in part, by the MedAccess Plan and are causing
significant damages to the Plaintiffs' credit, finances, and
well-being, the suit says.

MedAccess Network Health Care Plan is an ERISA-based benefit health
plan available in all 50 states administered by the Medical Access
Network, LLC.

Medical Access Network, LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Fresno, California.

RiseMed Health is an alter ego of MedAccess, doing business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam B. Wolf, Esq.
          Tracey B. Cowan, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY
          A Professional Law Corporation
          5042 Wilshire Blvd., No. 304
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (415) 766-3545
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com
                  tcowan@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Daniel Centner, Esq.
          Korby Kazyak, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523-2434
          Facsimile: (504) 608-1465
          E-mail: dcentner@peifferwolf.com
                  kkazyak@peifferwolf.com

MEREDITH CORP: Iowa Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a U.S. District
Judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Iowa Action
with prejudice.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019.

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019.

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Both complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 12,
2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New York Action, and
the action has been dismissed.

On November 25, 2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa
Action.

On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Iowa Action, now seeking to represent a class of shareholders
who acquired securities of the Company between January 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2019. On June 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Iowa Action.

On October 28, 2020, a U.S. District Judge granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissing the Iowa Action with prejudice at the
plaintiffs' cost due to the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy
applicable pleading requirements. Specifically, the court held that
plaintiffs had failed to plead any actionable misstatement or
omission, scienter, or loss causation.

The court observed that "as explained in Defendants' motion to
dismiss and supporting briefs, this lawsuit is precisely the type
of frivolous 'strike' suit that Congress directed federal courts to
dismiss at the pleading stage."

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.

MESOBLAST LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 7 Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Oct. 28 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of Mesoblast Limited. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:MESO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=10528&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020

Class Period: April 16, 2019 - October 1, 2020

Allegations against MESO include that: (1) comparative analyses
between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did
not support the effectiveness of the Company's lead product
candidate, remestemcel-L, for steroid refractory acute graft versus
host disease due to design differences between the four studies;
(2) as a result, the US Food and Drug Administration was reasonably
likely to require further clinical studies; (3) as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; 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.

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

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

CONTACT:

  Vincent Wong, Esq.
  39 East BroadwaySuite 304
  New York, NY 10002
  Tel. 212-425-1140
  Fax. 866-699-3880
  E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


METRODATA SERVICES: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Wentworth FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Metrodata Services, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JASON WENTWORTH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. METRODATA SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 17-cv-594, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (Buffalo).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
      with respect to the section 1681c class:

      "all persons within the United States (including all
      territories and other political subdivisions of the United
      States): (a) who were the subject of a consumer report
      furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the
      present; and (b) whose report contained any public record
      of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment or
      other adverse item of information other than records of
      actual conviction of a crime, which antedated the report
      by more than 7 years"; and

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
      with respect to the section 1681k class.

      "all persons within the United States (including all
      territories and other political subdivisions of the United
      States) who were the subject of a consumer report
      furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the date
      of certification and whose report contained any public
      record of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment
      or other adverse information."

In 2017, the Plaintiff Jason Wentworth sued the Defendant Metrodata
Services, Inc., alleging that Metrodata violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), when it provided a consumer report about the
Plaintiff to a prospective employer. In 2019, the Plaintiff filed a
motion seeking to certify two classes under section 1681c and
section 1681k of Title 15. Finding the record insufficient to
support a determination on whether either proposed class satisfied
the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), the court
denied the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice and extended
discovery on the issue of class certification for an additional 90
days.

The extended discovery period concluded in early February 2020. The
Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class in which he
once again seeks to certify classes under section 1681c and section
1681k. The Defendant once again opposes class certification and
argues that, despite the allowance for additional discovery,
Plaintiff still fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the proposed classes meet the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

The appellate case is captioned as Wentworth v. Metrodata Services,
Inc., Case No. 20-3990, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, November 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Jason Wentworth, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew Anderson Dooley, Esq.
          O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA, CO. LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner Metrodata Services, Inc. is represented by:

          Theodore M. Baum, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          820 Bausch & Lomb Place
          Rochester, NY 14604
          Telephone: (585) 623-4290
          E-mail: tbaum@mdmc-law.com

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Julian Seeks to Certify Claim Specialists Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as DEBRA JULIAN, STEPHANIE MCKINNEY, &
KIMBERLY HARRIS on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-00957-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order certifying New York, Connecticut, and Illinois state law
classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

  -- New York Class:

     "all individuals who worked full-time for MetLife in New
     York as [Long-Term Disability Claim Specialists] at any
     time from November 13, 2013 through the date of final
     judgment";

  -- Connecticut Class:

     "all individuals who worked full-time for MetLife in
     Connecticut as LTDCSs at any time from February 19, 2014
     through the date of final judgment";

  -- Illinois Class:

     "all individuals who worked full-time for MetLife in
     Illinois as LTDCSs at any time from February 8, 2014
     through the date of final judgment";

LTDCSs are the foot soldiers in MetLife's long-term disability
(LTD) insurance claims processing operation.

The lawsuit contends that, because all LTDCSs performed the same
work, were subject to common policies, and were denied overtime
wages due to being (mis)classified as exempt under the
administrative exemption, the Court should grant Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the state law classes.

The Plaintiffs assert that MetLife misclassified them and other
current and former LTDCSs as exempt and failed to pay them earned
overtime wages.

MetLife is the holding corporation for the Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, better known as MetLife, and its affiliates.
MetLife is among the largest global providers of insurance,
annuities, and employee benefit programs, with 90 million customers
in over 60 countries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification
dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39kbJ80 at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Debra Julian, Stephanie McKinney,
Kimberly Harris, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and the proposed Rule 23
Classes, are:

          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          David Tracey, Esq.
          Meredith Firetog, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 31
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
          E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com
                  amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  dtracey@sanfordheisler.com
                  mfiretog@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Austin Webbert, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1950,
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 834-7420
          Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
          E-mail: awebbert@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Michael R. DiChiara, Esq.
          KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
          333 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 202
          Caldwell, NJ 07006
          Telephone (201) 746-0303
          Facsimile: (347) 765-1600
          E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com

MEWBOURNE OIL: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Felps FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mewbourne Oil Company, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 16,
2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled JONATHAN FELPS, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MEWBOURNE OIL
COMPANY, INC. and D. Drew Greene, Case No. 2:18-CV-00811-MV-GJF, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico - Las
Cruces.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
Mewbourne is an oil and gas production company doing business in
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. From 2014 to October 2016,
Plaintiff Felps worked as a Lease Operator, or Pumper, for the
Defendant at its Hobbs, New Mexico location. All of the Defendant's
Lease Operators perform the same job duties, namely, outdoor manual
labor.

In August 2016, the United States Department of Labor commenced an
investigation into the Defendant's practices of classifying its
employees, through which it determined that it had been
misclassifying its Lease Operators as exempt from the overtime
protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Based on this
misclassification, all Lease Operators employed by the Defendants,
including the Plaintiff, were paid only a base salary and received
no additional compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a
week.

On November 16, 2020, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification for Liability Only under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure was granted, certifying the class as all
of Defendants' current and former Lease Operators who, in at least
one workweek between June 19, 2009 and June 21, 2017, were paid a
salary with no overtime and who worked for Defendants in New
Mexico.

The appellate case is captioned as Mewbourne Oil Company, et al. v.
Felps, Case No. 20-703, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, November 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JONATHAN FELPS, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberly, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com   

Defendants-Petitioners MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY, INC. and D. DREW
GREENE are represented by:

          John B. Brown, Esq.
          Jeremy W. Hays, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletree.com
                  jeremy.hays@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Marcy Geoffrey Glenn, Esq.
          Tina Van Bockern, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          E-mail: mglenn@hollandhart.com
                  trvanbockern@hollandhart.com   

               - and -

          Chelsea R. Green, Esq.
          Richard E. Olson, Esq.
          HINKLE SHANOR
          P.O. Box 10
          Roswell, NM 88202
          Telephone: (575) 622-6510
          E-mail: cgreen@hinklelawfirm.com  
                  rolson@hinklelawfirm.com

MONTCLAIR STATE: Class Action Over Remote Learning Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Symons, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that state
lawmakers are looking at ways to throw a life preserver to colleges
left staggered by the coronavirus pandemic.

A Senate committee endorsed legislation saying colleges that cancel
in-person classes because of COVID-19 are not required to issue
refunds of tuition and instructional fees so long as the class is
offered in a remote format and an effort is made to refund room and
board fees.

State Sen. Vin Gopal, D-Monmouth, said he introduced the bill --
which would be retroactive to March 9 if enacted in its current
form -- because of lawsuits that have been filed against Kean
University, Ramapo College, Seton Hall University and Fairleigh
Dickinson University.

"This bill says that the university has to make every good effort
as far as providing the class as similar as possible," Gopal said.
"A lot of universities have reached out having challenges budgeting
because of these lawsuits when at no fault of their own, COVID-19
hits, they make every effort to try to move the class online to do
Zoom, to do everything else, and they still get hit with
lawsuits."

Gopal said he will work with people who have concerns about the
bill to discuss possible changes.

The bill was advanced in a party-line 3-2 vote by the Senate Higher
Education Committee, with one of the three majority Democrats
expressing concern but voting to release it.

"I have concerns with this bill," said state Sen. Teresa Ruiz,
D-Essex. "I am apprehensive about codifying practice and leaving
out students who then will not have an opportunity to seek back
reimbursement."

A second bill that's even farther reaching was discussed recently,
but not voted on, by the Assembly Higher Education Committee. That
bill would grant colleges immunity from liability for damages
resulting from the coronavirus, except for "willful, wanton or
grossly negligent" acts.

University counsel Mark Fleming said Montclair State University is
currently defending a proposed class-action lawsuit seeking
recovery of damages "merely because it following Gov. (Phil)
Murphy's order to transition to remote instruction in March."

"The cost of defending that litigation and others like it is
significant," Fleming said. "At Montclair State, our restart plan
spells out extensive procedures for virtually every aspect of the
university's operations, and it was designed to enable our
students, faculty and staff to lean, live and work as safely as
possible."

Stephen Nolan, associate vice president and deputy general counsel
for Rutgers University, said the university has health-care workers
and researchers on the front lines of the pandemic.

"The legislation would ensure that the university, which is already
responding to public health and financial challenges resulting from
COVID-19, is protected from the costs and burdens of questionable
litigation," Nolan said.

Gene Lepore, executive director of the New Jersey Association of
State Colleges and Universities, said higher-education institutions
have invested heavily in personal protective equipment and
Plexiglas and are abiding by social-distance guidelines.

"At a time when they're working hard to continue providing
high-quality education despite the challenges we've heard caused by
the pandemic, they really shouldn't be forced to spend their
resources on defending the COVID-19-related lawsuits," Lepore
said.

But the bill has plenty of critics, as well.

Edward Capozzi, president of the New Jersey Association for
Justice, said the bill provides "broad, unnecessary and dangerous"
COVID-related immunity by ending their responsibility for the
safety and welfare of students and employees.

"A-4408 would mean that while asking their students to be
responsible, colleges and universities would not be responsible for
their own actions. If no one is responsible, then no one is safe,"
Capozzi said.

"This bill is both a civil justice rollback and a weakening of
public health protection. This is neither a logical nor a
responsible thing to do during a pandemic," said Dena Mottola
Jaborska, associate director of New Jersey Citizen Action, who said
it gives colleges "permission to cut corners" on safety.

"We are concerned that if this bill should pass, there could be
less of an incentive for our institutions of higher education to
follow the rules and plans that are in place," said Fran Pfeffer,
associate director of government relations for the New Jersey
Education Association. "And institutions could be more lax in
enforcing these plans."

David Rousseau, vice president of the Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities of New Jersey, said every dollar spent
defending a lawsuit is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere. He
said safety is now and will remain colleges' first concern.

"For them to raise the issue that we would become lax and it would
give us an out to have these things is an insult to the higher
education community in New Jersey," Rousseau said.

Michael Symons is State House bureau chief for New Jersey 101.5.
Contact him at michael.symons@townsquaremedia.com.

How NJ colleges are adapting to COVID-19

* Rutgers University

Rutgers is planning for a fall 2020 semester that will combine
mostly remotely delivered courses with a limited number of
in-person classes. The chancellors will each distribute messages
that provide additional details for their respective communities.
Because of the need for social distancing and since most courses
will be delivered remotely, on-campus housing across Rutgers will
be extremely limited. On June 16, the Rutgers University Board of
Governors approved a freeze on tuition and all fees for
undergraduates for the 2020-2021 academic year, noting it was in
recognition of financial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic on
students and families. Rutgers' new president also announced he is
taking a 10% salary cut in his first year leading the school.
(The College of New Jersey Facebook page)

* TCNJ

TCNJ has announced it is cutting fees to reduce the net cost of
attendance for students in the coming year amid the stress of the
pandemic. A July 2 update from the school outlined that tuition
will remain flat for the year (getting rid of a planned 2%
increase), with also eliminating the Student Activity and Card
Service fees for the year and the Brower Student Center Fee for the
fall. The cuts translate to a 3.5% decrease in the net cost of
attendance for in-state undergraduates and 2.5% for out-of-state
students.

At TCNJ, all courses will be offered in one of two ways: by remote
instruction only or by combined in-person and remote learning,
known as flex. There will be no "in-person-only" courses. A student
may choose to take all courses, including flex courses, virtually.
Classes begin August 25 with semester final exams slated to end
December 15. After a weeklong Thanksgiving break, November 23–27,
students will complete the semester remotely.

* Princeton University

Princeton University announced July 6 a 10% discount to tuition for
all undergraduate students during 2020-21, whether they are on
campus or learning remotely. The discounted rate will be used to
calculate financial aid packages for students eligible for aid.
Activities and athletics fees will not be charged for the academic
year and room and board charges will be prorated for students
departing the campus at Thanksgiving break. Princeton also
announced that freshman and juniors would be eligible to return to
the campus for the fall semester, while sophomores and seniors will
be able to do the spring semester on campus. Remote learning will
be utilized for all other situations.

* Seton Hall University

Seton Hall University announced a hybrid flexible (HyFlex)
instruction plan that offers both in-person and remote instruction.
Several classrooms throughout the three campuses already have the
ability for students to join a face-to-face class remotely. To
support the HyFlex teaching model, SHU has identified 40-plus
additional classrooms on the South Orange Campus that will have
permanent Microsoft Teams room systems installed, while all other
classrooms will have temporary equipment. At the IHS campus, the
school is adding cameras to Learning Studios and additional
functionality in every classroom to allow a faculty member to use
existing cameras with Teams, Blackboard Collaborate or other tools
to join a student remotely in a face to face class. At the Law
School, adding cameras, microphones and speakers to almost every
classroom will allow faculty to utilize technology and ensure
students can join remotely. At Seton Hall, classes begin August 24,
without a fall break, until classes conclude November 24 for
Thanksgiving break. Students will not return to campus for the
remainder of the semester. Beginning November 30, review sessions,
reading days and final exams will be handled remotely over two
weeks.

* NJIT

NJIT will implement three modes to deliver courses in fall 2020.
The first, "converged mode," will feature classes with some
students physically in the classroom and others joining remotely.
The plan is for the great majority of 100- and 200-level classes to
be offered in a converged model, as well as most laboratory
courses. For "synchronous online" mode, classes will entail all
students attending remotely. The majority of lecture courses at the
300- and 400-level will be offered in synchronous online mode, as
well as most graduate level courses.

"Online mode" will mean students participate at the time they
desire, post questions and participate in group chats, with all
course material available digitally. Other than students admitted
to a fully online graduate program, the likelihood of an online
class is "low," according to NJIT.
(Rowan.edu)

* Rowan University face mask

Incoming freshmen with Rowan University's Class of 2024 have the
option to begin classes online through "Rowan@Home," while still
being able to apply to live on campus and have access to full
academic support, student activities, sports and library and rec
center services. Freshmen in Rowan@ Home also are eligible for up
to $5,000 in scholarships. Rowan University and community partners
are using the summer to produce 50,000 reusable face masks, evolved
from designs for a 3D-printed prototype Rowan engineers and
students further refined based on medical staff feedback.

The school said as for finances, "We are still working with the
state on the new fiscal year budget, but we expect a degree of
support that will help mitigate the economic stresses brought on by
COVID-19. Tighter finances will continue to affect virtually every
aspect of our institution and the individuals in our academic
community. We will work together to reduce the impact as much as
possible."

* Montclair University

The Montclair restart plan entails a range of in-person, online and
hybrid classes, to allow for flexible options with social
distancing in classrooms and labs. Student services will be offered
in person and will continue to be provided remotely. Occupancy of
residence halls, dining venues, study areas and shuttle buses will
be reduced. Work spaces and service areas will be configured to
allow for more distancing, and barriers or shields installed where
needed. Cleaning and sanitizing will be done more frequently, and
disinfecting supplies will be provided to employees and students,
too.

The fall semester will be moved up one week, with classes starting
August 25 and ending December 14, with no on-campus instruction
after Thanksgiving. The period after Thanksgiving will be limited
to remotely delivered instruction, projects, and final exams. "This
change will significantly decrease the population density on campus
just about the time, at the end of November, when respiratory
viruses, including the coronavirus, typically become more active."

* Stockton University

Fall semester begins September 8 and will combine on-campus and
on-line academic, social, and athletic opportunities. Stockton will
offer courses in person, online and as a hybrid (a combination of
both learning styles). Faculty should be releasing an updated fall
schedule around July 20. Classrooms will have smaller occupancy
limits to support safety protocols. For on-campus housing this
fall, based on state and federal health guidelines, the school is
projecting that all dorm rooms will be either single or double
occupancy. Stockton said it is looking into additional off-campus
housing opportunities in Galloway and Atlantic City. Dining and
takeout food options will be available on campus, supported by
on-line meal appointments and enhanced grab-and-go options.

* Monmouth University

Monmouth University's plan involves a combination of in-person
instruction, online courses, and hybrid course delivery. A COVID-19
orientation will be required for all members of the University
community prior to starting the fall semester, September 8.
Temperature checks will be required in order to access high-traffic
areas and COVID-19 testing will be available by appointment, with
students required to self-quarantine until test results are
available. The fall calendar still is set to wrap December 22.
Monmouth notes it will make a decision by November 1 on whether to
close the campus at the Thanksgiving holiday and complete the
semester online. If so, the school "will refund any unused room and
meal plan costs for the remainder of the semester," just as was
done during last spring. The university will honor all housing
contracts for the fall, as students may continue to live together
in residence halls, subject to social distancing guidelines and
enhanced cleaning protocols. All public lounges in the residence
halls will be closed, and no guests or visitors from other
residence halls will be permitted, consistent with state
guidelines. Dining services will be available to all students,
featuring a new mobile ordering app that enables students to order
their meals in advance. Meals will be ready for takeout, with
additional outdoor space available where students can sit and eat.

* William Paterson University

Courses will be a mix of online, in-person and hybrid, and
residence halls will open at reduced capacity to start the new
school year. The Fall 2020 semester will begin on August 24, one
week earlier than previously scheduled, and end at the Thanksgiving
break. All other University operations will resume after the
Thanksgiving break. [GN]


MOPHIE INC: Amended Settlement in Young Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James V. Selna granted final approval of the amended
settlement agreement in the class action, MICHAEL YOUNG, and DAN
DOLAR, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. MOPHIE, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
8:19-cv-00827-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

The original Settlement Agreement was entered into by the parties
on Oct. 1, 2020, and has been amended as of Oct. 26, 2020.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for the purposes of the settlement only, the Action
is finally certified as a class action on behalf of "all persons
who purchased any of the Covered Products within the United
States," the Court ruled.

Plaintiffs Dan Dolar and Michael Young are certified as the Class
Representatives and E. Michelle Drake, Esq., of the law firm of
Berger Montague P.C. and D. Greg Blankinship, Esq., of the law firm
of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, are
certified to serve as Class Counsel, and for no other purpose.

The Court finds that notice to the Settlement Class is unnecessary,
notwithstanding the Class Injunctive Release by the Settlement
Class, because the settlement falls under Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Settlement Agreement, the Class Injunctive Release does not extend
to any claims or potential claims for monetary damages that any
member of the Settlement Class may have against Mophie or any of
the Mophie Entities, except to the Plaintiffs, who provided full
and complete general releases of all Claims.

Judge Selna further ruled that the Action and all claims asserted
therein are dismissed with prejudice and without costs, as such
costs are identified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. The Class Counsel
are awarded attorney fees and expenses of $325,000. Judge Selna
also awarded each of the Plaintiffs a Service Award in the amount
of $5,000.

The Court also enters an injunction. The injunction pertains to all
Covered Products ordered by Mophie from manufacturers 90 days or
more after the date of final approval of the settlement:

   1. In circumstances where Mophie includes the mAh rating on
      its package, where the rating is determined based on the
      capacity of the internal battery, Mophie shall use the
      following or substantially similar language: "contains a
      XXXX mAh internal battery";

   2. Mophie has no obligation to revise packaging for products
      that were ordered by Mophie from manufacturers prior to the
      expiration of 90 days after the date of final approval of
      the settlement (by entry of this Judgment and Order in the
      form approved by the Parties and in compliance with
      Section 8 of the Amended Settlement Agreement); and

   3. If Mophie references the mAh rating on its website for a
      product where the rating is determined based on the
      capacity of the internal battery, not later than 90 days
      after the date of final approval of the settlement (by
      entry of this Judgment and Order in the form approved by
      the Parties and in compliance with Section 8 of the Amended
      Settlement Agreement), Mophie shall include the following
      or substantially similar language on the website for that
      product: "contains a XXXX mAh internal battery."

