---

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

              Tuesday, December 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 245

                            Headlines

ANASSA HOLDINGS: Benito Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
AT&T CORP: Appeals Civil Action Suit in Kentucky Court of Appeals
AVANTUS LLC: Martinez Files Suit for Breach of FCRA in Connecticut
BANCROFT NEURO: Faces Campbell Suit Over Wrongful Termination
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Wins Final Nod of $10MM Settlement in Taha Suit

C&F INSURANCE: Cruz Files Suit in New York under ADA
CANADA GOOSE: Lee Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court OKs Protective Order Riders in Two Cases
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Milano Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

CREDIT PROTECTION: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
EMBRACE PET INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
FAMOUS CORNER: Arellano Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Food Preparers

FIELDCORE SERVICES: Greinstein Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
FLORIDA: Final Order in Tropical Trailer Suit Reversed in Part
FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Sues Over Unlawful Wage Pay & Kickbacks
FORMATIX CORP: Tama Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination in Workplace
FTS USA: Monroe Files Cross-Appeal in FLSA Suit to Sixth Circuit

GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Torres Suit Over Defective Vehicle Batteries
GERON CORP: Bid to Nix IMbark Related Putative Class Suit Pending
GET FRESH: Webber Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Illinois Court
GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York

GRIP6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says
HEALTHY PAWS PET: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
HUHTAMAKI INC: Hernandez Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Products
INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Notice Plan in Chinitz Suit Partly Okayed
JIMMY JOHNS LLC: Erwin Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.

JONES POTATO CHIP: Paguada Assert Breach of ADA in New York
KEY FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Parham FLSA Suit
KITCHEN COOKED: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
KROGER CO: Court Narrows Claims in Solano UTPA Suit
LANNETT CO: Bid to Nix Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit Pending

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
LIONS GATE: Continues to Seek Added Reimbursement from Insurers
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Appeals Order in Aronstein Suit to 1st Cir.

MDL 2983: Seeks Transfer of Dickey's Data Breach Suits to S.D. Cal.
MERIT MEDICAL: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in California
METLIFE PET INSURANCE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York
MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Arteaga Files FDCPA Suit in Florida

MIKES HOT: Faces Monegro Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATIONAL DELIVERY: Jones Sues Over Unpaid OT and Discrimination
NEW YORK BLACK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order in Kasiotis Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Matzell Files Prisoner Rights Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Fund's Securities Suit

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Action Still Pending
PARSLEY ENERGY: Gupta Challenges Proposed $4.5-Bil. Sale to Pioneer
PETS BEST INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Pending

PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Stayed
PUMPKIN INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
RAUSCH STURM ISRAEL: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in New York
RAW GENERATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Slade Claims
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Broom Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA

RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
RMG ACQUISITION: Bushansky Challenges Proposed Merger With Romeo
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Cota Suit Alleges ADA Violation in New York
SHAVE MOB LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SONIC CORP: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review in Bogard FCRA Suit

SPOT PET INSURANCE: Cruz Files Suit under ADA
STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits Pending
STRIPE INC: Illegally Collects Consumer's Private Info, Silver Says
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Lidoderm-Related Suit Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending

TEVA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Lamictal(R) Related Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Denied
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
TIESTA TEA CO: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
TRUPANION INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA

UNITED STATES: Appeals Order in Personal Injury Suit to D.C. Cir.
VILLA SOTA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Tips, Retaliation
VISALUS INC: Loses Statutory Damages Dispute in Wakefield TCPA Suit
WEEE INC: Paguada Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
XPO LOGISTICS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review in Alvarez Labor Suit


                            *********

ANASSA HOLDINGS: Benito Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO MORALES BENITO and JAVIER CANO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. ANASSA HOLDINGS LLC (D/B/A ANASSA
TAVERNA), NICK TSOULOS, and VICTOR FLORES, Case No. 1:20-cv-10114
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.
The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a written
notice and an accurate wage statement, failed to reimburse the
costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment
required to perform their jobs and made unlawful deductions from
Plaintiffs' wages including, but not limited to, deductions for
meals they never ate.

The Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, busboy and food runner at
the Defendants' restaurant in New York City. Plaintiff Morales
Benito was employed by the Defendants at Anassa Taverna from
approximately March 2015 until on or about October 19, 2020 while
Plaintiff Cano was employed at Anassa Taverna from approximately
February 2014 until on or about October 11, 2020.

Anassa Holdings LLC owns, operates, or controls a Greek restaurant
in New York under the name "Anassa Taverna."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

AT&T CORP: Appeals Civil Action Suit in Kentucky Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate case has been initiated by AT&T Corp. on December 1,
2020. The case is captioned as AT&T CORP. ET. AL. V. DONNA FELTER,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 2020-CA-1500, in the Kentucky Court of
Appeals.

The case type is classified as an expedited civil action.

AT&T Corp. offers telecommunications services. The Company provides
a range of networking solutions, including business continuity,
mobility, Internet, security, virtual private networking, and voice
over IP. AT&T serves clients worldwide.[BN]

Appellants AT&T CORP. and BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC are
represented by:

          Walter Blaine Early, III, Esq.
          Marshall Reid Hixson, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          250 West Main St. Suite 2300
          Lexington, KY 40507-1758
          Telephone: (859) 226-2300
          E-mail: bearly@stites.com  
                  mhixson@stites.com  

Appellee DONNA FELTNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, is represented by:

          Sean McCarty, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          1205 East Washington St. Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: sean@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Randal Alan Strobo, Esq.
          STROBO BARKLEY PLLC
          239 South 5th St., Suite 917
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 290-9751
          Facsimile: (502) 378-5395
          E-mail: rstrobo@strobobarkley.com

AVANTUS LLC: Martinez Files Suit for Breach of FCRA in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avantus, LLC. The
case is styled as Marvel Martinez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avantus, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01772-JCH (D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2020).