Judge Selna notes that nothing in the Judgment and Order shall
preclude Mophie from making further changes to any of its product
labels or marketing that (1) Mophie reasonably believes are
necessary to comply with applicable rules, guidelines, or
decisions, or any other statute, regulation, or other law of any
kind; (2) are permitted by product changes or additional testing or
development work and/or to ensure Mophie provides accurate product
descriptions; or (3) are more detailed than those required by this
Amended Settlement Agreement.

E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- Joseph C. Hashmall --
jhashmall@bm.net -- of BERGER MONTAGUE PC, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, represent the Plaintiffs.

David W. Tufts -- dtufts@djplaw.com -- Lyndon R. Bradshaw --
lbradshaw@djplaw.com -- of DURHAM, JONES & PINEGAR, P.C., in Salt
Lake City, Utah, represent the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated
November 30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3txv4g5
from Leagle.com.


MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $6.7 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Mutual of
Omaha Insurance Co. will pay $6.7 million to resolve a proposed
class action challenging the affiliated investment funds in its
401(k) plan, according to settlement papers filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska.

The deal is expected to benefit about 7,000 people with retirement
savings invested in Mutual of Omaha's $500 million retirement plan,
plan participant Tamera Lechner told Senior Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon in a Sept. 18 settlement motion.

Lechner's lawsuit accuses the Nebraska-based insurer of filling its
401(k) plan with affiliated investment funds that were essentially
funds offered by third parties. [GN]



NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Israr Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAAZ ISRAR, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-62391-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 23,
2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt that
was owed for his educational loans. The Defendant, who directly or
indirectly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or
asserted to be owed or due another, began attempting to collect the
alleged debt of Plaintiff by sending one minute and 27 seconds
voice message on the Plaintiff's cellphone. However, the Voice
Message does not comply with the disclosure requirements of 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e(11) because the Defendant failed to disclose
that the Voice Message is an initial oral communication from a Debt
Collector and that the Defendant is a Debt Collector.  

Navient Solutions, LLC is a consumer collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


NEW CHINA KING: Ming Hui Lin Seeks Collective Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ming Hui Lin, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NEW CHINA
KING ZHENG INC d/b/a New China King; and FANG RONG ZHENG, Case No.
3:20-cv-00687-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. granting collective action status under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA");

   2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
      this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
      first and last name, last known address with apartment
      number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
      last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
      FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
      dates of employment and position of:

      "All current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
      employees employed at any time from May 16, 2017 (three
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date
      when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and
      Consent to Join Form or the date when the Defendants
      provide the name list, whichever is later";

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
      any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
      website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
      members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
      of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
      affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is
      complete and from existing employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
      notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
      may also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
      community;

   7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
      workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
      Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
      Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by
      publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
      a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
      returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
      published in English, and Chinese; and

   9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of
      limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the
      expiration of the Opt-in Period.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/339iNQY at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

NEW YORK: Correction Officers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Chelsia Rose Marcius, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
hundreds of correction officers who worked in the jails during the
pandemic and missed work after contracting coronavirus are now
considered chronically absent by the city's Correction Department
-- a stain on their personnel records that can prevent them from
rising up the ranks and could even jeopardize their jobs, the Daily
News has learned.

The agency received 893 appeals from officers who tested positive
for COVID-19 and were considered excessively absent from work,
officials said. Of those, 546 applications were approved, and 327
were denied. Twenty are still pending.

Yet the numbers of denied appeals appears to be as high as 400,
according to sources who reviewed an internal report about chronic
absences.

Seventy-six officers who were denied are also part of a class
action grievance filed by their union demanding the agency remove
this designation -- an insult, they say, to those frontline workers
who got sick while serving the city.

One of them is Correction Officer Antonio Saltalamacchia, who
missed 98 days of work after testing positive three times between
March and June, medical records show. His three-month battle with
COVID-19 also led to a slew of other severe health issues --
including a dangerous bout of pneumonia, the onset of debilitating
asthma and a lack a smell he still can't quite explain.

For 34-year-old Saltalamacchia, who has been on the job for nine
years, being labeled chronically absent by the agency is a slap in
the face.

"I feel betrayed," Saltalamacchia told The News outside his
Astoria, Queens, home. "They want us to be essential workers, go
there every day, do what we got to do every day, no matter what."

"Now we're [facing] consequences for getting sick, from something
that we can't even prevent," he said. "I feel like they don't look
at us as humans. We're just a badge number, a shield number. We're
disposable. There's no empathy at all."

Over 1,440 Correction staffers -- including officers -- have tested
positive for COVID-19 since March 16 when the virus first swept
through the jails, according to the most recent data published by
the Board of Correction. Several officers have succumbed to the
disease. Union officials said in September eight officers died from
coronavirus, the DOC maintains five casualties.

The agency came under fire in early April after 10 officers refused
to return to their posts for what would've been a 24-hour shift, a
decision Mayor de Blasio called "a dumb managerial mistake." That
same week, officers with coronavirus at Rikers' North Infirmary
Command were ordered to return work by the agency's Health
Management Division against the advice of their doctors -- even
though jail brass told staffers experiencing flu-like symptoms to
stay home, internal memos show.

Fast forward to the summer when Saltalamacchia, who also works at
North Infirmary Command, applied to dispute his chronic absent
status -- a designation that goes into effect after an officer has
missed 11 days of work, and can impact pay, promotions, hours, and
make some more vulnerable in the event of layoffs, union officials
said.

Saltalamacchia's 20-page appeal, which was reviewed by The News,
included official medical records indicating positive COVID-19 test
results on March 29, April 12 and June 4, a radiology report from
June 4 detailing his pneumonia diagnosis, as well as doctors' notes
stating he should not return to work.

His appeal was approved by a supervisor, a deputy warden, an acting
warden and a commanding officer from the Health Management Division
before it was ultimately denied Oct. 1 by Acting Chief of
Administration Sherrie Rembert, according to a single-page document
sent to Saltalamacchia. He he was not told why his appeal was
denied, nor was he given a chance to provide any additional
information that might've changed the outcome.

About 100 were approved by the division, but denied by Rembert,
according to an internal report — which, sources say, calls into
question her role in the department.

"It's outrageous to deny Officer Saltalamacchia and many others
like him," Correction Officers' Benevolent Association President
Benny Boscio Jr. told The News. "To deal with what he had to deal
with, and to now have a blemish on [his] record . . . it adds
insult to injury."

"DOC failed our officers during COVID, and now they're failing them
again by tarnishing their records," he added. "We're considered
first responders… and this is how the department is going to
treat us?"

Correction Deputy Commissioner Peter Thorne said the department
will review "these absences on a case by case basis and will make
determinations in accordance with the department's absence control
policy."

For Saltalamacchia, correction officers who contracted coronavirus
should be recognized for their work -- not punished.

"If you had it, you should be left alone," he said. "This stays on
your record forever. It's just not fair . . . And if there's a
second wave, people are going to get it [in the jails] again . . .
How is the department going to [handle it] then?" [GN]


NEW YORK: Judge Tosses Class Action Covid-19 Wedding Restrictions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kirby, writing for (Kingston) Daily Freeman, reports that a
federal court judge has ruled against quashing government
COVID-19-related restrictions on wedding venues.

U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. has ruled
against a class-action lawsuit filed by, among others, the Diamond
Mills Hotel in Saugerties against Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
administration. The lawsuit sought to loosen COVID-19 restrictions
on wedding venues.

Saratoga Springs-based attorney Michael Brandi, who represented the
wedding venues, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He said
that an appeal may be launched.

Scullin outlined his reasons for denying the venues' request in a
20-page decision offered up on Oct. 13.

The suit, filed Aug. 28 in federal court in Albany, had asked for
the rule that caps wedding reception attendance in New York state
at 50 people to be vacated.

Partition Street Project Limited Liability Corp. the owner of
Diamond Mills, is listed as one of two lead plaintiffs, with Bill &
Ted's Riviera Inc. on Long Island.

"Our goal here is to ensure equal treatment under the law, as
guaranteed by the Constitution, to the class members," Brandi said
in a statement issued at the time of the filing. "When the state
says that you can seat over 50 people in a given restaurant for
restaurant dining but are limited to 50 people in that very same
venue when the dining is associated with a wedding, that is
blatantly unequal treatment."

Scullin disagreed.

"Among the powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment
is the state's police power, which includes the power and authority
reasonably necessary to guard and protect public health and public
safety, including protecting communities 'against an epidemic of
disease which threatens the safety of its members," Sullin wrote.

"Recognizing the rapidly-changing landscape in which we find
ourselves as a result of the current health crisis, Chief Justice
(John) Roberts recently explained that the decision as to when to
lift restrictions on particular social activities during a pandemic
such as we face with COVID-19 is ever-changing and subject to
reasonable disagreement."

Still, Scullin said, the law is clear.

"However, our Constitution entrusts those decisions which affect
the health and safety of citizens to state officials who are
politically accountable to those who elected them, particularly
when those decisions are undertaken in situations that are fraught
with medical and scientific uncertainty."

Scullin added that "unless those officials exceed these broad
limits, the federal courts, which do not have the background,
competence or expertise to gauge public health and are not
accountable to the people, should not second guess their
decisions."

Scullin wrote that he did not find the wedding venue restrictions
unfair.

"Although defendants' arguments appear at first blush to suggest a
discriminatory policy, a closer analysis of the rational basis for
the difference in treatment suggests otherwise," the judge wrote.
"As New York's Commissioner of Health points out, there are
rational arguments from which one can conclude that sufficient
differences exist between a venue that hosts the general public for
dining and one that hosts a special social gathering such as a
wedding to support the application of different restrictions."

The judge referred to an opinion offered up by State Health
Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker who, in a statement to news website
Gothamist, said that guests at wedding receptions tend to mingle
for hours while restaurant patrons typically are in small parties
that do not interact with others and don't stay long after they're
done eating.

"One hallmark of a superspreader event is its size," Zucker said.
"As the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) stated in
June 12, 2020, guidance, the more people with whom an individual
interacts at a gathering and the longer that interaction lasts, the
higher the potential risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 and
COVID-19 spreading. As a group's size increases, so does the risk
of transmitting the virus to a wider cluster." [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Gross Law Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued the
following notice in late October 2020 on behalf of shareholders in
the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased
shares in the following companies during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.

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

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

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. The filed
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ
did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with
Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its “in-house” design,
manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its
hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola
overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5)
Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading “test” video of the Company's Nikola Two
truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and
obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and
(8) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=10444&from=1

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ:BMRN)

Investors Affected: February 28, 2020 - August 18, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) differences between the Phase
1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an
investigational adenoassociated virus gene therapy, limited the
reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (ii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not
approve the Biologics License Application for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec without additional data; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10444&from=1

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCMD)

Investors Affected: May 7, 2018 - June 8, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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 pneumatic compression
devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and
share gains, Tactile and/or its employees were engaged in illicit
and illegal sales and marketing activities in violation of
applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations;
(3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and marketing
activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of Tactile's
claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's revenues
were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
Defendants' public statements, including Tactile's year-over-year
revenue growth, the purported growth drivers, and the effectiveness
of Tactile's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tactile-systems-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10444&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


NORWEGIAN AIR: Averts Covid-19 Flight Refund Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action alleging Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA failed to issue
timely refunds for flights canceled due to Covid-19 travel
restrictions won't proceed in California after a federal judge said
the class failed to allege a breach of contract.

Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis, whose flight from Los Angeles to Paris
was canceled, sued the airline on behalf of hundreds of thousands
of similarly situated individuals, alleging a single cause of
action for breach of contract.

Daversa-Evdyriadis allegedly received a refund for the flight
several weeks later. [GN]


O ORGANICS: Averts Kombucha False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California man leading a class action
alleging O Organics LLC's kombucha drinks mislead consumers about
their alcohol content can't represent non-Californians in a
nationwide class because of the differences in state laws,
according to a California federal judge. [GN]


OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Olin, K.A. Steel
Chemicals continues to defend several class action suits related to
the sale of caustic soda.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals and other caustic soda producers were
also named as defendants in two purported class action civil
lawsuits filed July 25 and 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. indirectly from
distributors at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.


The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.


Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

Olin said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. Any
losses related to this matter are not currently estimable because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, but if resolved
unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations."

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

Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton
Missouri.

ONEOK INC: Lindsey Seeks to Certify Class of Day Rate Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BRIAN LINDSEY, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ONEOK, INC. as Case No.
7:19-cv-00284-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. granting conditional certification and authorize him to
      send notice (via mail, email, and text message) to:

      "all Inspectors employed by, or working on behalf of,
      ONEOK, Inc. (ONEOK) who were paid a day rate with no
      overtime at any time in the past 3 years (Day Rate
      Inspectors)";

   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 ONEOK to produce each Day Rate Inspector's
      contact information; and

   5. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period.

Lindsey satisfies his lenient burden to identify a common policy
alleged to violate the FLSA – ONEOK's day rate with no overtime
pay scheme. Thus, the Court should authorize Lindsey to send the
Day Rate Inspectors notice, the complaint says.

ONEOK bills itself as "a leading midstream service provider in the
United States" that "own[s] one the nation’s premier gas liquids
systems."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/371ll4D at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@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: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ONTARIO HOCKEY: Three Judges Refuse to Sign Off $30MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
$30-million settlement of three class actions over the alleged
failure to pay junior hockey players the minimum wage has been
thrown into jeopardy after three judges refused to sign off on the
agreement.

In their decisions, the judges in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta
objected to wording in the settlement they said was too broad and
could prevent the players from pressing other legitimate claims.

More precisely, Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell said,
class members would get an average of about $8,400 but could end up
barred from suing leagues for damages related to concussions,
sexual assaults or physical harassment, or alleged anti-competitive
behaviour.

"Class members may be foreclosed from suing the defendants in other
class actions for compensation for significant injuries," Perell
said. "A release of the claims in those other actions makes the
settlement in the immediate case an improvident settlement and one
that is not fair and reasonable, nor in the best interests of the
class members."

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits alleged the Ontario Hockey
League, Western Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League
and their affiliated clubs -- all operate under the umbrella of the
Canadian Hockey League -- failed to treat them as employees.

According to the plaintiffs, some players were paid as little as
$35 per week for working between 35 and 65 hours weekly. The
leagues, they asserted, should have paid them minimum wage,
overtime pay, and provided other employment benefits.

The first lawsuit, launched in Ontario in 2014, sought about $175
million in outstanding compensation.

In response, the leagues argued, among other things, that the
players were amateur athletes and not employees. Nevertheless, in
March, the leagues agreed after mediation to pay $30 million to
settle the lawsuits -- with about $9 million going to the players'
lawyers.

The settlement was set for court approval when two representative
plaintiffs -- Kobe Mohr and Anthony Poulin -- objected to the
wording of the final release, which would insulate the leagues from
any related lawsuits in the future.

As a result of the objection, the courts learned of other actions
against the Canadian Hockey League, including one filed in British
Columbia over player concussions. Another filed in Ontario alleges
players younger than 18 suffered sexual abuse, while a third in
Federal Court alleges various leagues engaged in anti-competitive
practices.

"To be blunt about it, in the immediate case, in my opinion, once
the 11th-hour objection arrived, class counsel should have
withdrawn their motion for settlement approval until the matter of
the prejudicial scope of the release was resolved," Perell said.
"What is required is a renegotiation of the release provisions of
the settlement agreement."

In a similar ruling, Justice Robert Hall of the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench leaned on Perell's analysis for refusing to go along
with the settlement.

"The class members cannot be unwittingly releasing the defendants
from other claims beyond the one being settled," Hall wrote. Quebec
Superior Court Justice Chantal Corriveau expressed similar
sentiments.

The judges did say the parties could reapply for settlement
approval after fixing the issue with the release given that the
other provisions of the deal were reasonable.

If an agreement isn't reached on the release, the settlement could
be terminated within weeks and lead to a resumption of the
litigation.

Neither the Canadian Hockey League nor the plaintiffs' counsel had
any comment. [GN]


OREGON: Small Businesses Mull Class Action v. Gov. Over Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
KXL reports that thousands of small businesses in Oregon may be
suing Governor Kate Brown soon to get their money back they lost
from being closed due to covid-19.

KXL's Jacob Dean talked with the attorney involved.

Portland based lawyer John DiLorzeno filed the notice for a
potential class action lawsuit on Sept. 18 to the Governor and DAS
Director. He's representing 3 local businesses, a bowling alley, a
salon spa., and an arcade / family fun center, who have already
signed onto the letter as representative plaintiffs.

DiLorzeno says they are not challenging the Governor on the Stay At
Home order, they agree she had the right to enact the order. But in
doing so, it triggers another law on the books that says people
affected have to be compensated for it. DiLorenzo says when
Governor Brown issued the stay at home order, she protected some
like teachers and state employees, but did not help small
businesses. He hopes they can talk with the Governor and get
lawmakers involved on a solution and resolve this through
legislation -- before it becomes a class action lawsuit and goes to
the courts.

Here's what DiLorzeno says about the letter he sent:

The claim for compensation is based on ORS 401.192(3) which states
in part: "[w]hen real or personal property is taken under power
granted by ORS 401.188, the owner of the property shall be entitled
to reasonable compensation from the state." Recently, the Oregon
Supreme Court confirmed in the Elkhorn Baptist Church case that the
Governor's powers for issuing executive orders like this one are
derived from ORS Ch. 401. In fact, the Governor's Executive Order
directly invokes ORS 401.188 as a source of her authority. As a
result, her order has triggered the obligation for the state to
provide compensation to these businesses.

The letter points out that ORS 401.192(3) dates back to the 1950's
and the Cold War.  At that time, legislators were concerned about
reimbursing Oregonians if their property was taken by a governor's
emergency orders.  The circumstances warranting a governor's
exercise of emergency powers were expanded in the 1980's to
emergencies other than war, like those we have recently faced with
the Covid-19 pandemic.  However, the statute providing for
compensation was not altered and remains in substantially same form
as it was when it was adopted in the 1950's.

The letter does not challenge the Governor's authority to have
issued the Executive Order, nor does it second guess whether doing
so was an appropriate response to the crisis.  It does observe that
the Governor provided some level of compensation for other impacted
constituencies like state employees, school employees and, at least
theoretically, those workers in affected businesses who lost their
jobs.  However, the Governor left the owners of small businesses
(the backbone of our state's economy) to fend for themselves.

The letter concludes with an invitation to develop a compensation
plan and to constructively collaborate if the Governor is of a mind
to address this issue without resort to litigation.  A follow-up
was sent to DAS Risk Management on Sept. 19. [GN]


PACIFIC BELLS: Fails to Pay Overtime to Managers, Scott Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SCOTT, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC BELLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00760-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., November 24, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly paid,
non-exempt General Manager from approximately November 2008 through
September 2020 at two of the Defendant's Taco Bell restaurants
located at 5575-I-55 South Frontage Road, Byram, Mississippi 39272
and 3416 Pemberton Square Blvd, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite routinely working in excess of
40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay her overtime
compensation at one and one-half times of her regular rate of pay
for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.

Pacific Bells, LLC operates Taco Bell restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin Jelliffe, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          4450 Old Canton Rd., Suite 200
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 503-1676
          Facsimile: (601) 503-1625
          E-mail: mjelliffe@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com


PACIFIC POWER: Faces Class Action Over Archie Creek Fire
--------------------------------------------------------
KQEN News Radio 1240 reports that the first lawsuit has been filed
against Pacific Power alleging the utility is at fault for causing
the Archie Creek Fire, east of Glide.

Attorney Jeff Mornarich with the law firm Dole Coalwell published a
52-page complaint in Douglas County Circuit Court on Oct. 23.

Plaintiffs are Philip and Cassie Strader along with Tim Goforth and
Kathy Kreiter. Mornarich said the two couples own separate parcels
of land that were in the path of the fire. The suit seeks $11
million in damages and said the plaintiffs are entitled to double
that amount under Oregon law because they claim Pacific Power,
"acted with gross negligence or recklessness in causing the Archie
Creek Fire".

The complaint alleges numerous causes of action for why Pacific
Power is liable for the damages. It said, "Despite multiple weather
and fire hazard warnings indicating severe winds would begin
blowing through the area on September 7th, 2020 -- and despite
widespread knowledge that the area was suffering from critical
drought conditions -- the Pacific Power Defendants elected not to
de-energize their transmission or distribution power lines". The
complaint also alleges that Pacific Power was grossly negligent for
re-energizing the electric lines that had been knocked out by the
high winds at about 3:30 a.m. on the morning of September 8th. The
complaint said about five hours later the utility tried to
re-energize those lines, "without first inspecting and removing
downed trees and limbs from those lines, thus causing a series of
fires in the area of Susan Creek Road and Smith Springs Road".

The lawsuit is part of "mass action" which means each lawsuit
stands on its own as opposed to a class action lawsuit where
damages are distributed evenly among multiple plaintiffs.