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

Avantus provides customized mortgage credit reports,
mortgage-related services and technology solutions to the nation's
financial community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sarah Poriss, Esq.
   Sarah Poriss Attorney at Law, LLC
   645 Farmington Ave., 3rd Fl.
   Hartford, CT 06105
   Tel: (860) 233-0336
   Fax: (866) 424-4880
   Email: sarahporiss@prodigy.net


BANCROFT NEURO: Faces Campbell Suit Over Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CAMPBELL v. BANCROFT NEURO HEALTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a
BANCROFT NEUROREHAB; BANCROFT NEUROREHAB, INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a
BANCROFT NEUROHEALTH; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.
CAM-L-003841-20 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., Nov. 20, 2020) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other individuals similarly
situated arising from the Defendants' violation of the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was accused of abuse of a
patient in December of 2019. Just prior to the accusation, however,
the Plaintiff had made a complaint that his manager, Lichai
Griffin, was misappropriating and/or stealing funds from either the
entity or from residents. The Plaintiff was suspended without pay
for a significant period of time, through and including a certain
date in February of 2020, his suspension beginning on or about
December 25, 2019.

On or about April 16, 2020, Plaintiff was told by his director,
Katie Metcalf, that he was now being investigated for patient abuse
against the same patient who formed the basis of the prior
allegation. Approximately eight days after being told of the
investigation, Plaintiff reported finding illegal audio and video
recording equipment in the facility office. A "sham" investigation
was then conducted to maliciously and falsely provide a pretext for
Plaintiff's termination, which took place a few weeks later, on May
15, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that, on several occasions during his
employment, he engaged in these legally-protected conduct and that,
as a consequence, he was both suspended without pay and then,
later, terminated. He alleges that his protected conduct, in whole
or in part, was a motivating and/or determinative factor in his
termination.

The Plaintiff was employed by the companies from approximately
October 31, 2019 through his retaliatory discharge on or about May
15, 2020 as a director, but later stepped down to a staff
position.

Bancroft Neuro Health and Bancroft NeuroRehab are Cherry Hill, New
Jersey-based regional nonprofit providers of programs and services
for individuals with autism, intellectual and developmental
disabilities and those in need of neurological rehabilitation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Wins Final Nod of $10MM Settlement in Taha Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled DARYOUSH TAHA v. BUCKS COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Case No. 12-6867
(E.D. Pa.), District Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a Memorandum
Opinion and an Order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of the parties' amended settlement agreement and the
motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and a service award.

Judge Beetlestone ordered that:

   1. the Class Action Settlement Agreement is APPROVED and shall
      be effectuated by the parties in accordance with its terms;

   2. the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
      Agreement is GRANTED;

   3. the Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Litigation
      Expenses, and Class Representative Service Award is
      GRANTED;

   4. the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Bucks
      County, Pennsylvania, and Bucks County Correctional
      Facility; and

   5. the Clerk of the Court shall enter this Final Judgment
      forthwith and terminate Defendants Bucks County
      Pennsylvania and Bucks County Correctional Facility from
      this case.

According to the Order, a total of 10,232 valid class claims were
submitted.

The action arises from an "Inmate Lookup Tool" ("ILT") created by
Defendants Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF") and Bucks
County, through which they published on the internet information,
such as photographs, state fingerprint identification numbers,
arrest dates, and arrest charges, about individuals held or
incarcerated at BCCF from 1938 onward. Launched in January 2011,
the ILT was publicly searchable and included information for those,
like Plaintiff Taha, whose criminal records were subsequently
expunged. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' database was
not secure, and several private companies republished the
Plaintiff's booking photograph and other information about him on
their websites.

The Plaintiff filed this action on December 7, 2012, and later
amended his complaint to bring suit on behalf of himself and all
persons whose criminal history record information was made
available on the ILT. He alleged that the Defendants' publication
of this information violated the anti-dissemination provisions of
Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA"),
18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 9101 et seq. The Court granted the Plaintiff
partial summary judgment on liability in March 2016, holding that
the ILT violated the CHRIA by disseminating "criminal history
record information" in a manner prohibited by the Act. Taha v.
Bucks County, 172 F.Supp.3d 867, 872 (E.D. Pa. 2016). The Court
dismissed, however, the Plaintiff's claim for "actual and real
damages," finding that the Plaintiff did not suffer any actual
injury, i.e., economic loss, resulting from the Defendants'
actions. The only outstanding issue was whether the Defendants'
CHRIA violation was "willful," thereby, warranting punitive
damages.

In May 2016, the Court certified a punitive damages class
consisting of "all persons whose criminal history record
information was made available on the BCCF Inmate Lookup Tool." The
Defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed class certification.

At the close of evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding the
Defendants committed willful violations and awarded each class
member $1,000 in punitive damages, the statutory minimum amount.
Final judgment was entered on July 2, 2019. The Defendants filed an
appeal in the Third Circuit, as well as several post-trial motions
in this Court. All of the Defendants' post-trial motions were
denied in a single opinion, and the Defendants amended their Third
Circuit appeal to include this decision, as well as every interim
order or judgment adverse to their interests issued during the
course of the litigation.

In early 2020, with this appeal still pending, the parties appeared
before the Third Circuit's Chief Mediator, Joseph Torregrossa,
Esq., to attempt to negotiate the terms of a class action
settlement. After three months of negotiations, an agreement was
reached, and the Third Circuit subsequently granted the parties'
joint request for partial remand to allow this Court to rule on
their proposed settlement agreement.

The parties propose a claims-made settlement, providing for a
minimum aggregate payment by the Defendants to the class of $3.5
million, and a maximum aggregate payment to the class of $10
million. Under the terms of the agreement, each class member will
be entitled to receive $600, or 60% of the jury award. The proposal
also contemplates programmatic relief for expungement and addiction
services for clients of the Bucks County Public Defender,
consisting of 5% of the difference between the aggregate amount
distributed to class members and the $10 million ceiling.