Dole Coalwell is being assisted by the firms Watts Guerra in San
Antonio, Texas and Baker Hostetler in San Francisco, California.
The firms had a community meeting on Oct. 22 in Glide. Mornarich
said there will definitely be more lawsuits to come, as many people
have signed up with the firms. He said the attorneys will need time
to analyze each individual case, before additional lawsuits are
filed. [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA: Approval of Class Notice in Suit v DOC Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT LEE, JR.,
individually and for all others similarly situated, v. MARIROSA
LAMAS, MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, and TY STANTON, in their individual
capacities, Case No. 2:19-cv-00241-CMR (E.D. Pa), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order authorizing the dissemination of Class
Notice to all similarly situated persons in accordance with the
"opt-in" mechanism for collective actions authorized by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and granting the other relief.

The Defendants are officers of Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for order authorizing notice to
similarly situated persons dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nMclXW at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective, are:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836

PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to Zantac.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various
types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer,
purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac.

The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants
that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has
not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an over-the-counter
version of the product.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some
cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation, MDL-2924) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In June 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed
against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer
class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of
the RICO statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states,
and a consolidated third-party payor class action complaint
alleging violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement
for payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii)
Pfizer received service of a Canadian class action complaint naming
Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising
from the defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada; and (iii) the State
of New Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other
defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims
in connection with the defendants' alleged sale of Zantac in New
Mexico.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020, that that the company continues to
defend antitrust class suits related to EpiPen.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against
Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian
Medical Technologies, Inc., and/or various entities affiliated with
Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide
classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of
the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.

In February 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and
the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class
of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices
directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit).

Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions
generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of
patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic
EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state
antitrust laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer
and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to
conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates
regarding EpiPen.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen
since 2011.

In August 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit,
were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a
Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection,
USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785)
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other
EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which
Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties.

In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers.
Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or
entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of
certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010.

Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the
shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the
federal RICO statute. Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged
unnecessary replacement or refill purchases of EpiPens by members
of the putative class.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend itself from purported class action suits over sales of
Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others,
Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, Inc. and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct.

The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period.

In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust
Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and
November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the
claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All
plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the
order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to
amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State
of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to Array
BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma program.

In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that
Array, which the company acquired in July 2019 and is the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers
violated federal securities laws in connection with certain
disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant
melanoma program.

In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation
and its affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit
related to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of
Effexor.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth Holdings LLC
and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain
other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the
extended-release formulation of Effexor.

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR.

Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June
14, 2008.

All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.

In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments
as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by
direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

PINE VALLEY CENTER: Duvet Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY DUVET, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. PINE VALLEY CENTER
FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING, Case No. 7:19-cv-03744-PMH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons employed by Pine Valley as Licensed Practical
      Nurses and/or Registered Nurses (the Nurses) from April
      26, 2013 through the date a judgment is entered in this
      action;

   2. appointing her as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Orin Kurtz, of Gardy & Notis, LLP, as Class
      Counsel.

The Defendant operates a nursing home in Spring Valley, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fJRrWI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Perez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PINNACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on November 18, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-24767-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff via an automatic dialing system, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Pinnacle Financial Services is a national organization providing
insurance and financial products and services for individuals,
businesses and their employees across the U.S.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason Daniel Joffe, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7000
          Facsimile: (305) 577-7001
          E-mail: jason.joffe@squirepb.com

PLAYTIKA LTD: Amazon's Rider in Protective Order Approved in Wilson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action captioned SEAN WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAYTIKA LTD., an
Israeli limited company, and CAESARS INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 18-cv-05277-RSL
(W.D. Wash.), District Judge Robert S. Lasnik approved an agreed
rider to a protective order regarding the use and disclosure of
discovery produced by nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.

The stipulation was entered into between and among non-party
Amazon.com, Inc. and Sean Wilson in the lawsuit. The Plaintiff and
Amazon anticipate that Amazon will produce documents in the action
that contain sensitive consumer information.  The stipulation is
intended to supplement the protective order entered by the Court on
September 6, 2018.

The Stipulation and Order provides that Amazon Protected Material
designated under the terms of the Rider shall be used by the Class
Action Administrator and the Parties solely for the purpose of
providing notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount
owed to each member of the Settlement Class. Amazon Protected
Material shall not be used directly or indirectly for any other
purpose whatsoever.

No Amazon Protected Material provided by Amazon to the Class Action
Administrator under the terms of the Rider may be shared with any
of the Parties, unless specifically authorized by the Rider. It is
the intention of Amazon and the Parties that the Rider will protect
all materials produced by Amazon in the Actions unless otherwise
specified.

The protections conferred by the Rider cover not only the Amazon
Protected Material governed by the Rider as addressed, but also any
information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies,
excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus testimony,
conversations, or presentations by Plaintiff or his counsel in
court or in other settings that might reveal Amazon Protected
Material.

Nothing in the Rider shall prevent or restrict Amazon's own
disclosure or use of its own Amazon Protected Material for any
purpose, and nothing in the Rider shall preclude Amazon from
showing its Amazon Protected Material to an individual who prepared
the Amazon Protected Material.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated
November 30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5lcn6g5
from Leagle.com.

Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Todd Logan --
tlogan@edelson.com -- Brandt Silver-Korn -- bsilverkorn@edelson.com
-- of Edelson PC, in San Francisco, California; and Cecily C. Shiel
-- cshiel@tousley.com -- of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, in
Seattle, Washington, represent the Plaintiff and the Class.

James Howard -- JimHoward@dwt.com -- Molly N. Tullman --
mollytullman@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, in Seattle,
Washington, represent Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.


PNM RESOURCES: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Avangrid Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP has launched an
investigation into whether the board members of PNM Resources
("PNM" or the "Company") (NYSE: PNM) breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to
Avangrid, Inc. (NYSE: AGR).  

On October 21, 2020, PNM announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement with Avangrid. Under the terms of the
agreement, PNM stockholders will receive only $50.30 for each share
of PNM common stock they own.

The investigation concerns whether the PNM board failed to satisfy
its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether the board
adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and whether the
board obtained the best price possible for PNM shares of common
stock. Nationally recognized Johnson Fistel is investigating
whether the proposed deal represents adequate consideration,
especially given analysts' projections for future earnings and
revenue growth. The 52-week high for PNM was $56.14.

If you are a shareholder of PNM and believe the proposed buyout
price is too low or you're interested in learning more about the
investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please
include a phone number.

                     About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results
do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


PRECIGEN INC: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Precigen, Inc. ("Precigen" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:PGEN) for
violations of the securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. The SEC announced a cease-and-desist order
against Precigen on September 25, 2020. The order focuses on the
"inaccurate reports concerning the company's purported success
converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive
industrial chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion
('MBC') program." The SEC notes that Precigen, operating under the
name Intrexon at the time, "was primarily using significantly more
expensive pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but
was indicating that the results had been achieved using natural
gas." The SEC also stated that the Company "pitched the MBC program
privately to numerous potential business partners over the course
of 2017 and 2018. A number of these potential partners performed
due diligence on the MBC program, including reviewing lab results
and plans for commercialization. Intrexon has not yet found a
partner for the MBC program."

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.

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

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


PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Burchfield Alleges Mislabeling of Infant Meds
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BURCHFIELD; and JEANNINE BEATY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESTIGE CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10717 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 24, 2020) alleges that the Defendant misleads consumers by
using deceptive marketing techniques about their over-the-counter
pain reliever and fever reducers for infant, including Little
Remedies Infant Fever + Pain Reliever ("Infants' Product" or the
"Product").

According to the complaint, the medicine contained in a bottle of
Infants' Product contains the same active ingredient and
formulation (i.e. 160 mg per 5 mL of acetaminophen) that is
contained in a bottle of Defendant's Children's Fever + Pain
Reliever ("Children's Product"). Thus, there is no difference in
the medicine sold in the Infants' Product and the Children's
Product. But Defendant does not disclose this important information
anywhere on the Infants' Product packaging.

This material omission causes consumers economic damage because
consumers are charged substantially more money for the Infants'
Product—almost twice as much per ounce—than for the Children's
Product. In other words, the measure of damages (i.e. the price
premium for the Infant's Product) can easily be calculated because
the medicines are identical, the suit says.

Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. manufactures and distributes
over-the-counter health care and household cleaning products to
retail stores. The Company distributes products for oral, eye and
skin care cough, cold, allergy, and sinus, as well as household
cleansers, sponges, scrubbers, and cleaning pads. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5355
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in Paris Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARIS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of HENRY PARIS, JR., deceased,
CHRISTIE HEGEL, and ROLANDO HERNANDEZ, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 1:19-cv-21761-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas entered an Order:

   1. granting a motion for class certification;

   2. denying without prejudice the Movant-Intervenor Joan
      Kaltz's Motion to Intervene;

   3. certifying two classes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)
      consisting of:

      a. Progressive Select Class:

         "all insureds, under any Florida policy issued by
         Progressive Select covering a vehicle with private-
         passenger auto physical damage coverage for
         comprehensive or collision loss, who made a first-party
         claim determined to be a total loss, and whose total-
         loss payment did not include payment for Transfer Fees
         and/or included a payment (if any) for Sales Tax of
         less than 6% of the adjusted vehicle value (plus any
         applicable surtax), within the five year time period
         prior to the date on which this lawsuit was filed until
         the date of any certification order"; and

      b. Progressive American Class:

         "all insureds, under any Florida policy issued by
         Progressive American covering a vehicle with private-
         passenger auto physical damage coverage for
         comprehensive or collision loss, who made a first-party
         claim determined to be a total loss, and whose total-
         loss payment did not include payment for Transfer Fees
         and/or included a payment (if any) for Sales Tax of
         less than 6% of the adjusted vehicle value (plus any
         applicable surtax), within the five year time period
         prior to the date on which this lawsuit was filed until
         the date of any certification order.

   4. appointing Christie Hegel as representative of the
      Progressive Select class. Rolando Hernandez and Michael
      Paris, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Henry
      Paris, Jr., are appointed representatives of the
      Progressive American class"; and

   5. certifying Jacob Phillips, Esq. and Ed Normand, Esq.,
      Normand PLLC, Christopher Lynch, Esq., Christopher J.
      Lynch, P.A., Scott Ostrow, Esq., Jonathan Streisfeld,
      Esq., and Joshua R. Levine, Esq., Kopolowitz Ostrow
      Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Scott Edelsberg, Esq.,
      Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Andrew Shamis, Shamis &
      Gentile, P.A., as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1).

The Court earlier determined that Plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey
Martin's opinions on the availability and reliability of the
methods for calculating damages are admissible. The Plaintiffs have
proffered a methodology for calculating damages that can be applied
ministerially and formulaically across the entire class. The Court
finds that the predominance factor under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) is
satisfied. The Defendants do not contest the superiority of class
treatment in the present case separate from its other arguments
against class certification. The Court finds that class
certification is superior to other methods for adjudicating this
controversy.

The Plaintiffs allege Defendants underpaid Plaintiffs and putative
class members for amounts owed for sales tax and transfer fees as
part of the actual cash value "ACV" of their vehicles. According to
Plaintiffs, Defendants promised to pay insureds the ACV for
vehicles in the event of a "total loss." The ACV as defined under
Plaintiffs' theory of the case includes both sales tax and transfer
fees. All Plaintiffs and similarly situated insureds possessed
coverage under uniform policy provisions for comprehensive and
collision coverage. In practice, the Defendants do not pay transfer
fees as part of the ACV payments to insureds. As such, the
Plaintiff contends that every class member is owed a uniform
transfer fee.

A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for class certification
dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kVY4pL at no extra charge.[CC]

QATAR: Class Action Mulled Over Invasive Airport Strip-Search
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Pengilley, Jack Snape and Riley Stuart, writing for ABC
News, report that an Australian woman strip-searched by authorities
at a Qatari airport after a premature baby was found in a bathroom
says she is considering legal action over the "terrifying"
experience.

Two passengers from QR908 both told the ABC they had no idea what
was happening to them when all women on the plane were asked to get
off after a three-hour delay on October 2.

The two women wanted to remain anonymous and did not know each
other before boarding the flight to Sydney.

It had been due to leave Hamad International Airport (HIA) at
8:30pm local time but was delayed for three hours after a premature
baby was found in a bathroom at the terminal — a detail confused
passengers said was not communicated to them.

One of the women said all adult females were removed from the plane
by authorities and taken to two ambulances waiting outside the
airport.

"No-one spoke English or told us what was happening. It was
terrifying," she said.

"There were 13 of us and we were all made to leave.

"A mother near me had left her sleeping children on the plane.

"There was an elderly woman who was vision impaired and she had to
go too. I'm pretty sure she was searched."

She said while she respected Qatar's laws and culture, she was
considering legal action.

"If the other 12 women came forward with a class action, I would
definitely be part of that," she said.

Payne talking in front of an Australian flag and an otherwise dark
plain background.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne said the "grossly disturbing,
offensive, concerning set of events" had been referred to the
Australian Federal Police (AFP).

In a statement, HIA confirmed the infant was "safe" and being cared
for in Qatar, and that medical professionals "expressed concern to
officials about the health and welfare of a mother who had just
given birth and requested she be located prior to departing".

The other female passenger who spoke to the ABC said she was with a
group of about six women, who began panicking when they realised
they were being taken outside the airport.

"When I got in there, and there was a lady with a mask on and then
the authorities closed the ambulance behind me and locked it," she
said.

"They never explained anything.

"She told me to pull my pants down and that I needed to examine my
vagina.

"I said 'I'm not doing that' and she did not explain anything to
me. She just kept saying, 'we need to see it we need to see it'."

The woman said she tried to get out of the ambulance and the
authorities on the other side opened the door.

"I jumped out and then ran over to the other girls. There was
nowhere for me to run," she said.

The woman said she took her clothes off and was inspected, and
touched, by the female nurse.

"I was panicking. Everyone had gone white and was shaking," she
said.

"I was very scared at that point, I didn't know what the
possibilities were."

A Qatar Airways Airbus A350-900 on the tarmac on a lightly cloudy
day.

'Unacceptable treatment'
Senator Payne, who is also Minister for Women, said she was
expecting a report on the incident from the Qatari Government this
week.

"It is not something I have ever heard of occurring in my life, in
any context," she said.

"We have made our views very clear to the Qatari authorities on
this matter."

Senator Payne said the matter had been reported to the AFP.

It is not clear what powers the AFP would have over the incident,
which occurred in Doha in the Middle East.

Senator Payne declined to elaborate further until she had seen the
report, but did say the Government was informed of the matter when
it occurred on October 2.

Federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese described the incident as
"really disturbing" and said he would ask for a briefing from the
Government.

"In my view, it is completely unacceptable," he said.

"The Government has a relationship with Qatar, the Government's in
a position to regulate a range of activities and I would have
thought that it needs something other than just strong words."

NSW Police said the women received medical and psychological
support while in hotel quarantine in Sydney.

Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong took to social media to
urge Qatari authorities to be "transparent".

"These women should never have been subjected to this outrageous
violation," she tweeted.

"Labor supports the Government in registering Australia's serious
concerns with Qatari authorities." [GN]


QS NEXT: Rodriguez Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel J. Rodriguez, v. QS
Next Chapter LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00897-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an Order:

   1. granting the parties' Joint Motion for Conditional
      Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Action
      Settlement Agreement, on behalf of:

      "all persons (a) with an address in Arizona, (b) who
      signed an ignition interlock Program Service Agreement
      with QS Next Chapter, LLC f/k/a Express Interlock LLC
      d/b/a QuickStart Ignition Interlock for personal, family,
      or household purposes, (c) with an initial lease term
      greater than four months, and (d) which was in effect as
      of December 31, 2019 or had been terminated no earlier
      than May 8, 2019"; and

      The Defendant represents that there are approximately
      6,140 potential Class Members, including Plaintiff. This
      preliminary certification is for settlement purposes only
      and shall not be deemed to be an adjudication of any fact
      or issue.

   2. appointing Daniel J. Rodriguez as the Class
      Representative;

   3. appointing Jesse S. Johnson of Greenwald Davidson Radbil
      PLLC as Class Counsel.

   4. setting a Final Fairness Hearing for March 30, 2021 at
      10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 605, 401 W. Washington St.,
      Phoenix, Arizona.

      -- Settlement:

         The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant would
         create a Settlement Fund of $21,490.00. All Proposed
         Class members who respond to the mailed-out notice
         will receive a pro-rated share of the Settlement Fund.

         The Proposed Class member stands to recover between
         $17.00 and $35.00, and Plaintiff stands to receive
         $1,500.00. While not unreasonable on its face, given
         this disparity, the parties should be prepared to
         explain the Plaintiff's efforts taken as Proposed Class
         representative and any actual damages he sustained as a
         result of Defendant's actions.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UV35nV at no extra charge.[CC]

QUANTUM GLOBAL: $175,000 Deal in Taafua Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
preliminary approval to the proposed amended settlement in the case
PANIANI TAAFUA, Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06602-VKD (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Taafua filed the action for himself, and on behalf of a
putative class, for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, based on a disclosure form used by Quantum Global Technologies
(QGT), his former employer, that reportedly included an extraneous
liability waiver.  Mr. Taafua claims that QGT required him, and all
prospective employees, to sign a standard company form authorizing
QGT to obtain a consumer report from third party First Contact HR
to verify an applicant's background and experience.

Mr. Taafua contends that because QGT's form included a liability
waiver, in addition to a disclosure concerning a consumer report,
QGT violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, and as
a result, QGT also never received proper authorizations for any
reports it obtained using its standard form.  He further alleges
that he was confused by the standard disclosure and authorization
form and did not understand that QGT would be requesting a consumer
report as defined in the FCRA.  He goes on to allege that
nonetheless, upon information and belief, QGT then secured a
consumer report from First Contact HR.

Several months after the Court held an initial case management
conference, and before a noticed hearing on QGT's then-pending
motion to transfer venue, the parties settled.  The settlement
covered the period Oct. 30, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2018, on behalf of the
following class: all individuals who applied for employment with
and/or were employed by the Defendant in the United States and were
the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Defendant or
caused to be procured by the Defendant through third-party consumer
reporting agency First Contact HR during the Class Period.

The proposed settlement was non-reversionary and essentially
contemplated a release of claims in return for a total payment of
$125,902, from which $16,000 in estimated administrator expenses,
$41,967.33 in attorney's fees, $3,000 in costs, and a $5,000
service award would be deducted before the remaining $59,934.67 was
distributed to a class of 1,041 members based on an estimated 1,476
reports obtained during the class period.  An individual class
member could be entitled to more or less money depending on the
number of reports that were obtained for that individual.

The Court found no issue with certain aspects of the settlement,
including the class definition, the scope of the release and the
proposed cy pres award of unclaimed funds to the Education Fund of
the National Association of Consumer Advocates ("NACA").
Nevertheless, the Court denied Mr. Taafua's motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, concluding that he did not demonstrate
that Rule 23 class certification is warranted or that the proposed
settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate.  The Court's primary
concern was that the proposed settlement appeared to account for
QGT's potential statute of limitations defense with respect to Mr.
Taafua's claims, at the expense of approximately half of the
putative class members who have no such issue.  It also expressed
concern that the requested fees for Mr. Taafua's counsel comprised
over 33% of the total settlement, and thus exceeded the 25%
benchmark used in the Ninth Circuit.  Further, the Court noted that
Mr. Taafua had not provided sufficient support for the requested
$5,000 service award.

The parties have now agreed to an amended settlement, and Mr.
Taafua moves for preliminary approval of the amended settlement
terms.  Several aspects of the amended settlement are unchanged
from the prior proposed agreement.  The class definition, class
period, estimated class size, estimated number of procured consumer
reports, and the scope of the release remain the same.

Perhaps most notably, the Global Settlement Fund has increased to
$174,980. With respect to the distribution of those funds, the
estimated administrator costs ($16,000) remain the same, as do the
fees sought by Mr. Taafua's counsel ($41,967.33), with the result
that the requested fees now amount to approximately 24% of the
Global Settlement Fund.  Additionally, the counsel's requested
costs have decreased to $2,200, and the service award sought for
Mr. Taafua has been lowered to $3,500.

As for the remaining funds, $111,312.67, the amended settlement
contemplates that 13% will be distributed to the class members
whose claims fall outside the two-year statute of limitations
period and 87% will be distributed among those whose claims are
unquestionably timely.  An individual class member may be entitled
to more or less money depending on the number of reports that were
obtained for that individual and the period of time when the
report(s) were procured.  As with the prior agreement, the amended
settlement is non-reversionary, with any unclaimed funds to be
given as a cy pres award to NACA.

Considering the risks, expense and delay Mr. Taafua and class
members would face in proceeding to trial, together with the value
of all of the claims being released and the value of the proposed
settlement to the class members, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi
preliminarily concludes that the settlement, on the current record,
is fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Rule
23(e)(2), such that it is appropriate to send notice to the class.
Based on the foregoing and the parties' Amended Class Action
Release and Settlement Agreement, the Magistrate Judge granted Mr.
Taafua's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and
ordered that notice be given to the class.  The Magistrate Judge
preliminarily approved the settlement of the Action as memorialized
in the Settlement Agreement.

The Magistrate Judge conditionally certified, for purposes of
implementing the Settlement Agreement, the following settlement
class:

   All individuals who applied for employment with and/or were
   employed by Quantum Global Technologies, LLC in the United
   States and who were the subject of a consumer report that was
   procured by Quantum Global or caused to be procured by Quantum
   Global through third-party consumer reporting agency First
   Contact HR during the Class Period of Oct. 30, 2013 through
   Dec. 31, 2018.