The settlement agreement provides that Defendants will pay fees and
expenses to class counsel. The Defendants have agreed to pay class
counsel $4 million, which would encompass $3,538,165.34 in fees and
$461,834.66 in expenses. The settlement agreement also includes a
proposed service award of $30,000 for class representative Taha, to
be paid from the $10 million available for the class.

On May 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement. On June
2, 2020, following a hearing, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement, subject to minor revisions, and
approved the proposed notice to class members.

The claims administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC ("Analytics"),
proceeded to publish notice of the settlement in the Doylestown
Intelligencer and Bucks County Courier Times. Analytics also
mailed, by first-class mail, a settlement notice packet to all
eligible class members. This packet included the claimant's unique
claim number and instructions for filing a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated November
30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y46fzas7 from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated November 30, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3z2a8mp from Leagle.com.


C&F INSURANCE: Cruz Files Suit in New York under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
C&F Insurance Agency, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C&F Insurance Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09935 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Crum & Forster provides specialty and standard commercial lines
insurance products through admitted and surplus lines insurance
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CANADA GOOSE: Lee Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canada Goose US, Inc.
The case is captioned as George Lee, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Canada Goose US, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09809-VM (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020.)

The lawsuit alleges fraud relating to personal property.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero.

Canada Goose Inc. manufactures apparel products. The Company
designs and produces coats, gloves, hats, vests, raincoats, snow
pants, and other related products for men, women, and children.
Canada Goose serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          8 W 126th St
          New York, NY 10027
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter
Communications, Inc. D/B/A Spectrum. The case is styled as Richard
Henderson, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Charter Communications, Inc. D/B/A Spectrum,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01769 (D. Conn., Nov. 25, 2020).

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

Charter Communications, Inc., is an American telecommunications and
mass media company with services branded as Charter Spectrum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
   Lemberg Law, LLC
   43 Danbury Road
   Wilton, CT 06897
   Tel: (203) 653-2250
   Fax: (203) 653-3424
   Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com



CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court OKs Protective Order Riders in Two Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik approved the parties' stipulation
and orders relating to agreed riders to protective order in the
lawsuits titled CHERYL KATER and SUZIE KELLY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHURCHILL DOWNS
INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation, and BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a
Washington corporation, Noting Date: November 27, 2020; and MANASA
THIMMEGOWDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington
corporation; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Nevada corporation;
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; and
CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation, Case Nos.
15-cv-00612-RSL and 19-cv-00199-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Stipulation and Order relates to an agreed rider to protective
order regarding the use and disclosure of discovery produced by
nonparty stipulation, and the Order relates to an agreed rider to
protective order regarding the use and disclosure of discovery
produced by nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.

This agreement is entered into between and among nonparty
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain parties to the two actions,
Kater et al. v. Churchill Downs Incorporated, et al., Case No.
C15-0612-RSL (the "Kater Action") and Thimmegowda v. Big Fish
Games, et al., Case No. C19-0199-RSL (the "Thimmegowda Action")
specifically: Kater Action plaintiffs Cheryl Kater and Suzie Kelly;
and Thimmegowda Action plaintiff Manasa Thimmegowda (collectively
with Ms. Kater and Ms. Kelly, the "Plaintiffs"). The Plaintiffs and
Amazon anticipate that Amazon will produce documents in this action
that contain sensitive consumer information. This agreement is
intended to supplement the protective order entered by the Court on
May 5, 2020 (ECF Nos. 192-1 and 213 in the Kater Action)
("Protective Order").

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finds good cause for the Agreed Rider To Protective Order
Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery Produced By Nonparty
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Rider").

The parties agree that the 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. The 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 Parties that this Rider will
protect all materials produced by Amazon in the Actions unless
otherwise specified.

The parties also agree, among other things, that the protections
conferred by this Rider cover not only the Amazon Protected
Material governed by this Rider, but also any information copied or
extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or
compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or
presentations by Parties or their counsel in court or in other
settings that might reveal Amazon Protected Material. Nothing in
this Rider shall prevent or restrict Amazon's own disclosure or use
of its own Amazon Protected Material for any purpose, and nothing
in this 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.

James Howard -- JimHoward@dwt.com -- Molly N. Tullman --
mollytullman@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, in Seattle,
Washington, represent Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Orders dated
November 30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyvd78tv
from Leagle.com.


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Milano Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MILANO, ROBERT CAMERON, RODNEY HERGENRADER, KATHERINE H.
JONCAS and CHARLES VAN HOOSER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S.
CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, THE 401(K) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Case No. 2:20-cv-17793 (D.N.J., Dec. 2, 2020) is brought pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties.

At all times during the Class period, from December 2, 2014 through
the date of judgment, the Cognizant Technology Solutions 401(k)
Savings Plan had at least 410 million dollars in assets under
management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had over 1
billion dollars and 1.1 billion dollars, respectively, in assets
under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA Section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A),
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and
to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing
to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and
(3) failing to control the Plan's record-keeping costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a
reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars, the suit says.

Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation is an American
multinational product led digital corporation that provides digital
products, digital IT services, including digital, technology,
consulting, and operations services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103   
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

CREDIT PROTECTION: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MCROBIE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Case No. 5:18-cv-00566-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. entered an order granting the
Parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include:

   --  the establishment of a $40,000, non-reversionary
       settlement fund.

   --  CPA's payment to Elizabeth McRobie of $1,000 to settle
       her individual claims.

   --  CPA's funding of an incentive award of up to $5,000
       to compensate Ms. McRobie for her time and services
       as class representative.

   --  CPA's payment of up to $149,000.00 in attorneys' fees,
       costs and expenses to class counsel, including expenses
       incurred in providing notice to the class and other
       expenses incurred relative to class administration.

The class action alleges violation of two provisions of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  McRobie, an alleged debtor,
contends that a mailer she received from Defendant Credit
Protection Association (CPA), a debt-collection agency, violated
the FDCPA both in the mailer's form and substance.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and opinion dated Nov. 20, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36morkL at no
extra charge.[CC]


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas, remains pending.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to
the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to
meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center. The Company filed an answer to the
amended complaint denying plaintiffs' allegations and asked the
Court to dismiss the new causes of action asserted in the amended
complaint because the Company was prejudiced by the plaintiff's
long delay in filing the amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.

EMBRACE PET INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Embrace Pet Insurance Agency, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Embrace Pet Insurance Agency, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09938 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Embrace Pet Insurance offers personalized accident and illness
insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued an order on motions to
appoint lead plaintiff and approve selection of lead counsel in the
class action lawsuit titled GREGORY A. HURST v. ENPHASE ENERGY,
INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-04036-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Freeman grants Gregory Hurst's motion and denies Harish Varma
Patchametla and Renuka Indukuri's motion.

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Gregory Hurst filed a securities class
action suit in this Court alleging violations of various securities
laws against Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase"), Enphase CEO
Badrinarayanan Kothandaraman, and Enphase CFO Eric Branderiz
(collectively, "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that between
February 26, 2019, and June 17, 2020, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
material adverse facts, specifically that Enphase's domestic and
international revenues were inflated, Enphase engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices, and Enphase's reported base
point expansion in gross margins was overstated.

The complaint explains that on June 17, 2020, Prescience Point
Capital released a report announcing, among other things, that
financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by Enphase are fiction, and that based on its research,
Prescience Point estimated that at least $205.3 million of
Enphase's reported US revenue in FY 2019 was fabricated.

Following the publication of the report, Enphase's stock price
"plummeted from its June 16, 2020 closing price of $52.76 per share
to a June 17, 2020 closing price of $39.04 per share, a one day
drop of $13.72 or approximately 26%."

On August 17, 2020, Mr. Hurst filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel. That same day,
Patchametla and Indukuri, a married couple, jointly moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of
counsel.

The Prescience Point Capital Report was published on June 17, 2020.
Between the market close on June 16, 2020, and the market close on
June 17, 2020, the stock price dropped $13.72 from $52.76 to
$39.04. The Court finds that, on these facts, the recoverable loss
method most accurately establishes the prospective lead plaintiffs'
financial interest. Under this method, Patchametla and Indukuri
have the greatest financial interest and Hurst has the second
greatest financial interest.

Mr. Hurst points to two defects from which he believes Patchametla
and Indukuri suffer. First, he argues that the vast majority of
Patchametla and Indukuri's losses derive from purchases made after
the fraud's disclosure on June 17, 2020. Second, he argues that
Patchametla and Indukuri are day traders, subjecting them to unique
defenses and defeating their typicality.

The Court rejects Hurst's first objection. Judge Freeman notes that
courts in this district have found that class representatives, who
purchase shares after the revelation of a fraud are not necessarily
atypical, citing In re Montage Group Limited Sec. Litig., 2016 WL
1598666, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2016), among other cases.

According to the Order, the complaint alleges just one corrective
disclosure -- the June 17, 2020 Prescience Point Capital Report.
Thus, only those who held Enphase stock through that date were
harmed by the Defendants' alleged fraud. Investors, who bought or
acquired Enphase stock during the proposed class period, but sold
the stock prior to June 17, 2020, would not have suffered injury
from the fraud because they would have also sold the stock at an
alleged artificially inflated price. Instead, any loss or gain from
such a sale would be traceable to ordinary market forces.
Patchametla and Indukuri sold the lion's share of their class
period Enphase stock acquisitions prior to June 17, 2020. As such,
the Court has serious concerns about their vulnerability to a
defense that they were trading in response to information other
than the alleged misstatements and omissions made.

The Court next considers whether Mr. Hurst, who has the second
largest financial interest in this suit, qualifies as "the
presumptively most adequate plaintiff." Mr. Hurst presumably meets
the adequacy requirement because there is no evidence he is
antagonistic to the class members and he has selected counsel that
has significant experience in securities class action cases. He
also shares substantially similar questions of law and fact with
the members of the class because the claims arise from the same
alleged course of conduct by the Defendants. His claims are
presumptively typical of the class members, qualifying him as the
presumptive lead plaintiff.

In their attempt to rebut this presumption, Patchametla and
Indukuri argue that Mr. Hurst's challenge to their lead plaintiff
motion amounts to a willingness to "sell out the Class by conceding
to Defendants a not-yet-asserted, much less proven, affirmative
defense that the losses Class Members incurred prior to the full
assimilation of the alleged fraud on the market were not caused by
Defendants' misstatements or omissions."

The Court disagrees.

The Court has, thus, found in Mr. Hurst, the plaintiff with the
largest financial stake, who fulfills the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No parties have objected to Mr. Hurst's selection of Block &
Leviton LLP as lead counsel. The Court approves Mr. Hurst's
selection of Block & Leviton LLP as lead counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Freeman rules that Mr. Hurst's motion to appoint
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel is GRANTED. The
competing motion is DENIED.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated November 30, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxtr5rlb from Leagle.com.

FAMOUS CORNER: Arellano Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Food Preparers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO JAVIER ARELLANO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. FAMOUS CORNER, INC. d/b/a GRILL POINT,
1123 QUENTIN GRILL CORP d/b/a GRILL POINT, SHLOMO SELA, and MOSHE
PERETZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-05641 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages for the Plaintiff and the
Class members, including overtime compensation due to time shaving,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint contends that throughout the Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendants, he was not compensated for all his hours
worked each week. The Defendants' time-shaving policy, which only
paid Plaintiff up to 40 hours each week, has resulted to unpaid
hourly wage and unpaid overtime premium.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants and/or their
predecessors, as applicable, to work as a food preparer at a
restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York from in or around August
2019 until his termination on or about March 11, 2020.