Mr. Taafua is appointed as the representative of the Settlement
Class; Eric B. Kingsley and Kelsey M. Szamet of Kingsley & Kingsley
APC and Emil Davtyan of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as the
attorneys for the Settlement Class; and JND Legal Administration as
the Settlement Administrator.

The Magistrate Judge approved, as to forms and contents, the
Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Class Action Settlement.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Feb. 16, 2021 at 10:00
a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y32cyllk from Leagle.com.


QUDIAN INC: Securities Suit Settlement Wins Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: QUDIAN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:17-cv-09903-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Honorable
Jesse M. Furman entered an Order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
      acquired Qudian American Depositary Shares ("ADS") in or
      traceable to Qudian's initial public offering (the "IPO")
      on or about October 18, 2017 (the "Class")."

      Excluded from the Class are: (1) persons who suffered no
      compensable losses; and (2) (a) Defendants; (b) the legal
      representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and members
      of the Immediate Families of the Individual Defendants;
      (c) the parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, and
      predecessors of Qudian, the Underwriter Defendants, and
      the Selling Shareholder Defendants; (d) any persons who
      served as officers and/or directors of Qudian, the
      Underwriter Defendants, or the Selling Shareholder
      Defendants at the time of the IPO; (e) any entity in which
      any of the foregoing (a)- (d) excluded persons have or had
      a majority ownership interest at the time of the IPO; and
      (f) Defendants' liability insurance carriers. Also
      excluded from the Class are any persons and entities who
      or which validly exclude themselves by submitting a
      request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. For
      avoidance of doubt, any investment company or pooled
      investment fund, including, but not limited to, mutual
      fund families, exchange-traded funds, fund of funds, and
      hedge funds, in which any Underwriter Defendant has or had
      a direct or indirect interest, or as to which its
      affiliates act or acted as an investment advisor, but of
      which any Underwriter Defendant or any of its respective
      affiliates is not a majority owner or does not hold a
      majority beneficial interest, shall not be deemed an
      excluded person or entity.;

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Alan B. Hertz and the Alan
      Hertz Family 2012 Trust, and additional plaintiff Darwin
      Sutanto as Class Representatives for the Class;

   3. appointing Co-Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Class,
      pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure;

   4. preliminarily approving the Settlement; and

   5. authorizing Co-Lead Counsel to retain A.B. Data, Ltd. as
      Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the
      notice procedure in connection with the proposed
      Settlement as well as the processing of Claims.

According to a Law360 report, Qudian and its investors have struck
an $8.5 million deal.

The Settlement provides for these terms:

      --  Settlement Administration Fees and Expenses:

          All reasonable costs incurred in identifying Class
          Members and notifying them of the Settlement, as well
          as in administering the Settlement, shall be paid as
          set forth in the Stipulation without further order of
          the Court.

      --  Settlement Fund:

          The contents of the Settlement Fund held by Huntington
          National Bank (which the Court approves as the Escrow
          Agent) shall be deemed and considered to be in
          custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain subject
          to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as
          they shall be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation
          and/or further order(s) of the Court.

      --  Taxes:

          Co-Lead Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare
          any tax returns and any other tax reporting form for
          or in respect to the Settlement Fund, to pay from the
          Settlement Fund any Taxes owed with respect to the
          Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all
          obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or
          filings in respect thereof without further order of
          the Court in a manner consistent with the provisions
          of the Stipulation.

      --  Termination of Settlement:

          If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the
          Stipulation, the Settlement is not approved, or the
          Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to
          occur, this Order shall be vacated, rendered null and
          void, and be of no further force and effect, except as
          otherwise provided by the Stipulation, and this Order
          shall be without prejudice to the rights of
          Plaintiffs, the other Class Members, and Defendants,
          and the Parties shall revert to their respective
          positions in the Action as of October 14, 2020, as
          provided in the Stipulation.

The Related cases are: Case No. 1:17-cv-09796-JMF, Case No.
1:17-cv-09875-JMF, and Case No. 1:17-cv-09894-JMF. The Master File
Case No. Is Case No. 1:17-cv-09741-JMF.

A copy of the Court's Order preliminarily approving settlement and
providing for notice dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33ixVvr at no extra charge.[CC]

Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jack I. Zwick, Esq.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1440
          New York, NY 10007
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

The Defendants' Counsel are:

          James G. Kreissman, Esq.
          Stephen P. Blake, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304

               - and -

          Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
          William J. Sushon, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Rollo C. Baker IV, Esq.
          Jesse Bernstein, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010

R.J. HARRIS: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Gutierrez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESTER GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.J. HARRIS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
R.J. HARRIS CONSTRUCTION (GULF COAST), L.P., JAN HARRIS and ROGER
HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-04010 (S.D. Tex., November 24,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from March 2014 until June 2020.

The complaint claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other
construction workers as independent contractors and as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite regularly working
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay them
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate required by
the FLSA. Instead, the Defendant paid them regular hourly rate for
all hours they worked.

R.J. Harris Construction, Inc. and R.J. Harris Construction (Gulf
Coast), L.P. provide construction services and have a unified
operational control and management, as well as control over
employees. The Individual Defendants are owners of R.J. Harris
Construction and R.J. Gulf Coast. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


REALGY LLC: Lindenbaum Appeals Order in TCPA Suit to Sixth Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Roberta Lindenbaum filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 29, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Roberta Lindenbaum, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALGY, LLC
(d/b/a REALGY ENERGY SERVICES), a Connecticut limited liability
company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-02862, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants arising under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff files this complaint against the Defendant to: (1)
stop their practice of placing calls using "an artificial or
prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; and (2) obtain redress
for all persons injured by their conduct.

On October 29, 2020, the District Court granted Realgy, LLC's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. The Defendant's request for
oral argument is denied as unnecessary.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberta Lindenbaum v. Realgy,
LLC, et al., Case No. 20-4252, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, November 30, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Appellant brief is due on January 11, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on February 8, 2021.[BN]

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

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com  

Defendant-Appellee REALGY, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
company, (d.b.a. Realgy Energy Services), is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER
          171 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 400-7300
          E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RETA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA)

Class Period: October 15, 2019 to August 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

Reata is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
novel therapeutics for patients with serious or life-threatening
diseases by targeting molecular pathways that regulate cellular
metabolism and inflammation.

Among Reata's drug candidates under development is omaveloxolone,
which is in Phase 2 clinical development to treat Friedreich's
ataxia ("FA").  Following the announcement of positive data from
the MOXIe Part 2 study of omaveloxolone for FA in October 2019, the
Company represented that it would seek submission for marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On August 10, 2020, Reata issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2020 financial results, wherein it disclosed that
the FDA is "not convinced that the MOXIe Part 2 results" of the
Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA
"will support a single study approval without additional evidence
that lends persuasiveness to the results," and that, "[i]n
preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that
[Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that
confirms the mFARS [modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale]
results of the MOXIe Part 2 study with a similar magnitude of
effect."

On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%,
to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on October 15, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were
insufficient to support a single study marketing approval of
omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. without
additional evidence; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
FDA would not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study
results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Reata class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/REATA

               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]


ROYAL SEAS: Wants Class Certification Orders Vacated
----------------------------------------------------
Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., asks the Court to dismiss two class
action lawsuits and vacate the Court's Orders granting Class
Certification because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled
on July 6, 2020, that the "government-debt" exception to Section
227(b)(1)(A) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is
unconstitutional as a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Defendant contends that for nearly five years -- and the
entirety of the class period in this case -- Sections
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(1)(B) were unconstitutional and void,
meaning the Court has no jurisdiction to enforce those provisions
against Royal Seas for calls placed during that period.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "Dan DeForest, Individually and and on Behalf of All Others
    Similarly Situated, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No.
    3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.)"; and

    John McCurley, Individually and and on Behalf of All Others
    Similarly Situated, v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No.
    3:17-cv-01988-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Defendant's motion to dismiss and vacate orders
granting class certification dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KJdK38 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff John McCurley are:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Dan DeFores are:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard W. Epstein, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
          200 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 527 2427
          Facsimile: 954 333 4027
          E-mail: richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
                 jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Cummings, Esq.
          Blake L. Osborn, Esq.
          GM LAW
          401 E. Jackson St., Suite 1825
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: 813 769 7020
          Fax: 813 426 8582
          E-mail: Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
                  Blake.Osborn@gmlaw.com

RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Court Denies Motion to Decertify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A.,
and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-01921-SI (D. Oreg.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon
entered an Order:

   1. denying Ruby's Motion to Decertify the Class, First Motion
      for Summary Judgment, Second Motion for Summary Judgment,
      and Third Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment,
      Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Lori Bocklund, and
      Motion to Exclude Certain Evidence from the Declarations
      of Diana Stepleton.

In this class action, the Plaintiffs allege breach of contract,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, money had and
received, and unjust enrichment, all based on Ruby's allegedly
misleading practices relating to the billing of what Ruby calls a
"receptionist minute."

Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certified a class consisting of:

    "all persons or entities in the United States who obtained
    receptionist services from Defendant Ruby Receptionists
    between November 2, 2012 and May 31, 2018, pursuant to its
    form Service Agreements."

The Plaintiffs and class representatives McKenzie Law Firm, P.A.
and Oliver Law Offices, Inc. are former clients of the Defendant
Ruby Receptionists, Inc., a business that provides virtual
receptionist services.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 18, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fu01bW at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
          Cody O. Berne, Esq.
          Megan K. Houlihan, Esq.
          STOLL BERNE PC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104

               - and -

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          LAX LLP
          380 Lexington Avenue 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10168

               - and -

          Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERKSOWITZ
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., No. 1704
          Miami, FL

               - and -

          Gregory J. Brod, Esq.
          BROD LAW FIRM PC
          96 Jessie Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Misha A.D. Isaak, Esq.
          Renee E. Rothauge, Esq.
          Julia E. Markley, Esq.
          Philip R. Higdon, Esq.
          Patrick L. Rieder, Esq.
          Edward Choi, Esq.
          Gregory J. Mina, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor
          Portland, OR 97209

               - and -

          Andrew R. Escobar, Esq.
          Austin Rainwater, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
          Seattle, WA 98104

RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SUNDERMANN on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. RYAN ROHLF, Case No.
4:19-cv-00140-RP-CFB (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order granting class certification and appointing class counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiff Sundermann seeks certification of the proposed class,
composed of Prerecorded Messages Class:

   "all persons within the United States: (a) the Defendants
   and/or third party acting on their behalf, made one or more
   non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to their cellular or
   residential telephone number; (c) using an artificial
   prerecorded voice; and (d) at any time in the period that
   begins four years before the date of Plaintiff’s Complaint."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mfA8z5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          Timothy M. Hansen, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414 273-7676
          Facsimile: 414 273-8476
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
                  thansen@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: 617-485-0018
          Facsimile: 508-318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

SAFECO INSURANCE: Signor Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA SIGNOR, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SAFECO INSURANCE
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 0:19-cv-61937-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P.
      23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the "Class" or "Class Members"

      defined as:

      "all individuals who: (a) on or after June 25, 2014; (b)
      are or were covered by a Safeco Florida personal
      automobile insurance policy; (c) made a claim under the
      Collision or Comprehensive coverage of that policy for
      damage or loss to a covered vehicle which Safeco accepted
      and treated as a total loss claim; and (d) Safeco paid the
      claim on a cash settlement basis with the actual cash
      value derived from the China Compulsory Certification
      (CCC) system. The class period will be from June 25, 2014,
      to the date of class certification (hereinafter the "Class
      Period").

   2. appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel under
      Rule 23(g); and

   3. appointing Signor as Class Representative.

The Plaintiff contends the CCC system worked the same way on every
Class Member's claim. That includes applying Uniform Condition
Adjustments to all the comparable vehicles used to calculate the
total loss vehicles' base values to take them from "dealer ready"
condition to "normal wear" condition, which constitutes a reduction
to the total loss vehicles' values because of depreciation. This
violates section 626.9743(6) -- requiring depreciation reduction
information be itemized and maintained in the claim files -- and
thereby breaches the Policy, and this identical misconduct does not
vary between Class members. Safeco's use of the CCC system also
violates Fla. Stat. section 626.9743(5)(a)(2) and breaches the
Policy on its face and as conformed to the Policy, the Plaintiff
adds.

Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois operates as an insurance
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kNbbJL at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff William Signor and the Class, are:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          Primary: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 210
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com;
                  mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Primary: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murry, Jr.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Suite 2150 Poydras Center
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-525-8100
          Facsimile: 504-584-5249
          Primary: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brandt Seeks to Certify Truck Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric R. Brandt, v.
Schneider National, Inc., Schneider National Carriers, Inc.,
Schneider Finance, Inc., & DOE Defendants 1-10, Case No.
1:20-cv-01049-WCG (E.D. WIsc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as an Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorizing
      notice of this action and the right to opt-into it to the
      following persons:

      "all individuals who drove trucks for Schneider National,
      Inc. and any of its subsidiary, related, or affiliated
      companies pursuant to an Owner-Operator Operating
      Agreement at any time during the period December 2013 to
      the present";

   2. approving the proposed Notice and Opt-In Form, reminder
      postcard, and Qualcomm notice;

   3. giving class members 120 days to file their consent to sue
      forms with the Court; and

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff to disseminate the notice in the
      following manner:

      (a) Mail and email the notice and opt-in form within 10
          days of receiving the necessary contact information
          from the Defendants to the addresses provided;

      (b) Mail and email reminder notices to collective action
          members who have not opted-in or otherwise responded
          within 60 days of the initial mailing.

      (c) Authorizing resending of any notice that is returned
          because the address is incorrect should Plaintiff
          discover more up-to-date addresses.

   5. directing the Defendants to assist with dissemination of
      the Notice:

      (a) Provide Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days the
          following information for each of the individuals
          described in the collective action definition above:
          first name, last name, street address, city, state,
          zip, email address, and a unique employee
          identification number. The information should be
          provided in an electronic spreadsheet format such as
          Excel, with each item of information contained in a
          separate column.

      (b) Order Defendants to produce the last four digits of
          the social security number and telephone number for
          any collective member whose notice is returned because
          the address is incorrect so that Plaintiff can attempt
          to find the proper address and re-issue notice.

      (c) Order Defendants to issue a short statement through
          its Qualcomm communication system to collective
          members currently working for Defendants indicating
          that a lawsuit that may affect them has been filed and
          indicating where they can obtain a copy of the
          notice.; and

   6. equitably estopping the Defendants from claiming statute
      of limitations as a defense to claims from October 10,
      2014 to the present as a result of the illegal, deceptive,
      and coercive provisions set forth in sections 8(e), 8(f),
      and/or par. 24(e) of the OA.

Schneider National provides transportation services. The Company
offers freight transportation, cargo, truckload, and logistic
services.

A copy of the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify FLSA
collective action, dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mcYNEr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael M. Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4747 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
          23 Rue Du Laos
          Paris, France
          Telephone: 33 684 79 89 30
          E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ROMERO, FRANK
TISCARENO, and KENNETH ELLIOTT on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller
entered an Order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
      Class Action Settlement;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for $840,000 in attorneys'
      fees and costs;

   3. denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for $60,000 in
      incentive awards. Instead, each of the three Plaintiffs is
      awarded $10,000 for a total of $30,000;

   4. denying a request that the remaining amount within the
      total settlement amount be applied to the costs
      incurred in the litigation for the benefit of all
      Class Members. However, the Plaintiffs are awarded an
      additional $30,000 in attorneys' fees for a total
      award of $870,000 in attorneys' fees and costs;

   5. authorizing the settlement administrator, ILYM Group,
      Inc., to establish, govern, and administer a
      qualified settlement fund under Internal Revenue Code
      section 468B for purposes of paying attorneys' fees
      to any attorney, but only the attorney who requests
      his/her share of any attorneys' fees awarded in this
      case be paid to and received by a qualified
      settlement fund; and

   6. dismissing the case with prejudice.

Judge Miller said, "The regulations accompanying [26 U.S.C.]
Section 468B . . ., as amended, shall be used in interpreting the
fund in a manner to accomplish the intent of the parties that the
fund be characterized as a qualified settlement fund under those
regulations. The court retains jurisdiction over this action for
purposes of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement, but not
for the purpose of hearing related individual claims by class
members against Securus for monetary damages, violation of the
CIPA, or otherwise. The parties need not present a final approval
to the court order as set forth in paragraph VI.B.3 of the
settlement agreement."

On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit alleging that Securus unlawfully recorded calls between
detainees and attorneys. Securus provides inmate communication
services for correctional facilities throughout California.

The Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense
attorney who used Securus' telephone services to make calls to and
from correctional facilities and whose calls were recorded.

Securus Technologies is a prison communications firm. The company
has been criticized for developing phone tracking technologies that
can be used outside prisons and for charging very high rates for
calls, in addition to pushing to mandate the removal of in-person
meetings of inmates with their families.

A copy of the Court's Order on motion for final approval of class
action settlement dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q28Dv0 at no extra charge.[CC]

SERVICE KING: Moniz et al Seek to Certify 9 Classes of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SERVICE KING, INC. a California corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 2 through
100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Erica
Moniz, Hagop Ajemyan, Hugo Gutierrez and Philip Gabriel ask the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23; and

   2. certifying nine California-only classes consisting of
      non-exempt employees of Defendant Service King Paint &
      Body, LLC:

      -- Piece-Rate Class (Body Technicians & Painters):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Body
         Technician, Body Technician Helper, Painter and/or
         Painter's Helper, and who were eligible to receive
         "Productivity Earnings," during the time period
         December 9, 2016 through the present date";

      -- Commission Class (Service Advisors):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Service
         Advisor, and who were eligible to receive "Productivity
         Earnings," during the time period September 25, 2014
         through February 28, 18 2020";

      -- Unpaid Overtime Class I (Body Technicians & Painters):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Body
         Technician, Body Technician Helper, Painter and/or
         Painter's Helper, and who were separately compensated
         for rest periods during the time period December 9,
         2016 to August 18, 2017";

      -- Unpaid Overtime Class II (Service Advisors):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Service
         Advisor, and who were separately compensated for rest
         periods during the time period January 15, 2016 to
         August 18, 2017";

      -- Meal Period Class (Miscalculation of Section 226.7
         Premiums):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Service
         Advisor, Body Technician, Body Technician Helper,
         Painter and/or Painter's Helper, and who earned
         "Productivity Earnings," and also received a meal
         period premium payment in the same pay period, during
         the time period August 25, 2017 through the present
         date";

         Direct Wage Statement Class (No Hours or Rates of Pay
         for "Addl Ot"):

         "all current and former non-exempt employees of Service
         King in California who held the position of Service
         Advisor, Body Technician, Body Technician Helper,
         Painter and/or Painter's Helper, and who earned
         "Productivity Earnings" and worked overtime in the same
         pay period, thereby receiving a line item on their wage
         statement denoted as "Addl Ot," during the time period
         December 21, 2017 through the present date";

      -- Derivative Wage Statement Class:

         "all members of the following classes: (i) Piece-Rate
         Class (Body Technicians & Painters); (ii) Commission
         Class (Service Advisors); (iii) Unpaid Overtime Class I
         (Body Technicians & Painters); and/or (iv) Unpaid
         Overtime Class II (Service Advisors), who received a
         wage statement during the time period December 21, 2017
         through the present date";

      -- Waiting Time Penalty Class I (Body Technicians &
         Painters):

         "all members of the following classes: (i) Piece-Rate
         Class (Body Technicians & Painters); (ii) Unpaid
         Overtime Class I (Body Technicians & Painters); and/or
         (iii) Meal Period Class (Miscalculation of Section
         226.7 Premiums -- Body Technicians and Painters), who
         separated their employment between December 9, 2016
         through the present date"; and

      -- Waiting Time Penalty Class II (Service Advisors):

         "all members of the following classes: (i) Commission
         Class (Service Advisors); (ii) Unpaid Overtime Class II
         (Service Advisors), and/or (iii) Meal Period Class
         (Miscalculation of Section 226.7 Premiums -- Service
         Advisors), who separated their employment between
         September 25, 2015 through the present date";

   3. appointing themselves as representatives of the Classes;

   4. appointing Paul K. Haines and Sean M. Blakely of Haines
      Law Group, APC; Eric A. Boyajian and Amaras Zargarian of
      The Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC; and Marcus J.
      Bradley and Kiley L. Grombacher of Bradly/Grombacher, LLP,
      as Class Counsel; and

   5. authorizing themselves to send Notice to all absent Rule
      23 Class Members.

The primary issues in this case pertain to the method by which
Service King compensates its Body Technicians, Painters and Service
Advisors. The Plaintiffs contend that Body Technicians and Painters
are paid on a piece-rate basis, and Service Advisors are paid on a
commission basis.  They assert that Service King does not comply
with California law in compensating these employees.

Service King operates auto body collision and repair shops in the
country, including approximately 39 locations in California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39nX9fL at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Boyajian, Esq.
          Amaras Zargarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC
          100 West Broadway, Suite 1060
          Glendale, CA 91210
          Telephone: (818) 839-5969
          Facsimile: (818) 296-9230

               - and -

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

SERVICEMASTER COMPANY: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANESHA EDWARDS and
JESSICA ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ASSURED
ENVIRONMENTS, and RAMAC CORPORATION (US) d/b/a ASSURED
ENVIRONMENTS, Case No. 1:20-cv-06124-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certify the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b);

      "all current and former Customer Service Representatives
      (CSSs) who were employed at the Defendants' New York
      location from August 5, 2017 through the date the Court
      authorizes notice to be sent, so that they may decide
      whether to join the case before their FLSA claims expire."