The Defendants operate restaurants as a single integrated
enterprise under the trade name "GRILL POINT" in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

FIELDCORE SERVICES: Greinstein Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as HERMAN GREINSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. FIELDCORE SERVICES
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00208-Z-BR (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk conditionally certified a class
defined as:

    "all current and former Environmental Health & Safety (EHS)
    employees who resided or worked for FieldCore or Granite
    Services in Texas who were paid on the "Retainer B Salary"
    plan any time during the three-year period before this
    order."

The Court's order:

   1. granted in part Greinstein's Renewed Motion for
      Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice;

   2. directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      claims of the out-of-state named plaintiffs concerning
      whether those claims should be dismissed by stipulation
      or by motion of the Defendants. In either case, any
      stipulation or motion for dismissal shall be filed
      within 28 days of the Court order;

   3. directed the Defendants to provide Greinstein's Counsel
      with the names, last known home addresses, email
      addresses (both personal and work, where available),
      phone numbers, and date(s) of employment of
      potential plaintiffs who are part of the Court's
      conditionally certified class;

   4. directed Greinstein to meet and confer with the
      Defendant as to amending the contents and methods
      of the proposed Notice;

   5. directed the parties, by December 11, 2020, to file a
      Motion to Approve Notice, Opt-in; Consent Form, and
      Delivery Methods for the Magistrate Judge's consideration.
      In the event the parties cannot agree on drafts and
      delivery methods, they shall submit a single Notice and/or
      Opt-in Consent Form, indicating the language and delivery
      method(s) to a which they agree, the language and delivery
      method(s) upon which they cannot agree, and the content
      and delivery method(s) each side proposes.

   6. authorized Greinstein, once the Magistrate Judge approves
      the Notice and Opt-in Consent Form, to issue notice to all
      members of the conditionally certified collective action
      in accordance with court-authorized delivery methods.

This is an overtime compensation dispute arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  On July 24, 2020, Greinstein filed the
renewed motion for conditional certification, requesting the Court
conditionally certify a putative class consisting of:

   "all EHS employees of FieldCore and Granite Services who were
   paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including
   those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single work week,
   (straight time for overtime) at any point in the past 3
   years."

Greinstein began working for Granite on August 22, 2016, as an EHS
Manager. In August 2017, Greinstein's employment -- along with the
employment of Granite's other U.S. employees -- was transferred to
FieldCore, where he remained employed until September 22, 2017.
During his employment, Greinstein alleges he was paid the same
hourly rate for all hours worked including those in excess of forty
hours in a single work week. On November 2, 2018, Greinstein sued
the Defendants for alleged violations of the FLSA on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated employees. Greinstein alleges
Defendants misclassified EHS Managers as exempt from overtime
compensation as well as paying employees the same hourly rate for
all time worked including time over 40 hours a week.

The Defendants provide professionals who service customers in the
fields of power generation, oil and gas, nuclear, and renewables.
The Defendants EHS group ensures regulatory and safety compliance
on projects and plants facilities across the country.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o93yiP at no extra charge.[CC]

FLORIDA: Final Order in Tropical Trailer Suit Reversed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed
in part, affirmed in part and remanded the final order in the
lawsuit styled as FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and KEVIN J.
THIBAULT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Florida
Department of Transportation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v.
TROPICAL TRAILER LEASING, LLC, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
Case No. 1D18-4984 (Fla. Dist. App.).

The Florida Department of Transportation appealed a final order,
which granted Appellee/Cross-Appellant Tropical Trailer Leasing a
permanent injunction and ordered the Department to refund tolls
paid by Tropical Trailer. In its cross-appeal, Tropical Trailer
appealed the trial court's decision to strike the class allegations
from the second amended complaint.

Tropical Trailer leases trailers to third parties. Tropical Trailer
sued to invalidate the Department's method of assessing tolls for
towed trailers under Florida's "Toll-By-Plate" system. Tropical
Trailer asserted that the Department erroneously assessed tolls
against the trailer owner instead of the owner of the vehicle
towing the trailer. Tropical Trailer also asserted a purported
class of approximately 40 other trailer-leasing companies subject
to the same unauthorized billing procedures. Tropical Trailer moved
to certify four classes, three of which included all trailer
owners, who were charged a highway toll.

The trial court granted Tropical Trailer's motion for class
certification, and the Department appealed. Dep't of Transp. v.
Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC, 229 So.3d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA
2017). This Court reversed and remanded, holding that where
Tropical Trailer's class definition excluded trailer owners that
also owned the vehicle pulling the trailer, but its proposed
classes included all trailer owners, "Tropical Trailer improperly
sought to expand the scope of the class through its motion for
class certification and, instead, should have further moved to
amend its complaint. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(d)(1)." This Court also
held that "the trial court abused its discretion by expanding the
scope of the class beyond the class definition proposed in the
amended complaint."

On remand, Tropical Trailer did not move to certify a class, but
filed a second amended complaint which included class-action
allegations. Tropical Trailer also sought declaratory, injunctive,
and monetary relief. The trial court struck the class-action
allegations in the second amended complaint as internally
inconsistent but allowed Tropical Trailer to continue to trial
without the class-action claims. Tropical Trailer moved for
reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Tropical Trailer
also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to
cure the internal inconsistencies in the class allegations and to
add a new count for common-law refund. The trial court denied the
motion.

After a three-day bench trial, the trial court entered a final
judgment for Tropical Trailer, finding the trailers were under the
control of their lessees at the time the tolls were charged and
that owners of a vehicle should not be responsible for tolls if the
vehicle was in another's custody, care, or control. The trial court
also held that from October 13, 2010, to June 30, 2012, the
Department "had no lawful authority" to charge a toll to Tropical
Trailer because the trailers were not "self-propelled." For tolls
assessed since July 1, 2012, the trial court found that because
Tropical Trailer was not the operator of the trucks and did not use
the Turnpike, Tropical Trailer was entitled to a refund of all
tolls and citation payments.

The trial court ordered the Department to refund $53,628.62 in toll
charges and permanently enjoined the Department from charging
Tropical Trailer for tolls in the future where Tropical Trailer's
trailers were in the custody of another person, unless (1) the
Department first provided all "pertinent information"; and (2)
Tropical Trailer did not demonstrate its trailer was in the
custody, care, or control of another person. Lastly, the trial
court's order enjoined the Department "from any conduct which
results in the plaintiffs being charged any tolls or citations or
subjected to any penalties including registration holds for
non-payment by those with the care, custody or control of the
plaintiffs' trailers/chassis involved in alleged violations."

Discussion and Ruling

The Department argues that the trial court erred by enjoining the
Department from charging tolls to Tropical Trailer because the
injunction is facially defective. The Appellate Court agrees. The
Appellate Court reverses and remands with directions to vacate the
injunction and the award of common-law refund.

The only factor the trial court considered was whether Tropical
Trailer established a clear legal right to avoid the payment of
tolls if its trailer was in the care, custody, or control of
another person. Tropical Trailer argues that the assessment of
tolls is illegal under section 316.1001, Florida Statutes. The
Appellate Court disagrees.

The Appellate Court states that just as in Tropical Trailer
Leasing, LLC v. Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX), in which
Tropical Trailer sought the same injunction and declaratory relief
it now seeks before this Court, Tropical Trailer and the trial
court failed to make the distinction between the mere assessment of
tolls and receiving a citation for failure to pay tolls. 278 So.3d
198, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Tolls are assessed under rule
14-100.005, and the mere assessment of tolls does not trigger
section 316.1001, Florida Statutes, the Appellate Court opines.

According to the Appellate Court, the tolls were properly assessed
under rule 14-100.005, which provides that tolls may be assessed on
"a vehicle [that] passes through a toll collection facility." The
definition of "vehicle" clearly includes trailers that are drawn
upon a highway. Therefore, the trial court erred by holding that
the Department's current method of assessing tolls on trailer
owners was illegal.

The Appellate Court adds, among other things, that the trial court
also erred by holding that Tropical Trailer did not have an
adequate remedy at law. Tropical Trailer had an adequate remedy in
contract law with their customers or drivers. In the present case,
the record indicates Tropical Trailer conceded that it had recouped
from its customers a significant amount of the tolls paid to the
Department. The record also indicates that Tropical Trailer's lease
states that where a lessee fails to pay a toll, the lessee is to
reimburse Tropical Trailer for the amount incurred and pay Tropical
Trailer an administration fee. Accordingly, the trial court erred
in concluding Tropical Trailer did not have an adequate remedy at
law.

Clinton L. Doud -- clinton.doud@dot.state.fl.us -- Marc A. Peoples
-- marc.peoples@dot.state.fl.us -- George S. Reynolds IV --
george.reynolds@dot.state.fl.us -- Clark N. Gates --
clark.gates@dot.state.fl.us -- of the Florida Department of
Transportation, in Tallahassee, Florida, represent the
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Gerald B. Cope Jr. -- gerald.cope@akerman.com -- A. Rodgers Traynor
Jr. -- r_traynor@msn.com -- and Lawrence D. Silverman --
lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP, in Miami,
Florida, and Katherine E. Giddings --
katherine.giddings@akerman.com -- Diane G. DeWolf --
diane.dewolf@akerman.com -- and Melanie Kalmanson --
melanie.kalmanson@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP, in Tallahassee,
Florida, represent the Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's ruling dated November 30, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5xeg597 from Leagle.com.


FOREST RIVER: Fitzgerald Sues Over Unlawful Wage Pay & Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER R. FITZGERALD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FOREST RIVER MANUFACTURING LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01004 (N.D. Ind., Dec. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
diluting the regular rate of pay to her and all similarly situated
piece rate workers when it included all work hours recorded on time
clocks in calculating the regular rate of pay, resulting in the
significant underpayment of overtime wages. Ms. Fitzgerald further
asserts that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages at the full
one and one-half time the regular rate.

Moreover, the Defendant was taking wage deductions in a category it
called "TOOL" to cover costs of work tools and parts Forest River
required Fitzgerald and fellow employees to have and use at work.
Many of the "TOOL" wage deductions taken by Forest River from wages
earned by Fitzgerald and all Forest River employees constituted
unlawful "kickbacks" in violation of the FLSA.

Ms. Fitzgerald was employed by Forest River and its predecessor
company, Coachmen, from mid-2003 until Fitzgerald voluntarily
resigned her employment in approximately February 2019. Fitzgerald
left her employment with Forest River/Coachmen on two occasions
between 2003 and 2019.

Forest River Manufacturing LLC is in the business of manufacturing
recreational vehicles, such as motorhomes, and recreational camper
trailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry St.
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 318-9738
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

FORMATIX CORP: Tama Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination in Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZOILA TAMA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. FORMATIX CORP. and RADJESH GUPTAR, Case No.
2:20-cv-05814 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020) seeks to recover damages for
discrimination in employment based on pregnancy under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights
Law.  

According to the complaint, Ms. Tama began employment with the
Formatix as a machine operator in June 2017. On or about February
27, 2020, the Company terminated the employment of Plaintiff, as
well as the employment of another employee, Gladys Morocho, who was
also pregnant.

The complaint further alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each day in which her spread of
hours exceeded 10 hours and failed to provide upon hire written
notice in her native language setting forth her rate of pay and
other information required by the New York State Labor Law.