   2. compelling the Defendants to produce within 10 days of the
      Court's decision a computer-readable data file containing,
      for each Collective member: (a) name; (b) last known
      mailing address(es); (c) last known email address(es) of
      all potential class members employed by Defendant from
      August 5, 2017 through present;

   3. authorizing the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed
      Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join to the Collective
      in Plaintiffs' proposed envelope by U.S. Mail and email;

   4. authorize the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed Reminder
      Notice to the Collective by U.S. Mail and email; and

   5. equitably tolling the FLSA statute of limitations to
      August 5, 2017.

The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants knew and intended for CSS to
work off-the-clock in order to promptly address clients and
maintain their advertised reputation of being accessible 24/7/365.
The CSSs all performed the same primary job duties.  The Defendants
required their CSSs to work off-the-clock overtime hours without
additional compensation. The Plaintiffs Tanesha Edwards and Jessica
Ortega and Opt-In Plaintiff Ashley Lawson worked as CSSs for the
Defendants, worked off-the-clock overtime, and were denied overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiffs and
their similarly situated coworkers all worked at the Defendants'
same office located in New York.

The Defendants are in the commercial pest control and service
business within hospitality, retail, educational, and food
processing facilities throughout the tri-state area. The Defendants
employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals to
respond to customer service calls and emails, schedule and route
technicians in the field for pest control services based on client
requests, and respond to service and field calls for emergency or
re-scheduling needs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fEUr6q at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative FLSA Collective and
Rule 23 Classes, are:

          Marijana Matura, Esq.
          Tana Forrester, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100

SHOPKO: Judge Okays $3.018MM Severance Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Jean, writing for Williston Herald, reports that a Nebraska
bankruptcy judge has approved a $3.018 million severance settlement
for almost 4,000 Shopko employees who were laid off when the chain
of 351 stores declared bankruptcy last year.

The plaintiffs are former Shopko employees, who organized with
United for Respect to file a class action lawsuit, in hopes of
regaining at least some of the severance they were all promised.
The settlement will cover all the severance owed the employees who
were part of the suit, less any legal fees that will be deducted
from it.

Shopko collapsed last year with $1 billion-some in debts, stemming
from a $1.1 billion leveraged buyout in 2005 by private equity firm
Sun Capital Partners.

According to a media release from United for Respect, when Sun
Capital purchased the stores, they sold the locations to Spirit
Finance Corp., a real estate investment trust, which then leased
the buildings and land back to Shopko. This added a large amount of
debt to the chain's balance sheet, while stripping it of assets,
setting the stage for its ultimate bankruptcy.

Between 2007 and 2015, Shopko was forced to pay out most of its
profits to Sun Capital, in the amount of $250 million in dividends
and management fees. This starved Shopko of capital for the
investments it needed to remain competitive, at a time when the
retailer was already near insolvency.

Shopko filed for Chapter 11 on Jan. 16, 2019, eventually leaving
14,000 people unemployed. Last year in March, the company announced
it would close all remaining stores by June.

Protesters gathered this year in Wisconsin to mark the anniversary
of Shopko's demise, and U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin
gathered with other elected officials for a town hall discussing
the need to curtail these types of private equity deals which strip
companies of their assets and rob them of future profits, leaving
them with little but debts, and ultimately leading to the
destruction of both jobs and communities.

The settlement approved by the Nebraska judge excluded 2,700
employees referred to as phase seven workers, who were all part of
the last group of employees to work at Shopko during its
liquidation process. At the time, the company sent a memo to
employees promising severance pay as an incentive to keep them
working through the liquidation process, according to various media
reports at the time.

In a letter sent to Sun Capital, the excluded workers urged the
company to honor its commitment.

"As you know, Shopko had a severance policy in place for years
prior to the bankruptcy. We were counting on that severance to
support us in the event we were laid off," the letter reads in
part. "But that severance policy was terminated shortly before
Shopko announced it was liquidating. . . . We are calling on Sun
Capital to ensure that every Shopko employee in phase seven and who
worked at corporate receives a severance payment. We worked hard to
make Shopko a beloved brand. Sun Capital should show us the respect
we have earned."

An email has been sent to Sun Capital seeking comment about the
settlement and the exclusion of phase seven workers. This story
will be updated if and when any comments are received from the
company. [GN]


SUNPATH LTD: Morales Seeks Provisional Class Status for TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT MORALES II, BEN
FABRIKANT, STEPHEN OST, BRANDON CALLIER, and NATHAN BYARS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 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-RGA (D.
Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting preliminary injunction against Sunpath;

   2. provisionally certifying an Injunctive Relief Class;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. and Mark L. Javitch as
      Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend their Motion for Preliminary Injunction
should be granted because they have established that violation(s)
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)
and 227(c) (TCPA) have occurred, there is a strong likelihood that
the violations will continue, and the public interest strongly
weighs in favor of the injunction.  The Motion for Provisional
Class Certification should also be granted because the Plaintiffs
and the Sunpath Injunctive Relief Class satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) elements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and
adequacy. Further, Plaintiffs establish under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2) that Sunpath has acted or refused to act on grounds that
apply generally to the Sunpath Injunctive Relief Class, so that
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the Sunpath Injunctive Relief Class as a
whole.

A copy of the plaintiffs' combined motions for preliminary
injunction and provisional class certification dated Nov. 17, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2J0jvsC at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes, are:

          Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
          THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 225-7600
          Facsimile: (302) 298-0688
          E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          www.attorneyzim.com
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

T&D CUSTOM: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RAMIREZ individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
T&D CUSTOM FENCES AND DECKS, LLC and TIMMY WELLS, Case No.
7:20-cv-00144-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorization
      to send initial and subsequent Court-supervised Notices
      to:

         "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who
         are or were employed by the T&D Custom Fences and
         Decks, LLC and/or Timmy Wells beginning August 7, 2017
         to the present";

   2. approving proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and
      the corresponding Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form;

   3. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's
      counsel, within seven days, a computer-readable data file
      containing the names, addresses, email addresses,
      telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security
      numbers and dates of birth for all Potential Plaintiffs;

   4. approving court-facilitated notice of this collective
      action to the Potential Plaintiffs;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the Notice and Consent,
      at their expense, by First-Class U.S. Mail and email to
      all Potential Plaintiffs to inform them of their right to
      opt-in to this lawsuit, together with a postage-paid
      return envelope addressed to the Plaintiff's counsel;

   6. authorizing a 90-day opt-in period for Potential
      Plaintiffs to opt-in; and

   7. directing the posting of the Notice at Defendants'
      facilities in locations where currently employed Potential
      Plaintiffs are likely to view it.

A copy of the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
collective action dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/368qZmf at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNER LAW, PLLC
          1213 Culbreth Drive, Suite 426
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (844) 437-7637
          Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

TARGET CORP: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Ruling in Pearson Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Beck, of Reed Smith LLP, said, "we'll be very clear -- as we
have before:  We don't like most class actions.  Indeed, if given
our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class
actions for damages, altogether.  But that's not in the offing
anytime soon.  Today, we offer a class action decision that we
think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs
side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the
problem."

In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court
came up with one possible solution to the class action "objector
problem."

What's that?

Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often
"objectors" come out of the woodwork.  While these objectors
purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they
want is money to make them go away.  Or, as described in Pearson:

We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation
known colloquially as "objector blackmail."  The scenario is
familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense.  A
plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for
approval by the district court.  A few class members object to the
settlement but the court approves it. . . .  The objectors then
file appeals.  As it turns out, though, they are willing to abandon
their appeals in return for sizable side payments that do not
benefit the plaintiff class: a figurative "blackmail" by selfish
holdouts threatening to disrupt collective action unless they are
paid off.
968 F.3d at 829.

Since the motive of these "selfish" objectors is strictly
pecuniary, removing their ability to collect (and keep) the money
they get simply for getting out of the way would effectively end
this problem.  That's what happened here.

In Pearson the original class action settlement had been
successfully opposed as "a ‘selfish deal'" by virtually the only
class action objector we think gives them a good name - Ted Frank.
Id. at 830 (describing Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778, 787
(7th Cir. 2014)).  The settlement was then reworked and reapproved.
Id.  Up popped three new objectors, and the following occurred:
"All three objectors appealed.  All three dismissed their appeals
before briefing began.  The dismissals struck Frank as suspicious
and possibly in bad faith."  Id. at 830-31.

Frank filed "a motion for disgorgement of any payments made to
objectors in exchange for dismissing their appeals."  Id. at 831.
The district court didn't think it had jurisdiction to do that.
Another appeal ensued, and the Seventh Circuit determined that it
did.  See id. at 829 (describing Pearson v. Target Corp., 893 F.3d
980, 983 (7th Cir. 2018)).

Back in the district court again, and discovery revealed that, sure
enough, the objectors had been paid off.  "[T]he three objectors
had indeed all received side payments in exchange for dismissing
their appeals—$60,000 each to [two of them] and $10,000 to [the
third] . . . while the class had received nothing."  968 F.3d at
831.  Nonetheless, they were allowed to keep the money because the
side deals did not "harm" the class "by taking money that had been
earmarked for it."  Id.  By this time, none of the original
litigants was party to the appeal - leaving Frank and the settling
objectors to duke it out.  Id.

Ted Frank - winner by a knockout.

And a knockout the third Seventh Circuit Pearson opinion indeed is.
It was an abuse of discretion not to order disgorgement of the
objector's side deals:

[I]n finding that the money defendants paid to objectors had not
been earmarked for the class, the district court failed to address
a critical piece of evidence.  More fundamental, though, that
factual question appeared relevant only because the district
legally erred by requiring some positive statutory violation as a
predicate for disgorgement.

968 F.3d at 831.  The same principle that motivates the in pari
delicto defense applied -- "[i]t has long been axiomatic "that no
person shall profit by his own wrong."  Id. (citation and quotation
marks omitted).  The role that objectors are supposed to play in
class action litigation, justifies treating them as fiduciaries.
"As a general rule, wherever confidence is reposed, and one party
has it in his power, in a secret manner, for his own advantage, to
sacrifice those interests, which he is bound to protect, he shall
not be permitted to hold any such advantage."  Id. at 832.  These
"ancient principles" apply to class action litigation.  Id. at 834.
Objectors thus "ha[ve] a duty to object only in good faith."  Id.
(citation and quotation marks omitted).

The Seventh Circuit thus ordered the objectors to pay back their
side deal proceeds to the class:

These objectors made sweeping claims of general defects in the . .
. settlement.  Either those objections had enough merit to stand a
genuine chance of improving the entire class's recovery, or they
did not.  If they did, the objectors sold off that genuine chance,
which was the property of the entire class, for their own, strictly
private, advantage.  If they did not, the objectors' settlements of
meritless claims traded only on the strength of the underlying
litigation, also the property of the entire class, to leverage
defendants' and class counsel's desire to bring it to a close.
Either way, the money the objectors received in excess of their
interests as class members "was not paid for anything they owned,"
and thus belongs in equity to the class.

968 F.3d at 834 (quoting Young v. Higbee Co., 324 U.S. 204, 214
(1945)).

So blackmailing objectors can be ordered to disgorge the proceeds
of their side deals, which will go a long ways -- perhaps all the
way -- to eliminating the incentive for this kind of legalized
extortion.  But what to do with the money?  The "best remedy, to
give it to the class, "is no longer possible or would be
self-defeating because the administration costs would swallow the
benefits."  Id. at 837 (citation omitted).  What the court came up
with, we don't much like, a cy pres "constructive trust."  Id.  In
our opinion, the money should be returned to whomever the bogus
objectors extorted those funds from (which is not clear from the
opinion), but we'd rather just about anybody get it other than the
blackmailing objectors who received it.

We agree that "reasonable and good-faith objections" should not be
deterred by the Pearson court's treatment of objectors as
fiduciaries.  Id. at 838.  Just don't take secret payoffs as a quid
pro quo to abandon purportedly valid appeals:

We do not expect any good-faith objector will fail to bring her
objection because she is prohibited from selling out the class in
exchange for private payment, where she may choose instead not to
sell out the class and still receive payment if she brings the
class a real benefit.

Id.  Let's see if other courts follow the Seventh Circuit's lead in
cutting through the Gordian Knot of objector blackmail. [GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE MACKEY BARTLE, on
behalf of herself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., Case No. 4:20-cv-00166-SRB (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons and entities who owned a Scottrade brokerage
      account and received a substitute payment in that account
      in lieu of dividends and/or interest during the time
      period January 23, 2010 through February 26, 2018."

      Excluded from the class are all judicial officers
      presiding over this or any related case. The class
      definition also excludes all shareholders, officers and
      employees of Scottrade and TD Ameritrade.

   2. appointing Annette Mackey Bartle as the Class
      Representative;

   3. appointing as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(g) the attorneys of Bartle & Marcus LLC and The Law
      Office of Jared A. Rose; and

   4. directing the parties to submit an agreed-upon class
      notice or submit any disputes they may have over class
      notice within 21 days of a class certification order so
      that notice may be issued promptly.

The Plaintiff's claims generally arise from the allegation
Scottrade Inc. breached its contractual obligation to compensate
her for losses that accrued to her brokerage account each time she
received substitute payments in lieu of qualified dividends.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed income
investments.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nLRB2s at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 256-4699
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: Dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -

          Jared A. Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE
          919 West 47th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-4335
          Facsimile: (816) 873-5406
          E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com

TEXAS: Foster Care Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------
Roxanna Asgarian, writing for Observer, reports that it used to be
right there, crouched in the Southeast Texas pines between an RV
park and a snake-shaped creek: Good Shepherd Residential Treatment
Centre, a home away from home for troubled boys ages 7 to 17. An
opening in the timber reveals a collection of vacant, red-brick
buildings, complete with a deserted playground and cafeteria. From
here the din of traffic from nearby Highway 249, where thousands of
commuters hustle south each day from the suburb of Tomball to
Houston and points beyond, is a low but ever-present hum. Few
motorists ever pay the site much mind; if you didn't know where to
look, you'd pass it in the blink of an eye.

Today - just as in the days when Good Shepherd was open for
business - the place might as well be invisible.

By the time Korbin Smith arrived here, he had become an expert in
sneaking out of places like Good Shepherd. Smith was 12 when the
state sent him here from a similar facility in Denton. Small for
his age with big ears, Smith had entered foster care at age 10 when
his mom, who he says struggled with drugs, couldn't afford to keep
the lights on at home. He was used to running around the
neighborhood and getting into trouble, and the shift from a life
without rules to the restrictive regimen of a treatment center was
a shock to the system.

He soon developed a singular, unshakeable desire: to escape.

Smith's best friend at Good Shepherd was Colby Holcomb, a redhead
with freckles who also dreamed of escaping. So one early summer
afternoon in 2013, Smith and Holcomb made a run for it. The boys
made it a couple miles to a nearby middle school and hid behind a
subdivision entrance sign until night fell. By then, the Good
Shepherd staff had realized they were gone and loaded into a van to
find them. It didn't take long. As the van rounded into sight,
Smith ran; Holcomb gave himself up. Eventually both the boys were
intercepted and pulled into the van.

Once inside, staff members began pummeling them.

Back at Good Shepherd, they pushed him and Holcomb out of the van,
Smith remembers, kicking them and cursing at them. When he started
to cry, facility manager Tracey Peters hit him in the face and
ordered him to calm down. They brought the boys inside, stripped
them down to their underwear, and beat them. Holcomb was left with
black eyes and a busted lip.

The next day, Smith, who is now 21, was brought into a room with
Peters. The woman's tone had changed dramatically since Holcomb had
reported the abuse to his caseworker. Now, she hugged Smith,
assuring him everything would be OK, and she asked him to take
responsibility for Holcomb's injuries. The attention bowled Smith
over. So when state investigators followed up on the allegation of
abuse, Smith lied and said it was he who had hit Holcomb, not the
employees. In return, Peters treated him to a nice dinner at a
restaurant—a vast improvement over the bland treatment center
fare. "I was used to her being mean, and now she was being nice,
and I didn't want it to stop," Smith says.

The account is based on Smith and Holcomb's recollections of the
incident. Though the two young men have not spoken in years, they
relayed the same details of it. Good Shepherd was closed in 2017.
Repeated attempts to contact its former executive director, J.
Charles Hinds, along with Peters, were unsuccessful.

Joey Garner, Good Shepherd's clinical director at the time of the
incident, declined to comment on multiple occasions.

Each year, thousands of Texas children like Smith and Holcomb are
placed in facilities like Good Shepherd, which are formally termed
residential treatment centers, or RTCs. The facilities, largely
unknown to the general public, are often tucked away in rural areas
or in suburbs, especially around Houston. Texas counts 106 of them,
housing more children in institutions than any other state. The
facilities comprise the most restrictive group setting for foster
youth in Texas—people interviewed for this story say they
frequently feel more like a jail than a foster home. Some RTCs are
small; some care for hundreds of children. Some are religious; some
secular. They all pledge to turn children with behavior problems
into upstanding adults.

Most of the kids sent to these centers are older youth in the
state's foster care system who have been removed from their parents
following allegations of abuse or neglect. The harm sometimes
continues once the children are relocated to an RTC, however.
According to former foster youth and attorneys who represent
children placed in the centers, Texas children have been repeatedly
retraumatized by violent or sexually inappropriate behavior at the
hands of RTC staff. An investigation by The Imprint and the Texas
Observer revealed that in some cases, life in these facilities is
punctuated by humiliation, filth, rape, beatings, and even death.
In 2019 alone, the state received more than 2,000 reports of abuse,
neglect or exploitation inside RTCs and other residential
institutions.

Texas placed 3,700 foster children in institutional settings, which
include RTCs, last year, federal data show. In all, 12 percent of
Texas foster youth live in such places, as opposed to the preferred
options, dictated by both best practices and federal law—with
relatives, or, if that's not possible, foster parents. Other states
have greatly reduced the use of RTCs because of bad outcomes, but
Texas continues to increase its reliance on the facilities.

Despite reports of abject abuse and neglect inside RTCs, a culture
of silence has kept wrongdoing hidden at the facilities, court
records and legal documents show. Some youth, like Smith, are
coaxed or threatened by staff into concealing troubling events. The
claims of abuse that do find their way to child protection
officials are routed to a state office that often dismisses them
without investigation, even after they have been deemed credible.
Though state officials have been aware of the problems in RTCs for
years, they've taken little action to fix them.

Inspection details on state reports are minimal, but during the
summer of 2013, when Smith and Holcomb say their incident happened,
Residential Child Care Licensing, the state licensing agency, twice
found that Good Shepherd staff had hit children. The facility was
cited for only one of the incidents. Good Shepherd was also cited
that summer for physically restraining a child who had run away - a
violation of protocol - and for not reporting an accusation of
physical abuse to the state. Between 2011 and 2017, the facility
was cited for 91 deficiencies. Seventy-one of them, such as
inappropriate discipline, corporal punishment and physical or
verbal abuse, were classified as "high" or "medium high" risk to
children.

Holcomb and Smith say abuse happened regularly at Good Shepherd,
especially after escape attempts. But Holcomb says the three or
four complaints he made never resulted in action. Good Shepherd was
shut down in 2017, after the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services (DFPS), which oversees foster care in the
state, decided to no longer place children there. The agency would
not say specifically what led to that decision.

Good Shepherd has closed, but abuse continues inside other
residential facilities around the state. "Any time you put a kid in
an RTC, you are probably expecting some level of abuse. And that's
heartbreaking," says Will Francis, executive director of the Texas
chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. "We need to
rethink where our dollars go. We need to stop putting them towards
these warehouses."

The institutional care of children has existed in the United States
in some form or another since the orphanages of the 1800s. They
included "houses of refuge" that were modeled after English
workhouses, made famous in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, that
proliferated as industrialization brought mass migration—and
poverty—into cities. In the 1930s and '40s, however, a growing
body of research indicated that living in such settings was
detrimental to children.

Along with the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935, which
helped support impoverished families who may otherwise have been
forced to place children in state care, a movement was afoot to
disband orphanages and place children in more stable,
family-oriented settings. Nearly a century later, the term
"orphanage" has been all but erased from Americans' current-day
lexicon. But they're still here, critics say, just by another name.


"The orphanages of old are today's RTCs," says Richard Wexler, the
executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform. "Sometimes literally—it was founded as an orphanage then
dressed up in psychobabble and rebranded an RTC—sometimes only in
spirit. But whatever you call them, they're worthless at best,
harmful at worst."

After the Great Depression many of the institutions of the day
adopted a mental health focus. The concept of residential
treatment, championed by a now-discredited pseudo-psychologist
named Bruno Bettelheim, came about in the 1940s. Residential
treatment centers exploded in popularity between the 1950s and
1970s, as books by Bettelheim and others extolled the virtues of
congregate treatment. In 1967, controversial preacher Lester Roloff
founded his sprawling Rebekah Home for Girls in Corpus Christi,
where girls suffered beatings with leather straps and were isolated
in locked rooms. (Roloff resisted state regulation of the facility
so fiercely that the standoff became nationally known. Texas
Monthly later dubbed it "the Christian Alamo.")

The number of children in RTCs again skyrocketed during the 1990s
as more and more parents, along with state child welfare systems,
leaned on them to take unruly teenagers and children with nowhere
else to go. In Texas, the number of kids in institutional settings
has increased by 700 since 2010. The nearly 4,000 children Texas
places in institutions is more than twice that of  California, a
state with 20,000 more foster kids.

A 2007 federal watchdog report found thousands of abuse allegations
at residential treatment programs across the country, including 10
civil or criminal cases involving deaths of teens. Rampant abuse
has led to a national shift towards "therapeutic foster homes,"
where foster parents are specially trained to handle kids with
behavior issues. The Family First Prevention Services Act, a child
welfare reform bill passed by Congress in 2018, aims to reduce the
use of institutional settings by limiting federal dollars for
facilities unless they meet more stringent guidelines, including
providing on-call nursing staff and trauma-informed care. None of
Texas' RTCs currently meet the new guidelines, according to DFPS.

Children can be sent to an RTC by their family or be ordered there
by a juvenile court, but many are placed there on the
recommendation of Child Protective Services (CPS). It's meant to be
a last resort, according to the federal Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention. The agency says the facilities are
specifically for children who "have proved too ill or unruly to be
housed in foster care." Nationally, nearly 70 percent of kids in
RTCs are 13 or older, and many have been in the foster care system
for years, bouncing from place to place and accumulating trauma and
behavioral problems along the way.

Staff at residential treatment centers are frequently unequipped to
handle these challenges. They receive little training and are paid
poorly—wages can be as low as $10 an hour. Staff turnover is
high, and staff members are known to hop from one facility to the
next. "Trauma-informed care, this can be advanced stuff," says
Francis of the National Association of Social Workers. "And just
hoping that someone with a high school degree and minimal training
and minimal job prospects can do this, that's a lot to ask." The
pairing of traumatized youth with unqualified staff is a recipe for
abuse.

Researchers at the University of Illinois determined that youth
with at least one group home placement are 2.5 times more likely to
become delinquent than youth in other foster placements, and that
those who have experienced trauma are at greater risk for further
physical abuse when placed in group homes versus family homes. In
Texas, problems with these placements are well-documented: A 2004
report produced by then - Texas Comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn
showed horrific photos of "therapeutic camps" where children were
made to use run-down outhouses and outdoor showers even in the
winter. They were also punished by being isolated in rooms away
from other residents, the report found.

Still, some in child welfare circles insist RTCs are necessary,
since many of these foster youth would otherwise have nowhere else
to go. The facilities can hold many more children than therapeutic
foster homes, which can take just one or two at a time. To make
matters worse, Texas projected a massive shortfall in the amount of
available foster placements for high-needs children late last year.
After years of media scrutiny around foster children without
placements sleeping in state offices, a state report last year said
that by 2021, it will have just 39 percent of the foster homes it
needs for youth who qualify as "specialized" or
"intense"—children who need round-the-clock care for their
medical, behavioral, mental health, or substance use problems.

That's why, critics say, the state has been lax in cracking down on
residential treatment centers with histories of abuse. "Ninety to
95 percent of kids in an RTC could and would make it in a really
strong foster home or with a strong relative, if we actually paid
those families and gave them the support," Francis says. "But it's
easier to stick kids in [RTCs]—and harder to get them out."

Korbin Smith was 10 when he was sent to his first RTC, the Nelson
Children's Center in Denton.  There, instead of using sanctioned
restraints, he says staff would tackle him if he acted up, slamming
him down on his head and rubbing his face into the carpet, leaving
burns. The experience was harrowing; Smith says it set the tone for
the rest of his time in foster care. Like at Good Shepherd, he was
able to escape the facility. Once, he slipped out an unlocked door
in the midst of a brawl between residents. Smith ran to a foster
home where he had previously lived, and where his sister was still
living. The foster parents let him see his sister, but then they
called CPS. Like at Good Shepherd, he was forced to go back.

The Nelson Children's Center, operated by the nonprofit Upbring,
shut down in 2011 after three residents reported injuries to the
state abuse hotline in the span of one month. In a letter DFPS sent
to the facility terminating its contract, state officials cited the
facility's "inappropriate" restraint methods as the reason for
discontinuing foster care placements there. An Upbring spokesperson
declined to talk about specific cases, but said the facility shut
down "due to a lack of need in that area." Upbring, which operates
two other residential treatment centers and three shelters for
unaccompanied child migrants in Texas, said it has drastically
reduced its use of restraints in its remaining RTCs.

At some treatment centers, "discipline" crosses the line into
abuse. After one of Smith's escape attempts from Good Shepherd, he
says he was made to stand up all night long—staff would beat him
up if he sat down and make him stand longer. Holcomb also remembers
being made to stand up all night, in his underwear, so that if he
tried to get away, he wouldn't have his clothes. Still, they kept
trying to escape. "I'd rather be out in the world having to fend
for myself rather than be somewhere where someone is mistreating
me," Holcomb says.

Smith and Holcomb aren't alone: DFPS reported that 1,707 foster
youth across the state ran away in 2017, nearly half of them from
RTCs and other institutional settings.

                            - -

In 2011, it seemed as if the state's broken foster care system
might finally get the help it so sorely needed.

That year, Children's Rights, a nonprofit organization representing
foster youth in several states, set its eyes on Texas. The group
had already brought class-action lawsuits seeking foster care
reform in more than a dozen states and counties. New Jersey,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, and others settled the cases and agreed to
improve their systems. In Texas, the lawsuit alleged that children
in the state's long-term care were facing systematic violations of
their rights: being physically and sexually abused, overmedicated
with psychotropic drugs, and shuffled from place to place. Much of
the case turned on the treatment of children in institutional
settings such as RTCs.

Unlike many other jurisdictions facing similar lawsuits, Texas
chose to take the case to trial. The state argued that it was
already in the process of implementing reforms, including
privatizing parts of its system, and didn't need the federal
government to step in. U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack
disagreed. In 2015, she ruled against the state, finding that
long-term foster youth "almost uniformly leave state custody more
damaged than when they entered." Jack ordered wide-ranging
improvements to the state's system, including around-the-clock
supervision of children in institutional settings and reduced
caseloads for overburdened caseworkers. She appointed two child
welfare experts to make sure Texas complied with her orders.

Texas fought the ruling, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to
appeal it. "Our current system does not violate the Constitution,"
Marc Rylander, spokesman for indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton,
said at the time. "If the plaintiffs complain about wasting
resources on defending against its lawsuit, they should drop their
lawsuit and stop using Texas children as hostages for their policy
negotiation."

In 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key parts of
Jack's orders, including the stipulations on reduced caseloads and
increased supervision, as well as one requiring that all reports of
abuse made by children in long-term care be quickly and thoroughly
investigated. The appointed experts, called "court monitors," say
the state has dragged its feet in making those required reforms.
This summer they reported that, after harrowing abuse, shoddy
investigations have kept foster children in grave danger.

In one case highlighted in the court monitors' report, a
14-year-old girl at Prairie Harbor in Wallis, west of Houston,
complained of leg pain for weeks. The girl had diabetes and
hypertension but her leg pain went untreated until she collapsed in
her room in February. Staff waited 37 minutes to call 911; the girl
later died of complications from a blood clot in her leg. An
investigation is ongoing. But since the teen's death, the RTC
owners, including a former high school principal in El Campo named
Rich Dubroc, were granted a license by the state to open a new
facility in Corpus Christi. The former executive director of
Prairie Harbor, Mario Mendoza, is now serving the same role at the
new facility, called The Landing.

"Fundamentally, the state is supposed to err on the side of child
safety by investigating situations that are ambiguous or uncertain.
And they've chosen a policy that's basically the opposite of
that."

During three months last year, the court monitors found 57 reports
of abuse or neglect in which a child was at serious risk of harm
that were dismissed by a state agency when they should have been
investigated. In one, a 17-year-old at an unnamed RTC told a
caseworker that she got pills from other residents—who had hidden
them instead of taken them as prescribed—and tried to overdose.
She said she didn't feel safe at the facility and was being
mistreated by staff. Another 17-year-old told his caseworker that
gangs were "always fighting and jumping people" at his RTC. After
other residents put Icy Hot on his face while he was sleeping, the
teen cut himself in an act of self-harm. He said a staff member
told him, "I hope you will die quickly."

Neither of these reports led to a finding of abuse or neglect by
Residential Child Care Investigations (RCCI), the state agency
responsible for investigating abuse reports for children in foster
care. Neither incident resulted in any findings of deficiencies.

DFPS, the state agency that regulates foster care in Texas,
declined to comment on pending litigation. Instead it released a
statement: "It is extremely unfortunate that, among other things,
the monitors' report does not represent the literal round-the-clock
efforts made to comply. To the best of our ability, and considering
child welfare practices, we have used the resources generously
provided by the Legislature to meet the Court's orders."

A major finding of the monitors' report was that RCCI has a
tendency to downgrade certain abuse reports without investigating
them—during four months in 2019, the agency ruled out nearly half
of the more than 900 reports the agency received with no
investigation. Meanwhile, Child Protective Services, a sister
agency that investigates abuse and neglect in family homes,
investigates all allegations of abuse. This means that children
living with relatives are more likely to have their abuse
allegations investigated than kids in RTCs. According to state
data, RCCI found that abuse had occurred in less than 6 percent of
abuse or neglect allegations in institutional facilities in 2019;
by comparison, CPS substantiated 26 percent of abuse or neglect
allegations in family homes during that period.

"Fundamentally, the state is supposed to err on the side of child
safety by investigating situations that are ambiguous or
uncertain," says Paul Yetter, an attorney representing children in
the class-action lawsuit against Texas. "And they've chosen a
policy that's basically the opposite of that."

Tara Grigg Garlinghouse, an attorney who has specialized in
representing youth in Harris County in complex child welfare cases
for the last seven years, says she's made roughly 10 reports of
what she saw as egregious abuse of her clients in RTCs. None have
resulted in action. She calls making a complaint "an exercise in
futility."

"The RTCs don't take it seriously; they don't actually believe that
they're going to be punished or held accountable," Grigg
Garlinghouse says. That's in large part because the children in
these places, labeled problem kids, are often not believed. "It's
always spun in a way to make the child a liar and also
responsible," she says.

By the time Mary Gonzales entered care at age 8, she'd already
learned her outcries would fall on deaf ears. After she'd been
raped as a young child, her mother "was too high to listen" when
she told her, Gonzales says. "I remember going to lay in the tub
and washing the blood off and just laying there, because I felt
alone."

Later, in care, when she told her foster mother a boy in the home
had harmed her again, Gonzales was the one removed from the home,
instead of the boy. By then, she says, "I had a good feeling that
nobody would believe me—and I was right."

Gonzales ended up at Krause Children's Center, an RTC in Katy,
where she says she witnessed sexual relationships between staff and
residents and constant fights among the girls who lived there. "You
know that saying, 'Sleep with one eye open'? I tried my best to do
that. I didn't trust nobody there," Gonzales says. "It messes you
up in the head."

"We take every allegation seriously and follow all protocols to
ensure the safety of every child," Upbring, which also operates
Krause Children's Center, said in a statement.

Grigg Garlinghouse pointed out that kids placed in these settings
for years learn "institutional behaviors" such as a distrust for
authority and the need to protect themselves against threats - the
same behaviors they might pick up in jail or prison. The more time
spent in a residential treatment center, "the less likely you'll be
able to function in the community," Grigg Garlinghouse says.

Korbin Smith quickly realized that adults in the foster care system
were not going to keep him safe. At his first foster home, he says
he learned that he had to fight and win if he didn't want to get
beat up. Each time he'd tell his caseworker about an abusive
encounter, she'd accuse him of making it up and ask why he didn't
report it earlier, he says. But according to Smith, calls to his
caseworker were always supervised by RTC staff, which made it
difficult to report problems. "If you snitch, you get beat up," he
says.

For Smith and Holcomb, like many other kids who have aged out of
RTCs, the next chapter in their lives was the criminal justice
system. Colby Holcomb got back in touch with his mom at age 17,
when he found her on Facebook while he was living at Hector Garza
Center, a facility owned by for-profit prison company GEO Group
that is slated to close this year. He got a Greyhound bus ticket to
his aunt's house in Pasadena when he aged out of care. That's where
he got his first adult criminal charge for marijuana possession, in
2016. He's gotten five criminal charges since then, and is
currently incarcerated in San Jacinto County Jail.

After running from one facility in San Antonio, Korbin Smith stole
a car trying to get to Houston, where his grandma lived. For that,
he went to juvenile detention at age 16. After he turned 17, making
him an adult in the eyes of the law, he spit on a guard and was
charged with harassing a public official. He eventually was sent to
a string of adult prisons to serve his two-year sentence, much of
it in solitary confinement, before being released last year.

Smith turned 21 in September. With his criminal record, it's been
hard to find a job. He says he's been arrested for several
low-level offenses since his release from prison, and much of his
monthly unemployment check goes to paying his mom back for bonding
him out. He was living with her in Gainesville, north of Dallas,
until she was evicted this summer. Since then, he and his
girlfriend have been staying in San Marcos. "Right now, me and my
girl are on our own, struggling," he says. "We're trying to make
it. It's harder than I thought, but we really have no other
choice." [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Soy Wiring Class Action Revived
---------------------------------------------
David A Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
soy wiring class action lawsuit is partly alive on appeal after a
district court dismissed the case in 2018.

According to the Toyota soy wiring class action lawsuit, rodents
are more attracted to the wiring because Toyota switched its wiring
harness from vinyl chloride to a soy-based material.

This allegedly causes rats, mice and other creatures to chew the
wiring, leaving vehicle owners without safe transportation.

The plaintiffs had four opportunities to refile the class action,
but the judge dismissed the lawsuit for failure to plead with
particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and ruled
the soy-based wiring did not constitute a "latent defect."

The district court judge dismissed claims under 13 states' consumer
protection statutes, the implied warranty of merchantability and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA.)

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which affirmed in part and reversed in part the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California ruling by
Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

Toyota argues that rats have always been pests that chew on things
and it's just a fact of life, and the Ninth Circuit says none of
that is in dispute.

"Rather, Appellants assert that the soy-based wiring harness has
led to an increase in rodent damage to their vehicles."

The appeals court found the allegations in the class action
"directly support Appellants' theory, which necessarily excludes
Toyota's explanation."

Concerning claims of fraud, the plaintiffs didn't have the same
luck as the appeals court ruled vehicle owners failed to "identify
the fraud with particularity. Appellants merely state in conclusory
fashion that Toyota fraudulently failed to disclose the alleged
defect. Indeed, Appellants fail to allege the extent to which
Toyota was aware of this issue."

The class action alleges customer complaints prove Toyota concealed
the damage that can be caused by using soy wiring. But the appeals
court found the customer complaints "unpersuasive."

"This point is made more salient by the infrequency of reported
damage to Toyota vehicles. We are left to wonder who at Toyota was
aware of the alleged defect and why Toyota did not disclose it.
Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants'
state-law fraud and consumer protection claims," the Ninth Circuit
said.

Next, the Ninth Circuit moved to implied warranty of
merchantability and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. The district
court dismissed those claims by ruling the alleged wiring defect
did not exist at the time the vehicles were sold.

According to the district judge, the rodents did not destroy the
vehicles until after they were sold.

On appeal, the plaintiffs admit they cannot state claims under
Idaho, Illinois and Oregon laws, but they challenge the dismissal
of their remaining implied warranty and MMWA claims.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the implied warranty generally
requires that goods possess "fitness for the ordinary purpose for
which such goods are used," which means "the product is in safe
condition and substantially free of defects."

"To have an actionable claim, the defect must exist at the time of
sale," the Ninth Circuit said.

The appeals court found the district court incorrectly identified
the rodents as the alleged defect. Instead, the alleged defect was
the soy-based wiring harnesses that attracted the rodents in the
first place. This means the alleged defect existed at the time of
sale even if the damage occurred later.

The Ninth Circuit found that to believe otherwise would require
that the damage, not just the defect, existed at the time of sale.

The Toyota soy wiring class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California -- Heber, et
al., v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., et al. [GN]


TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal taken by
certain individual investors and entities from their
court-dismissed motion to intervene in a class action lawsuit
against Trustmark National Bank (TNB) remains pending.

On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions and one individual, each of which are unaffiliated
with Trustmark, as defendants.  

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme. Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Class
Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  

In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to
intervene in this action.  

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013,
the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims
against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions.  

The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.  

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.


In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC’s constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.  

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.  

On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC.  

On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule.  

On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.


On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the
discovery stay that it had previously ordered.

On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene.  

On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a
notice of appeal.

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

Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.

TURQUOISE HILL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Turquoise Hill Resources
Ltd. (NYSE: TRQ). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (NYSE: TRQ)

Class Period: July 17, 2018 to July 31, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

Turquoise Hill is an international mining company focused on the
operation and development of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in
Southern Mongolia ("Oyu Tolgoi"), which is the Company's principal
and only material resource property. Turquoise Hill's subsidiary,
Oyu Tolgoi LLC, holds a 66% interest in Oyu Tolgoi, and the
remainder is held by the Government of Mongolia.

Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited are operated and managed
together as single economic unit and engage in mining and metals
operations in approximately 35 countries. Through their
subsidiaries, Rio Tinto owns 50.8% of Turquoise Hill. A Rio Tinto
subsidiary, Rio Tinto International Holdings, Inc. ("Rio Tinto
International" or "RTIH"; and collectively with Rio Tinto plc and
Rio Tinto Limited, "Rio Tinto"), is also the manager of the Oyu
Tolgoi project, including having responsibility for its development
and construction.

On July 31, 2019, Turquoise Hill issued a press release and
Management Discussion & Analysis ("MD&A") making further
disclosures about the status of the project, including that
Turquoise Hill took a $600 million impairment charge and a
substantial "deferred income tax recognition adjustment" tied to
the Oyu Tolgoi project, and that it suffered a loss in the second
quarter. The next day, before the market open, Rio Tinto issued a
release concerning in part the project status, including that it
had also taken an impairment charge related to the Oyu Tolgoi
project, of $800 million.

Following this news, on August 1, 2019, Turquoise Hill's common
stock price closed at $0.53 per share, down 8.62% from the prior
day's closing price of $0.58 per share.

The complaint, filed on October 15, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted to disclose material facts regarding the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, defendants made
false and or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the progress of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not
proceeding as planned; (ii) there were significant undisclosed
underground stability issues that called into question the design
of the mine, the projected cost and timing of production; (iii) the
Company's publicly disclosed estimates of the cost, date of
completion and dates for production from the underground mine were
not achievable; (iv) the development capital required for the
underground development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more
than a billion dollars over what the Company had represented; and
(v) Turquoise Hill would require additional financing and/or equity
to complete the project.

For more information on the Turquoise Hill class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TRQ

               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]


TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ)
Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-securities-litigation-1

First American Financial Corp. (FAF)
Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-first-american-financial-corp-securities-litigation
     
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                       About ClaimsFiler

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

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


TURQUOISE HILL: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 28
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
(NYSE: TRQ) between July 17, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Turquoise
Hill investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Turquoise Hill class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1971.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, throughout the Class Period and regarding
the development of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in Mongolia,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the stability issues were much more severe than
represented and called into question the design of the mine, the
projected cost and timing of production; (2) the publicly disclosed
estimates of the cost, date of completion and dates for production
from the underground mine were not achievable; (3) the "challenging
ground conditions" were much more severe than defendants
represented, and in fact made it impossible for Turquoise Hill and
Rio Tinto to achieve those estimates; (4) the development capital
required for the underground development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost
substantially more than a billion dollars over what Turquoise Hill
and Rio Tinto had represented; (5) Turquoise Hill would require
additional financing and/or equity to complete the project; (6) the
progress of underground development and of Oyu Tolgoi was not
proceeding as planned; and (7) the "key risks" had not been "well
understood and managed" but had placed the project schedule and
cost into severe jeopardy. 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 December
14, 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-1971.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.

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]


TYLER TECH: Kudatsky Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aaron Kudatsky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Tyler
Technologies, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on January 7, 2021 for an order:

   1. granting his motion certifying a class of:

      "California implementation consultants";

   2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing him as the Class Representative.

This case currently consists of the Plaintiff Class Representative
and approximately 60 implementation consultants who have opted-in
to the conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action. They all contend that they have been
misclassified, and are actually entitled to overtime premiums under
federal and state and law. In addition to pursuing these claims as
a collective action, the Plaintiff Class Representative also seeks
overtime under state law for all implementation consultants who
have worked in California.

Tyler employs hundreds of implementation consultants across the
country. Generally, all implementation consultants perform the same
type of work for Tyler. Their primary job duty is to "get [Tyler's
clients] up and running" with Tyler's software products, says the
complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pYlrm8 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com
                  srey@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          bdavis@nicholllaw.com
          Charles Street, Suite 1700

U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Madkudu Seeks to Certify Employers' Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADKUDU INC., et al., v.
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02653-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen
entered an Order:

   1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and certifying a class consisting of:

      "all U.S. employers who in 2019 through December 6, 2020
      filed, or will file, a petition (Form I-129 or any
      successor) with USCIS for an H-1B classification under
      8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for a market research
      analyst where:

      -- USCIS denied or will deny the petition solely or in
         part based on a finding that the OOH entry for market
         research analyst does not establish that the occupation
         is a specialty occupation, and thus does not satisfy
         8 C.F.R. Sec. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1);

      -- But for this finding, the petition would be approved.