Formatix Corp. is a Ronkonkoma, New York-based company that is part
of the plastic and rubber product manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC  
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

FTS USA: Monroe Files Cross-Appeal in FLSA Suit to Sixth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Appellees Edward Monroe, et al., filed a cross-appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled EDWARD MONROE,
FABIAN MOORE, and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FTS USA, LLC; UNITEK USA, LLC, Case
No. 2:08-cv-02100, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee at Memphis.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants implemented a
company-wide time-shaving policy that required its employees to
systematically underreport their overtime hours, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Monroe, et al., seek court review from the Court's Order on Motion
for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Strike, and Order on
Motion to Compel by the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Edward Monroe, et al. v. FTS
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-6347, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, December 1, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE,
and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees, are represented by:

          Donald Alfred Donati, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 278-1004
          E-mail: don@donatilaw.com

               - and -

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW
          333 Washington Avenue, N., Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com   

               - and -
  
          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER
          80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees FTS USA, LLC and UNITEK USA,
LLC are represented by:

          Saul C. Belz, Esq.
          GLANKLER BROWN
          6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 685-1322
          E-mail: sbelz@Glankler.com

               - and -

          Colin D. Dougherty, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD
          P.O. Box 3001
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (610) 397-6500
          E-mail: cdougherty@foxrothschild.com

GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO AMEZCUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California corporation,
GAMINO & ASSOCIATES, INC., a business entity of unknown form and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20080628 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., Nov. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
& Professions Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have failed to provide
him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods,
failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay them
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay, failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked, failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate, failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate,
failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to
include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate
of pay, failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay, failed to
reimburse them for all necessary business expenses, failed to
provide them with accurate written wage statements and failed to
pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants beginning on or about
February 2018 through February 2020 as a non-exempt hourly
employee.

Gardner Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company in Ontario,
California.

Gamino & Associates, Inc. is a hospitality company based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  david@setarehlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Torres Suit Over Defective Vehicle Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07109 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 1, 2020) seeks redress for the Defendant's violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act, fraudulent concealment/fraud by omission, and breaches of
express and implied warranties, arising out of marketing defective
Class vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Defendant overstated the battery
capacity of its Chevy Bolt Class vehicles. Despite advertising the
Chevy Bolt as having a 60kWh capacity, the label on the LG Vista
2.0 battery module is only 57kWh. The Defendant failed to inform
prospective owners and lessees of the Chevy Bolt that the vehicle
is plagued with this dangerous battery defect and that owners and
lessees of the Class vehicles will be forced to decide between a
risk of a potentially fatal car fire or a significant power loss.
The Defendant further failed to inform consumers, including the
Plaintiff, that the battery capacity is less than advertised, or
that the vehicles would require a "fix" that reduces their driving
range by 10%.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Chevy Bolt from a dealership in
Downers Grove, Illinois, an authorized GM retailer, in or around
August 2019.

General Motors LLC designs, tests, markets, manufactures,
distributes, warrants, sells, and leases various vehicles under
several prominent brand names, including but not limited to
Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Anthony Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  bmm@chimicles.com
                  seh@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Cohen, Esq.
          Susan J. Russell, Esq.
          J. Burkett McInturf, Esq.
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
          E-mail: sdc@wittelslaw.com
                  sjr@wittelslaw.com
                  jbm@wittelslaw.com

GERON CORP: Bid to Nix IMbark Related Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geron 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated putative clas action suit related
to IMbark, is pending.

On January 23 and February 14, 2020, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court,
or the Court, for the Northern District of California, or the
Northern District, naming as defendants the company and one of its
officers.

On March 5, 2020, a third putative securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, naming as defendants the company and two of its
officers. On March 19, 2020, the New Jersey lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

The remaining putative securities class action lawsuits allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company
related to IMbark during the period from March 19, 2018 to
September 26, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company failed
to disclose facts related to the alleged failure by IMbark to meet
the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and
Total Symptom Score, and that the company's stock price dropped
when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees.

On May 14, 2020, the Court consolidated the putative securities
class action lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 27,
2020, the Court approved lead counsel selected by the lead
plaintiffs and on August 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint in the consolidated putative
class action lawsuit.

On October 1, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint. On October 22, 2020, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The company's
response to that complaint is due on November 23, 2020.

Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc. The company is based in Foster, California.

GET FRESH: Webber Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Get Fresh Produce,
LLC. The case is captioned as Dequentin Webber, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Get Fresh Produce,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06889 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 20, 2020).

The case arises from personal injury-related issues and is assigned
to the Hon Judge Manish S. Shah.

Get Fresh Produce, LLC is a fresh fruits and vegetables company
based in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Great Healthworks, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Great Healthworks, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09958 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Great Healthworks, Inc. retails health supplements. The Company
provides musculoskeletal, women's health, digestive, antioxidants,
cardiac, vitamins, minerals, metabolism, brain, and mood energy
product. Great Healthworks serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


GRIP6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GRIP6 LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10106 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2,
2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the
Website, www.grip6.com, the last occurring in November 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of the unlawful conduct, and
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

GRIP6 LLC is a belt manufacturing company and owns and operates the
Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HEALTHY PAWS PET: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Healthy Paws Pet Insurance LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Healthy Paws Pet Insurance LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09936 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Healthy Paws Pet Insurance for dogs & cats covers new accidents,
illnesses, emergency care, and more with up to 90% back on vet
bills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


HUHTAMAKI INC: Hernandez Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VELMA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HUHTAMAKI, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08155-SK (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful, unfair and
deceptive business practices with respect to the advertising,
marketing and sales of its disposable plates and bowls, in
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the
California Business and Profession Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises, markets and
sells Chinet "eco-friendly" disposable plates and bowls as
compostable, one that will entirely break down into usable compost.
The products, however, contain significant amounts of
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which do not
break down and never become part of usable compost. Compost is used
as soil-conditioning material or fertilizer, so when compost is
contaminated with PFAS, the PFAS then contaminate the soil treated
or fertilized with that compost.

The Plaintiff purchased the products in reliance on the Defendant's
false representations that the products are compostable. If
Plaintiff had known that the products were not compostable, she
would not have purchased the products and/or would not have paid
the premium price for compostable plates, the suit says.

Huhtamaki Inc. manufactures packaging products. The Company
provides consumer goods packaging products, foodservice containers,
disposable tableware, containers for ice cream and frozen desserts,
custom plastic containers, insulated paper and cups, paper food
containers and molded lids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Meredyth Merrow, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  mmerrow@lexlawgroup.com

INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Notice Plan in Chinitz Suit Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, Plaintiff, v. INTERO REAL ESTATE
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, approved in part
Chinitz's motion for approval of class notice plan.