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs MadKudu, Quick Fitting, 2nd
      Street, and Hanguang International as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing American Immigration Council, Van Der Hout,
      LLP, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Joseph and
      Hall, P.C., and Kuck Baxter Immigration LLC as class
      counsel; and

   4. directing the Parties to meet and confer on whether cross
      motions for summary judgment are appropriate and if so, a
      schedule for same to be filed by January 15, 2021. If the
      Parties cannot agree, they are to submit competing case
      management proposals to the Court by January 15, 2021.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have a "policy and
practice of arbitrarily and unlawfully Market Research Analyst
Position denying H-1B nonimmigrant worker petitions for the
specialty occupation of market research analyst."

The Plaintiff MadKudu is a marketing analytics software
corporation. The Plaintiff Quick Fitting is a plumbing fittings
supplier headquartered in Warwick, Rhode Island. Hanguang
International is an educational consulting services corporation.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the
United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the
country's naturalization and immigration system.

A copy of the Court's Order granting in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification dated Nov. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KBLgZf at no extra charge.[CC]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dist. Ct. Declines Jurisdiction in Drivers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey and Erin Mulvaney, writing for Bloomberg Law,
report that a lawsuit alleging Uber Technologies Inc. is sending
"false and misleading" information to California drivers to
pressure them into voting for a state ballot initiative that would
make gig workers independent contractors will proceed in state
court, after a federal court declined jurisdiction.

There's just not enough money at stake in this case to justify
federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California said on Oct. 27.

Tigar rejected Uber's Oct. 25 removal notice and remanded the
proposed class action back to San Francisco Superior Court. [GN]


UBER: Drivers File Class Action Over Coercive Prop. 22 Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Leahy, writing for 48hills, reports that on Oct. 22, two
Uber drivers and labor rights advocacy organizations Worksafe and
the Chinese Progressive Association sued Uber, seeking class-action
status on behalf of all of the company's California drivers,
alleging that the rideshare company's messaging supporting
Proposition 22 in the driver's app violates California labor laws
barring coerced political engagement among employees.

Drivers are getting Yes on 22 messages every time they log into the
system, and they have been encouraged to submit Yes on 22 videos to
the campaign, the lawsuit says.

"Since at least 1915, California has prohibited employers from
pressuring, coercing, or otherwise interfering with their
employees' right to engage in, or refrain from engaging in,
political activities," it states. "Uber has taken advantage of
their raw economic power and its exclusive control over
communications through its driver-scheduling app by wrongfully
pressuring its drivers to actively support Proposition 22."

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Uber's messaging implies
that drivers must support Prop 22 or risk possible termination,
referring to Uber's previous threats of leaving California, cutting
up to 70 percent of their driver workforce, and loss of flexible
schedule for drivers, should the ballot proposition not pass on
November 3.

The complaint names solicited surveys from Uber to its drivers
polling driver support of Prop 22, and a pop-up screen in the
driver app stating "Yes on 22" followed by buttons reading "Yes on
22" and "Okay" respectively, as evidence of messaging intended to
coerce drivers to support Prop 22.

The suit says that the absence of a "no" option on that screen is
strong evidence that Uber is coercing a "yes" response from
drivers, violating state labor laws.

Help us save local journalism!

Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues
that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and
support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.

Hector Castellanos, one of the drivers who is a plaintiff in this
lawsuit, said how this specific screen made him feel that Uber was
pressuring him to vote Yes on Prop 22, even though he opposes it,
and that not expressing support would threaten his job.

"They are trying to push me to vote 'yes' on Prop 22. This is
unfair, how they are sending all of these pop-ups on my [Uber
drivers'] app and emails…they say you should vote yes because
otherwise you could lose your job because it's just going to leave
20 to 30 percent of the drivers, you're going to lose flexibility.
I feel threatened by this company," said Castellanos. "It has been
so hard when I pick up a passenger and then there is a pop-up
[message] saying 'Yes on 22' and there is no option that says
'no'."

The complaint also alleges that Uber has provided misleading
information to drivers to influence their opinions on Prop 22.
Specifically, the compliant names drivers' guaranteed wage under
Prop 22, which Uber claims is equal to 120 percent of the minimum
wage, yet, they allege that Uber intentionally withholds the fact
that drivers are only receive this rate during time that they are
driving with a passenger in the car, leading to a substantially
lower rate of pay per hour.

David Lowe, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit, said that Uber's comments threatening layoffs of most of
its California-based drivers constitute a clear threat of
termination should drivers vote no, and therefore a clear violation
of state labor laws.

"The language of the statute doesn't require the company to come
out and say explicitly 'you're gonna be fired', it says that you
can't use the threat of a loss of employment, which is exactly what
Uber is doing," said Lowe. "Uber is saying 'if Prop 22 fails, 70 to
80 percent of you are going to lose your jobs'. [California] Labor
Code section 1102 says you can't use the threat of a loss of
employment as an attempt to coerce someone to engage in a
particular political course of action."

Lowe also said that Uber's messages to drivers through its app,
which he says solicit drivers' support for Prop 22, are a clear
violation of state labor laws because those messages are a policy
which is intended to influence how drivers will vote on Prop 22.

"[Labor Code] section 1101 says you can't have a policy that 'tends
to direct' political activity of workers. And Uber is putting very
coercive messages on the app that the drivers are required to
access on a regular basis throughout the day and including in those
messages requests to provide support for Prop 22, misleading
information about the benefits of Prop 22, all of this is part of a
policy intended to direct the employees to do what they are
requesting them to do, which is to support Prop 22," said Lowe.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for workers for pay periods
during which companies violated state labor laws by sending these
political messages to drivers, relief that could total millions of
dollars, as well as an injunction that would order Uber to cease
sending political messages to its drivers urging their support for
Prop 22.

"The court has the power to issue an injunction more quickly that
[a trial], so that is something that we are seriously looking at.
We would like to get an order that requires Uber to stop the
coercive tactics that are at the center of this lawsuit," said
Lowe.

Lowe also explained that although it is unlikely that they will
receive a jury trial before Prop 22 is voted on, the plaintiffs
have other reasons for bringing this lawsuit so close to the
election, namely to bring public awareness to Uber's "coercive"
tactics in sending messages about Prop 22 to its drivers as well as
seeking a declaration that Uber's tactics are illegal as a to
prevent other companies from possibly adopting similar methods of
sending messages to workers urging political support that would
benefit the company and threatening retaliation otherwise.

"Even after November 3, that [declaration] will still be important
to send a message to Uber and to other companies that they cannot
engage in these tactics in the future, because these are unlawful
tactics in California," said Lowe.

Stephen Knight, executive director at Worksafe, an Oakland
organization that advocates for worker safety and one of the
plaintiffs in the complaint, said in an email statement that the
groups stands with drivers in this case because Uber's messaging to
drivers is misleading, intimidating, and affects drivers' safety.

"Safety at work is a huge issue for gig drivers right now, as you
can imagine. Worksafe is all about supporting greater power and
information for workers; without that, workers cannot be safe at
work. These companies are using their outsized power and control
over information to intimidate and influence their vulnerable
workforce. That's not just wrong, it's illegal," said Knight.

Uber has not responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit as of
press time. [GN]


UDREN LAW: Settlement in Hill Suit Wins Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REDERICK J. HILL,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and
former homeowners in Pennsylvania, v. UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C., Case
No. 2:13-cv-00419-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa. ), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon
entered an Order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for default judgment;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for preliminary approval
      of the settlement;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for conditional certification
      of the settlement class of:

      "Any natural person who obtained financing secured by a
      first mortgage with Bank of America on residential
      property located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
      which was purchased primarily for personal, family or
      household purposes, who were sued in foreclosure by Udren
      Law Offices, P.C. on behalf of Bank of America from and
      including February 12, 2012 and February 11, 2013 and
      identified by Defendant as one of the 421 foreclosures
      listed in its discovery responses."

      Excluded from the class are employees of Bank of America
      and Udren Law Offices, P.C., as well as employees of any
      parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of either Bank of America
      or Udren Law Offices, P.C. and all government entities.

   4. directing that the conditionally-certified class action
      shall be maintained with Mr. Frederick J. Hill as Class
      Representative;

   5. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for appointment of
      settlement class counsel;

   6. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for authorization to
      disseminate notice, without prejudice to refiling.

   7. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for approval of the plan of
      distribution, without prejudice to refiling; and

   8. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for setting of a hearing on
      final settlement approval, without prejudice to refiling.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement appears, upon
preliminary review, to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. The
certification of the class is conditioned on final approval of the
class settlement, and, in the event the settlement is not approved,
the certification shall be vacated. Pursuant to Rules 23(c) and
(e), the Court requires additional information regarding the Notice
and Plaintiffs' proposed method of dissemination of said Notice
before it can be approved. The Plaintiffs may clarify the discussed
issues and submit revised exhibit(s) as appropriate for the Court's
review.

A copy of the Court's Order memorandum and order dated Nov. 18,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UZqbtz
at no extra charge.[CC]


UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Holden Wilen, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that
shareholders have filed a blistering lawsuit against Under Armour
claiming the company and Chairman Kevin Plank violated federal
securities law.

The lawsuit details alleged accounting practices that shareholders
say were used to inflate results lauded by founder Kevin Plank.
[GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Employee Subclass Certified in Santos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIA SANTOS, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE INC. (OHIO), Case No. 3:18-cv-03177-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court certifies a subclass only comprised of:

   "all employees who were not provided with accurately itemized
   wage statements listing all hours worked and other
   information required to be listed under California Labor Code
   section 226(a) and Wage Order.

The Defendant's motion to exclude the declaration of Mr. Bennett S.
Berger is denied, and Ms. Santos' motion to exclude the
declarations of potential class members is denied.

The Court said, "Ms. Santos has failed to offer proof of a uniform,
companywide policy with respect to the Rest Break Subclass.
Consequently, the Waiting Time Subclass, which is a derivative
subclass (i.e., membership in the subclass is contingent upon a
finding of certifiability the Plaintiff has offered sufficient
evidence on this matter at the class certification stage (i.e.,
evidence that wage statements of Preload PTS are potentially
ambiguous because PTRS does not distinguish between Meal Breaks and
other "Unpaid Work"time). The Wage Statement Subclass is therefore
suitable for certification. It remains to be seen how damages will
be calculated, on a classwide basis, if the trier of fact finds a
uniform practice of ambiguous timecard entries. Counsel for Ms.
Santos should provide a specific trial plan for classwide
aggregation of damages for violations of California Labor Code
section 226(a) and Wage Order."

The Plaintiff Emilia Santos has filed a class action against
Defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) asserting that UPS violated
the California Labor Code by failing to provide timely and
uninterrupted meal and rest periods to its non-exempt employees,
including "Preload Part Time Supervisors" ("Preload PTS"). Ms.
Santos alleges that the Defendant had a uniform, companywide policy
to deprive Preload PTS of rest breaks and force them to record meal
breaks which were not actually taken.

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery
and supply chain management company.

A copy of the Court's Order granting in part and denying in part
the plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 18, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pYGIfI at no
extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification Denied in Fisher Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Fisher, and others
similarly situated, v. United States of America, Case No.
2:19-cv-00146-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks
entered an Order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and

   3. directing the parties to participate in mediation of this
      case prior to February 1, 2021. If mediation is
      unsuccessful, then the Court will schedule a bench trial
      of this matter at the earliest opportunity.

The Court finds there are significant, individual issues in this
case -- as to liability available affirmative defenses, and damages
--– that predominate over the single common question of whether
unearned wages include overtime. Furthermore, in light of these
significant, individual issues, the Court finds that a class action
(particularly with a class as broad as Plaintiff proposes) is not a
superior method for adjudicating the controversy. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pSNl34 at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Chad Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Terry Hatter entered an order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On November 25, 2020, the District Court has considered the motion
for a preliminary injunction filed by class member Park Kwang
Hyen.

The Court ordered that the motion be, and hereby is, stricken
because movant is represented by class counsel and cannot file
motions pro se.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-56257, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ
ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          Michelle Cho, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
          Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
                 jbansal@aclusocal.org
                 mcho@aclusocal.org
                 mkaufman@aclusocal.org

                     - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com

                     - and -

          William Friedman, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          500 North Capitol Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 756-8268
          Email: william.friedman@lw.com

Defendants-Respondents-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy
Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of
the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and JAMES JANECKA,
Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are represented by:

          Daniel Beck, Esq.
          USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-2574
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
          Email: daniel.beck@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Hillary Burrelle, Esq.
          AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 South Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 894-2420

               - and -

          Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq.
          DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

               - and -

          Scott Grant Stewart, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530

UNITED STATES: Rivers End Outfitters et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERS END OUTFITTERS,
LLC, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02312-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "Gulf For-hire vessel charter boat owners and operators
      who are permitted to fish by the Fishery Management
      Councils of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic and are
      harmed by the Final Rule", which is the subject of the
      Complaint in this matter and numbering approximately 1,298
      individuals and corporations;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing New Civil Liberties Alliance, its attorneys
      John J. Vecchione and Kara Rollins as class counsel.

The Department of Commerce is an executive department of the
federal government concerned with promoting economic growth. Among
its tasks are gathering economic and demographic data for business
and government decision-making, and helping to set industrial
standards.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39cbsUC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Gregory Grimsal, Esq.
          Kristina M. Lagasse, Esq.
          GORDON, ARATA, MONTGOMERY,
          BARNETT, McCOLLAM, DUPLANTIS & EAGAN, LLC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, 40th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170-4000
          Telephone: (504) 582-1111
          Facsimile: (504) 582-1121
          E-mail: ggrimsal@gamb.com
                  klagasse@gamb.com

               - and -

          John J. Vecchione, Esq.
          Kara Rollins, Esq.
          NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
          1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 869-5210
          E-mail: john.vecchione@ncla.legal
                  kara.rollins@ncla.legal

UNUM GROUP: Loomis Seeks Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kerry Ann Loomis,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Unum
Group Corporation Case No. 1:20-cv-00251-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective consisting of:

      "All individuals employed by Unum as Disability Benefits
      Specialist Employees outside of the state of California in
      the last three years who were paid on a salary basis,
      classified as exempt from overtime, and whose job duties
      included processing disability claims consistent with the
      guidelines in Unum's Benefit Center Claims Manual." This
      definition specifically includes all individuals employed
      in DMSE job titles outside of the state of California
      within in the last three years.;

   2. directing the Defendant to produce within 14 days a
      computer-readable data file containing the names, last
      known mailing addresses, last known personal and work
      email addresses, mobile telephone numbers, social security
      numbers (for those notices returned undeliverable), and
      work locations for all collective members;

   3. authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice to
      all collective members by mail, email and text message, as
      well as a reminder notice during the opt-in period;

   4. approving the Notice form attached to Jack Siegel's
      Declaration in Support of Motion for Step-One Notice;

   5. setting the initial opt-in period at 63 days; and

   6. granting such other, further, or additional relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

Unum Group is a Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Fortune 500 insurance
company formerly known as UnumProvident. Unum Group was created by
the 1999 merger of Unum Corporation and The Provident Companies and
comprises three distinct businesses -- Unum US, Unum UK, and
Colonial Life.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
20, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nYHIyz at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and others similarly situated, are:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
                  jack@siegellawgroup.biz

VACATION VIP: Faces Agnes Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS AGNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VACATION VIP, LLC, a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-02161 (M.D. Fla., November 24, 2020)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant to
secure redress for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed a call to his
cellular telephone number ending in 7799 on or about November 16,
2020 using a prerecorded voice message which constitutes
telemarketing because it encourages the Plaintiff to avail its
vacation packages. The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the
Defendant with his express consent to be contacted with a
prerecorded call.

Due to the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded call, the Plaintiff
suffered actual harm, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
conversion and inconvenience. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to contact telephone numbers without obtaining
prior express permission from the called party, and actual and
statutory damages.

Vacation VIP, LLC is a travel company that sells vacation packages
to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste. 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com


VETERAN DELIVERY: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ANTHONY ROMERO, Plaintiff v. VETERAN DELIVERY SERVICE INC.
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2QSTCV44419 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 18, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of numerous California Labor Code
Sections against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees.

The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked at the minimum wage rate, failed to pay the correct
amount of overtime, failed to provide with 10-minute rest periods
for every four hours of work, failed to provide the requisite
30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five hours of work,
failed to pay all wages due within any time period, failed to keep
accurate and complete payroll records, failed to pay earned and due
wages upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse
business-related expenses and costs.

Mr. Romero started working for the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt driver on or around July 2019 until the end of his
employment on or around December 2019.

Veteran Delivery Service Inc. is a delivery service partner of
multinational technology company Amazon.com, Inc. servicing the
Greater Los Angeles area in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
          E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

WALMART: Sues Feds Over Prescribing Regulations
-----------------------------------------------
Pat Anson at PNN reports that in an unusual move, Walmart has filed
a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement
Administration, asking a federal court to clarify the "roles and
legal responsibilities of pharmacists and pharmacies" in filling
opioid prescriptions.

"We are bringing this lawsuit because there is no federal law
requiring pharmacists to interfere in the doctor-patient
relationship to the degree DOJ is demanding, and in fact expert
federal and state health agencies routinely say it is not allowed
and potentially harmful to patients with legitimate medical needs,"
the company said in a statement.

Walmart and other pharmacy chains are defendants in multiple class
action lawsuits alleging the companies helped fuel the opioid
crisis by dispensing opioids irresponsibly. They have also been
fined tens of millions of dollars by the DEA for lax controls on
opioid prescriptions. According to ProPublica, federal prosecutors
in Texas even sought criminal charges against Walmart, but were
overruled by top officials at the Department of Justice.

Walmart is the largest retailer in the world and operates over
5,000 in-store pharmacies in the United States. The company said it
filed suit against the DOJ and DEA because it was caught "between a
rock and a hard place" over opioid prescribing.    

"Unfortunately, certain DOJ officials have long seemed more focused
on chasing headlines than fixing the crisis. They are now
threatening a completely unjustified lawsuit against Walmart,
claiming in hindsight pharmacists should have refused to fill
otherwise valid opioid prescriptions that were written by the very
doctors that the federal government still approves to write
prescriptions," Walmart said.

"At the same time that DOJ is threatening to sue Walmart for not
going even further in second-guessing doctors, state health
regulators are threatening Walmart and our pharmacists for going
too far and interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors
and patients also bring lawsuits when their opioid prescriptions
are not filled."

               'Corresponding Responsibility'

Under current law, pharmacists have a "corresponding
responsibility" when filling prescriptions - a legal right to
refuse to fill prescriptions they consider unusual or improper.
Most pharmacists will call the prescribing doctor to double-check
before turning away a patient, but Walmart and other pharmacies
have gone even further by blacklisting doctors deemed to have
questionable prescribing practices.  

That's what happened to a nurse practitioner at an Arizona pain
clinic, who received a letter from Walmart in 2018 saying it would
no longer fill her prescriptions - even though there was no
indication any of her patients had been harmed by opioids.

"In reviewing your controlled substance prescribing patterns and
other factors, we have determined that we will no longer be able to
continue filling your controlled substance prescriptions," the
letter states.

"It was very humiliating. I was upset about it," said nurse
practitioner Carolyn Eastin. "We've already had patients who can't
get prescriptions there."

A former Walmart pharmacist told PNN the company closely monitors
opioid prescriptions and the doctors who write them.

"They had assembled prescription numbers for every doctor who had
filled prescriptions at my store. They knew the exact number of
medications ordered and sold down to the tablet. They knew what
drugs the doctors wrote for and what percentage of the total each
drug they wrote for," the pharmacist explained.

In its statement, Walmart said its pharmacists "refused to fill
hundreds of thousands of opioid prescriptions they thought could be
problematic" and had "blocked thousands of questionable doctors
from having their opioid prescriptions filled." The company also
said it frequently assisted law enforcement agencies in "bringing
bad doctors to justice."

Caught in the middle of this are pain patients with legitimate
prescriptions that are not getting filled. In August, two patients
filed class action complaints against Walgreens, Costco and CVS
alleging they were discriminated against by the pharmacies.

As PNN has reported, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and other members
of Congress are urging the DEA to update a regulation that would
allow pharmacists to only partially fill an opioid prescription.
Patients would have to return a second time to get the rest of
their medication. [GN]


WALT: Employees File Class Action in Israel
-------------------------------------------
Al Khaleej Today reports that few areas of activity benefited from
the corona period in a way that allowed them to make a leap in
their activity precisely during an economic crisis. One of these
areas is the food delivery sector, which is controlled by two
companies that are part of international groups: Walt and Let
Bite.

Thanks to the restrictions imposed due to the corona crisis, these
two companies have become a major artery for food consumption from
restaurants for a growing public in Israel. Thus, under the
auspices of the plague, they expanded their geographical spread and
manpower situation, and increased revenues. But under the auspices
of the crisis and the need to meet the huge demand for their
services, sometimes the conditions of the workers were left behind,
and now it may be in their backyard.

After the criticism that the competitor in the field of food
deliveries Walt received about her business model, and the fact
that she does not grant the full social rights that employees in
Israel deserve to her employees, it turns out that the Israeli
actress Tan Biss, who became part of an international corporation
two years ago.

After long months of attempts to incorporate that were halted by
Tan Biss, the Histadrut approached the company with a document
seeking to recognize the association as a representative
organization of its employees. It managed to attach about 700 of
the 1,400 emissaries that the company employs to establish a
representative committee. According to the Histadrut, no response
has yet been received regarding holding talks or conducting
negotiations regarding the workers' demands.

Unlike a competitor in the field of food delivery Walt, which
treats its employees as "partners" and does not provide them with
social conditions that employees in Israel are entitled to by law,
Tan Biss has always stated that all its employees are employed as
employees. In recent months, we have reported here a class action
lawsuit filed in Israel against Walt, which deals with exactly this
gap in the amount of NIS 24 million.

However, it now turns out that in recent months, Tan Biss has begun
to employ non-employed workers on a limited basis, through an
outside supplier, presumably in parallel with an increase in demand
for food deliveries against the backdrop of corona restrictions.
Some see this as a precedent that is more reminiscent of the
employment model of the competitor from Finland -- Walt.

Internal correspondence in the WhatsApp groups of employees that
reached Globes shows that in recent months, in parallel with Urine
Bite has expanded its shipping operations due to the effects of the
Corona -- the company first began hiring non-employees, ie those
employed by an external distributor. In the same correspondence,
the director of the Petah Tikva area confirmed to the company in
early July that "the company is assisted in some cities, by an
external distributor," which he says takes place "only during rush
hour and to a negligible extent."

Among the workers, the impression is created that this is a move
that is taking place as an attempt to stop the workers'
organization. Even if in practice it is only a reinforcement of the
workforce due to an increase in demand due to the tightening of
restrictions on the public, for the employees it is a dangerous
precedent reminiscent of the employment model of the competing
company. The Workers' Committee has begun issuing statements that
their interpretation of an external distributor expression is the
work of a contractor, and that they will not agree to become such.

"This is not a negligible scope, we want to weaken all of us," the
workers' committee wrote, adding: "The plan to make us all
contractor workers is already in full swing, and its goal is clear:
we will no longer be Let Bis-Scober workers, we will be workers of
manpower companies. "Without conditions, without rights, and
without the ability to improve our conditions in the future." Along
with these allegations, the committee began to address personal
calls to Tan Biss' co-CEO, Tomer Pepper: "The CEO must go home."

Evidence: Management tried to disrupt the association

At the same time, "Globes" received complaints from employees of
the Tan Bis-Scooter emissary company, which indicate that the
management made attempts to disrupt the incorporation of its
emissaries, including attempts to dismiss the committee's chairman,
Steiner.

Steiner, 33, has been a courier for the company for a year and a
half, in fact shortly after entering the food delivery industry
following the acquisition of it by the Dutch company Takeaway.com
from founder Tamir Carmel. This acquisition made it part of an
international concern, following which it first entered the service
of deliveries from restaurants independently. In a conversation
with "Globes" he says: "The corona has made the emissaries the
heroes of the hour. What is less talked about is the risk we absorb
– almost no emissary who has not had an accident, including me.
But today there is no extended insurance for the emissaries sector,
only Social Security. I know emissaries who have lost their ability
to work, and that the company let them sign a letter of
resignation. "

Steiner has been trying for months to form a committee to represent
the company, but he claims his attempts have been halted by its
executives. He said: "Team leaders have tried to persuade
emissaries to cancel their signature to the Histadrut, hinting that
the management of the international company will not like it, even
though there are committees in other countries where the group
operates."

Over the past few weeks, Batan Biss emissaries have shared
difficulties they have encountered during their work as emissaries,
in order to encourage more employees to join the committee. For
example, one of the workers describes that during a mission he
performed a minibus collided with him, and he was injured and
dislocated the patella of the knee and shoulder. "I have no one to
turn to," the same employee wrote, "I tried, I did not get an
answer. I could not get coupons for the Social Security bureaucracy
to fund the treatment expenses. It was time we had a sympathetic
ear," the same employee wrote, declaring that he had joined the
union.

Another employee who posted his picture and details describes that
he is 43 years old, and has been employed for over a year by Batan
Biss: "If there is one thing that bothers me is the attitude
towards us employees, why should we feel type B, that all
management sit in its offices and treat us as transparent, I expect
attitude human".

Already about four months ago, Tan Biss employees began to organize
under a committee, but these attempts, Steiner claims, were halted.
In a post posted on the committee's Facebook page in July, the
committee claimed that there were team leaders who put pressure on
their employees against the association. Steiner confirms things in
a conversation with "Globes".

Rom emphasizes that the committee's demands do not relate to wage
increases, but to basic conditions for those who have become vital
workers due to the consequences of the corona crisis and the
closure imposed in Israel. Among the demands of the committee now
established under the Histadrut from the company: courier insurance
(as opposed to the standard social security payment to which they
are currently entitled), the inclusion of premiums in the base
salary (so that they affect social security provisions), Saturday
pay according to real wages, arrangement of delivery distances
Minimum work per week.

Enjoyed relative industrial quiet

This explosion between the management of Tan Biss and its couriers
takes place after a long period in which Tan Biss enjoyed
relatively industrial quiet, when the arrows of the restaurants and
also the criticism of the attitude towards the employees, were
diverted to competitor Walt.

Since Walt's entry into Israel in 2018, shortly after Urine Bite
was acquired by the Dutch company Takeaway.com, shipping activity
in Israel has changed from end to end. Until then, Tan Biss'
customers were mainly companies in a wide range of fields that gave
their employees a benefit in the form of Tan Bite cards.
Simultaneously with the penetration of Walt into Israel, the
activity of Ten Biss also expanded to couriers on two-wheeled
vehicles that try to deliver deliveries in a much shorter period of
time than was previously accepted -- half an hour.

Walt's model, like other Gig Economy -- based models in the world,
such as the Uber and Lift taxi services apps, has been widely
criticized around the world. In contrast, Tan Biss was careful to
provide its employees with conditions of an employee. In doing so,
the company has managed to position itself as an alternative in
terms of these conditions.

About a week ago, Walt began a pilot as part of which it
implemented a change in its algorithm, which should improve its
performance and shorten delivery times and streamline routes on the
way to them. This change has already drawn criticism from
emissaries in the company, with Walt waiting for the end of the
pilot, which is based on a number of parameters, including the
emissaries' satisfaction, to decide whether to continue the change,
or to shelve it.

In interviews given to "Globes" in the last six months by both Walt
CEO Emery Galai and CEO Tan Biss Nurit Shaked, it appears that
these two activities of delivering food from restaurants to the
customer's home in Israel are still not profitable. In Walt it is
the main activity, Batan Biss is still a secondary activity.

In any case, even if they are not yet profitable, as these
companies have strengthened and entered the heart of the consensus
in Israel, they will be required to re-examine the conduct. They
will be increasingly exposed to attention outside the world of
restaurants, including those from the labor market, and perhaps
even from regulators. That is, the success of these companies that
made a leap forward in the Corona period may challenge them in
areas that to date have managed to keep under the radar, including
labor relations.

Matan Biss responded: "The issue concerns the employees of our
shipping company, who are employed in direct employment according
to the policy dictated by the company's management in the
Netherlands. Our employees are the heart of the company and
contribute to its success and we maintain a direct communication
channel. The company respects the law. Or not joining a workers'
organization is a personal choice of the employee and we will
respect it. "

The association of Let Bite

700 - The number of emissaries that the Histadrut managed to sign

1,400 - The number of apostles employed by Natan Biss [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the order
dismissing a wage-and-hour class suit in Nebraska has been
appealed.

The company had been involved in class action litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its Career Track Program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time. The period
covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through March
2014.

The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in the company's favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5
million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

As of September 30, 2020, the company had accrued for the jury's
award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had
not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. Plaintiffs appealed the
post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs and
liquidated damages, and the Company filed a cross appeal on the
verdict that was in plaintiffs' favor.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied
the Plaintiffs' appeal and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court sent the
case back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the
appellate court's opinion.

On June 22, 2020, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' request
for a new trial and entered judgment in favor of the Company,
dismissing the case with prejudice.

On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of appeal of
that dismissal.

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

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

WIRECARD AG: Faces Consolidated Securities Class Action in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICLG.com reports that Wirecard AG, a payment processor
headquartered in Munich, Germany, filed for insolvency on June 25,
2020, after admitting $2.1 billion (EUR1.9 billion) in cash on its
balance sheets probably never existed.

The scandal, which was fully disclosed by June 2020, caused
Wirecard shares to plummet by more than 90% over a seven day
trading period. As part of Germany's prestigious DAX 30 index,
Wirecard ordinary stock was an automatic investment for pension
funds around the world and a favorite of retail investors.

Allegations

Now, investors across the globe are seeking redress for the
financial harm caused by Wirecard's alleged corporate misconduct,
including:

Claims

These claims are underway in a consolidated class action in the
United States (In re Wirecard AG Securities Litigation, No. 2:20-
cv-03326, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) with another five opt-in proceedings being pursued in
Germany against Wirecard's auditor, Ernst & Young (E&Y) and/or the
German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin)/German
Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel (FREP/ DPR). Significantly,
since Wirecard filed for bankruptcy and is no longer a solvent
counterparty, Wirecard investors are bringing cases against E&Y for
wrongful auditing, and against BaFin for allegedly failing to
comply with its statutory duties to prevent market manipulation.
Additionally, four investor groups are pursuing recovery in
Wirecard's insolvency proceedings.

Case Challenges

1. INTERNATIONAL OPT-IN LITIGATION

As part of Germany's opt-in litigation mechanism, if an investor
wishes to participate in one of the German actions, it must
proactively join the litigation prior to settlement. Claimants must
work with a law firm and litigation funder, and the process can be
longer and more involved. Further, there are multiple cases that
could proceed on parallel tracks. In order to weigh their various
options, claimants must understand the differences between the
cases, legal theories, damage calculations, and potential outcomes.
They must also understand how their trading patterns may impact
their losses, which requires a detailed individual review. Finally,
the various firms and funders may have different or preferable
contractual terms.

2. MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS

With no fewer than six class actions and parallel insolvency
proceedings, it is important for institutional investors to
understand the time periods, defendants, and damage theories in
relation to their trading patterns, and appetite for exposure. For
example, an investor may be prohibited, or may decline to bring a
claim against the auditor defendant Ernst & Young, while still
pursuing recovery against BaFin or participating in one of the
insolvency proceedings. With Wirecard in insolvency, each of these
proceedings must carefully be considered because future recovery
efforts may not be pursued.

3. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE AND COMPLEX INSTRUMENTS

Eligible securities were those listed on the Frankfurt Stock
Exchange in Germany and Wirecard ADRs publicly traded over the
counter in the United States. This requires a higher-level review
to locate each transaction and confirm the transaction occurred on
the correct exchange.

4. GERMAN LAW AND CLAIM FILINGS

The participants in the German proceedings will need to
affirmatively opt-in to the litigation. Based on the German
collective proceeding mechanisms that will apply, this option will
require more open and active participation in the litigation by the
investor.

5. CONCURRENT INSOLVENCY ACTIONS

The indebtedness and insolvency of Wirecard will complicate
recovery as shareholders' fraud claims will be part of the same pro
rata distribution with other unsecured claims.

6. ADDITIONAL FILING COSTS

Participating in an opt-in litigation may involve additional costs
and additional contractual relationships. Unlike a US class action,
each potential claimant is treated separately, and each individual
case has its own funding and paperwork requirements. Typically,
there are fees associated with filing in these matters. Funding
agreements and costs will differ depending on the case in which the
claim is filed, and the law firm and litigation funder. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Order Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ et al.
v. XPO LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an Order
denying the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class.

The Court said the Defendants argue that the Court should
reconsider its superiority analysis with respect to the Plaintiffs'
minimum wage and meal and rest break claims, because those claims,
like the Plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement of maintenance
expenses, are unmanageable. Defendants point to various facts
contained in their previous filings in this lawsuit and assert that
the Court failed to consider these facts. The Defendants' position
is misguided. In ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Court considered all of the facts that were
properly before the Court. Although the Court's Order did not
reference the specific facts to which Defendants point, "[t]he
Court's brevity or lack of explicit analysis does not equate to
insufficient, or lack of, consideration.""

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m3h1bz at no extra charge.[CC]


YALOBUSHA HEALTH: Groner FLSA Action Granted Collective Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINA GRONER, JEFFREY
SWINDLE, GEORGE H. BEAM, JR., and RONALD STARK, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. YALOBUSHA HEALTH
SERVICES, and YALOBUSHA GENERAL HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME, Case No.
3:19-cv-00201-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Mills
entered an Order granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf
of:

   "the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated emergency
   medical service drivers, emergency medical technician basics,
   and paramedics for all compensable hours required by federal
   law."

The court concludes the plaintiffs have, in fact, made substantial
allegations that they were the victims of such common unlawful
conduct under Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987),
since they allege the plaintiffs are all either paramedics,
emergency medical service drivers ("EMS Drivers"), and emergency
medical technicians ("EMT Basics"). They all work in the same
department of the hospital, have the same supervisor, are on the
same schedule, work together as teams, and have the same
responsibility to handle all EMS calls and other related duties as
required by Defendants. The same policy or practice of not
compensating the potential plaintiffs for all hours on a shift even
though all of the potential plaintiffs had restrictions and were
required to work during the entire shift applied to all of them.
Notably, Chandler worked as both a EMS Driver and an EMT Basic for
Defendants. The only difference in the duties of the job titles
(i.e., Driver, Basic, and Paramedic) is the level of medical
assistance or care that each could render to a patient.

This is an FLSA action in which the plaintiffs allege the
Defendants have failed to pay all compensable hours required by
federal law.

Yalobusha Health Services has a 26 bed Hospital, 122 bed Nursing
Home and 5 medical Clinics, that employs over 300 professionals.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UM2ODT at no extra charge.[CC]

ZOSANO PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Carr v. Zosano Pharma
Corporation, et al., (Case No. 3:20-cv-07625) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano Pharma
Corporation ("Zosano" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: ZSAN) securities
between February 13, 2017 and September 30, 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").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Zosano 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/zosano-pharma-corporation/. 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.

Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its lead product
candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of zolmitriptan coated
onto the Company's microneedle patch. Its pivotal efficacy trial,
called ZOTRIP, began in July 2016. In December 2019, Zosano
submitted its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking regulatory approval for
Qtrypta.

On September 30, 2020, after the market closed, Zosano disclosed
receipt of a discipline review letter ("DRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for Qtrypta and stated that approval was not
likely. According to the Company's press release, the FDA "raised
questions regarding unexpected high plasma concentrations of
zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from two
pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from these subjects affect
the overall clinical pharmacology section of the application." The
FDA also "raised questions regarding differences in zolmitriptan
exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots of
Qtrypta in the company's clinical trials."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92, or 57%, to
close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously
identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a
repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during
development.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or 27%, to
close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's clinical results reflected
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots; (2) that pharmocokinetic studies
submitted in connection with the Company's NDA included patients
exhibiting unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan;
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing differences among patient
results, the FDA was reasonably likely to require further studies
to support regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (4) that, as a result,
regulatory approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Zosano securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from 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 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]


[*] Bill of Law 7650 Aims to Introduce Class Action Procedure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the
bill of law 7650 (" Bill"), which was recently presented by the
Government, aims to introduce a class action procedure allowing for
the compensation of damages suffered by a group of consumers
resulting from the same illicit behaviour by, or practice of, a
professional.

Inspired by Belgian and French precedents, the Bill anticipates the
adoption by the European Union of what is still a proposal for a
directive on representative actions for the protection of the
collective interests of consumers.

According to the Bill, class actions could be brought before the
court, and the group represented by, either a consumer who is part
of the group or a qualified entity such as, in particular, a
consumer organisation. If successful, a judge could order a
cessation or prohibition of a wrongful or illegal practice, as well
as a compensation for damage suffered by the group of consumers.

Several categories of disputes would nevertheless be excluded from
the proposed class action procedure, such as:

- Disputes in relation to anti-competitive practices; and

- Disputes between consumers and professionals supervised by the
Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) or the
Commissariat aux Assurances (CAA), except those concerning consumer
loans, mortgage loans, as well as contracts for financial services
concluded remotely and insurance contracts concluded remotely.

The Bill provides for several procedural particularities, such as,
inter alia, an admissibility pre-phase during which a judge shall
rule whether the specific admissibility conditions provided for by
the Bill were respected, the possibility for the judge to determine
whether to apply an opt-in or an opt-out procedure, the possibility
for a consumer representing the group to sue (as opposed to
reserving the class action procedure to qualified entities) as well
as the appointment of a liquidator for the distribution of the
amounts allocated to the consumers.

An update will be circulated as soon as the Bill is adopted by
Parliament. [GN]


[*] BIPA Class Action Not Barred by State Law, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Chicago
nursing-home worker's proposed class action alleging her employer's
fingerprint timekeeping system violates an Illinois privacy statute
isn't barred by the state law that governs most workplace-related
injuries, a state appeals court ruled.

The Biometric Information Privacy Act claims for statutory damages
aren't compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act and so
aren't preempted by its exclusive remedy provision, the Illinois
Appellate Court, First District, said.

This is the first Illinois state appeals court to weigh in on the
preemption question. Several Illinois federal courts and state
circuit courts have reached the same conclusion.

The lawsuit was filed in 2017. [GN]


[*] Exotic Dancers Obtain Class Certification in Wages Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that exotic dancers suing the strip club they say
misclassified them as independent contractors and failed to pay
hourly wages got their collective action conditionally certified by
a Texas federal judge, despite the fact that the dancers had signed
arbitration agreements. [GN]


[*] Lack of Stimulus Bill May Lead to Spike in COVID Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Famakinwa, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that
throughout 2020, there have been a number of new laws and legal
trends that could have major impacts on the in-home care industry.
In order for providers to be successful in the long run, it's
important to remain abreast of the latest developments.

That was the message delivered by Angelo Spinola, an attorney and
shareholder at Littler Mendelson, during this year's National
Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) annual conference.

Among key legal developments, Spinola touched on the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which creates paid leave -- both
sick leave and family medical leave -- for employees who satisfy
certain conditions.

When it comes to the FFCRA, the status of the health care provider
exemption should be an area of interest to providers, according to
Spinola.

When the law originally went into effect in April, the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) created a broad exemption for health care
providers.

"It certainly covered home health providers . . . and arguably
covered most of the non-medical home care providers as well,"
Spinola said. "What the [DOL] allowed companies to do, if you did
meet the exemption, is exempt everybody within the entity, meaning
it wasn't specific to the employee. It's whether the employer would
qualify as a health care provider."

Under the law, providers who qualified for the exemption could
elect to not offer coverage to any of their employees, or they
could offer partial coverage, such as paid sick leave, but not paid
family medical leave.

"There were many home care agencies that were doing just that; they
were offering the paid sick leave, but not the paid family medical
leave," Spinola said. "The reason for that decision is that
companies were really concerned about losing caregivers for an
extended period, for 12 weeks of time, because their children were
out of school. [They were concerned about] not having anyone
available to care for their clients."

Recent rumblings in New York have caused confusion around what
companies qualify for the exemption, however.

The state of New York issued a legal challenge to DOL regulations,
effectively saying that the department exceeded its authority in
making the health care provider exemption so broad.

Generally, the state of New York challenged four elements of the
FFCRA regulations including the work availability requirement, the
definition of health care provider, intermittent leave and the
documentation requirement.

The state won on all grounds.

"What does this mean for you?" he said. "It means that if you were
relying on a health care provider exemption to exclude coverage
under the FFCRA, . . . there's some risk to you for having relied
on that exemption. You were relying on a broader exemption that has
now been struck down."

The DOL has since revised regulations, and providers need to
determine whether their agency is subject to the FFCRA.

As far as other steps providers should take, it's crucial to
determine whether it's in the company's best interest to provide
full or partial FFCRA benefits to all employees. Providers should
also communicate with employees, as well as implement an
arbitration program, according to Spinola.

Stimulus package, qualified immunity

The next coronavirus-related stimulus package remains top of mind
for providers.

When it comes to advocacy initiatives, most providers had five key
areas of focus.

These areas include increased pay for front-line workers to
discourage many from going on unemployment, child care support for
caregivers, priority access to personal protective equipment (PPE),
qualified immunity and the creation of an "HCBS Direct Care Worker
Fund."

In May, House Democrats unveiled the Health and Economic Recovery
Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, a COVID-19 stimulus bill.
The bill included most of the five industry initiatives except for
qualified immunity.

Ultimately, the bill passed out of the house, but couldn't pass in
the Senate.

Another stimulus package, the Health, Economic Assistance,
Liability Protection and Schools (HEALS) Act, was introduced in
July. Out of five industry initiatives, the bill only included paid
child care and qualified immunity. The legislation failed to pass
out of the Senate.

"The problem that we are seeing is there's no movement right now,"
Spinola said. "They're $2.5 trillion apart. There are significant
differences between the two acts."

While it's impossible to say what will happen, Spinola pointed to
the state of the economy as an indicator of the future.

"I think that what might happen is directly tied to the state of
the economy," he said. "We saw the economy really tank. We saw
record unemployment claims. …I think we are seeing now because
the economy is starting to rebound, there's less pressure on
Congress to create this stimulus package."

As the election draws closer, there will be less focus on the
stimulus bill.

"That's concerning because that means a lot of the things that we
were hoping to accomplish, . . .  we might not get," Spinola
added.

In particular, if qualified immunity doesn't pass, it puts the
industry in a very vulnerable spot for litigation.

Overall, there have been at least 792 COVID‐related labor and
employment lawsuits filed against employers, and more than 2,000
general COVID‐related lawsuits. More than 10% of these cases
include class-action claims.

"Not surprising that since COVID hit, we've seen an increase in
related cases," Spinola said. "Each month, the number gets higher
and higher, and we're going to continue to see this. Unfortunately,
we are seeing it specifically in the health care space." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***