On July 22, 2020, the Court granted Chinitz's motion for class
certification.  The Order certified two classes: A National Do Not
Call ("DNC") Class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for damages under Rule
23(b)(3), and an Internal DNC Class under Rule 23(b)(2).

Intero filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on Aug.
5, 2020, and the Court denied Intero's motion on Sept. 23, 2020.
Intero's Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit for review of the Court's class certification order
was denied on Oct. 19, 2020.

The class notice plan concerns the National DNC class.  The plan
calls for 1) individual notice via email or United States Postal
Service first class mail; 2) a media plan which will serve as
indirect notice; and 3) a case website and toll-free information
line.

Plaintiff Chinitz has retained Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc., a class action administrator, to oversee the
notice process.  Epiq has served in the role in dozens of class
action litigations, including Coffeng v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., No. 17-cv-01825-JD (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2020).

Intero disagrees with the following components of the notice plan:
A) The declaration by Cameron Azari submitted in support of the
motion; B) Chinitz's plan for direct notice, including the "reverse
lookup" method and email notice procedure; C) the disclosure and
use of the data underlying the reverse lookup process; D) the
banner advertisement Chinitz proposes placing on Intero's website
as part of its indirect notice plan; and E) the language in the
notice documents.

In Chinitz's words, Intero's position is not that there is a
better, more practicable notice plan, but rather that the notice
plan offered is not perfect and, therefore, should be rejected
entirely, as Intero attempts a third bite at the apple on class
certification.

Judge Freeman overrules Intero's objection to the Azari
declaration.  First, she agrees with Chinitz that Intero's
objection to the Azari declaration as an untimely expert opinion is
unfounded since Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the case schedule apply to trial and not to notice.  Second, the
Judge finds nothing improper legal conclusions in paragraphs 6, 8,
12, 14, and 36-40 of the Azari Declaration.  Finally, she is
satisfied that Azari is competent.  He is the director of legal
notice for Hilsoft Notifications, a business unit of Epiq and has
experience in over 450 cases.  Azari himself has extensive
experience as a notice expert.

Judge Freeman also approves of Chinitz's direct notice plan as
Chinitz proposes a robust direct notice plan.  His plan begins with
email notice for each class member for whom an email address is
available.  If email notice cannot be used, there will be postcard
notice for each class member for whom the email notice is returned
or bounces back as undeliverable and for each class member for whom
Chinitz cannot identify an email address.  Intero objects to
several aspects of the direct notice plan without proposing any
alternate or better solutions, Judge Freeman notes.

The Judge finds that the reverse lookup process has been recognized
by other courts as a legitimate way to provide notice to class
members in other Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases.  She says
Intero's argument is speculative and not related to the applicable
legal standard.  Notice does not have to be perfect -- it must be
the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,
including individual notice to all members who can be identified
through reasonable effort.  The cases Intero cites to support its
proposition that the notice plan must be rejected because it is
overly broad are not analogous to the case at hand.  Finally, the
Judge agrees with Chinitz's reading of Silber v. Mabon (9th Cir.
1994), where the Ninth Circuit drew a distinction between the
traditional standard for class notice, "best practicable," and
"actually received" notice, the standard the Ninth Circuit
rejected.

Intero has asked the Court to require Chinitz to provide Intero
with the data it will supply to TransUnion in order to run the
reverse lookup, as well as the results returned.  It insists it
needs the data to support its fundamental due process rights to
know the names of the persons asserting a claim against the
company.

The Judge agrees with Intero that it has a right to the data for
the claims administration process, but not for any other purpose.
Accordingly, she orders Intero to only use the reverse lookup and
results data for claims administration purposes and not any other
purpose, including summary judgment, Daubert proceedings, trial, or
any other motions unrelated to claims administration.

Intero largely does not object to Chinitz's indirect notice
process, which Chinitz asserts is an essential part of the notice
plan and capable of resolving any argued shortcomings with the
direct notice plan.  The one aspect of the indirect notice plan
that Intero objects to is placing a banner advertisement to
publicize the case on Intero's website.  Chinitz has agreed to
withdraw that part of the proposal.  Accordingly, the Judge strikes
the proposed banner from the indirect notice plan.

As its final argument, Intero proposes redline edits to Chinitz's
notice forms.  Chinitz has agreed to all of Intero's proposed
redlines and to Intero's request to add an exclusion request form
to the settlement website, allowing potential class members to
print the opt-out form from the website and mail it as directed.
However, he does not agree to allow electronic submission of the
opt-out form.  The Judge agrees with Chinitz that submission of
opt-outs by mail is standard and complies with due process.
Judge Freeman concludes that Chinitz's notice plan, as modified, as
the best notice practicable under the circumstances, with the
combination of direct and indirect notice plans appearing
reasonably calculated to reach at least 70% of class members.
Accordingly, she overruled (i) Intero's objections to the Azari
Declaration, and (ii) Chinitz's objection to the Smith
Declaration.

The Judge approves the form and substance of the following
documents attached to the Declaration of Tomio B. Narita, filed
Oct. 15, 2020: (1) Ex. 5, Email Notice; (2) Ex. 6, Postcard Notice;
(3) Ex. 7, Long Form Notice.  Chinitz will add information
regarding the exclusion request form on the settlement website to
the notices and delete the language on the last page of Ex. 5 that
allows exclusion requests to be submitted online.

Judge Freeman also approves (i) the retention of Epiq Class Action
& Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Notice Administrator in the class
action; (ii) Chinitz's direct notice plan as detailed in its motion
and modified; and (iii) Chinitz's indirect notice plan and media
plan as detailed in its motion and modified.

Intero will to only use the reverse lookup and results data
provided by Chinitz for claims administration purposes and not any
other purpose, including summary judgment, Daubert proceedings,
trial, or any other motions unrelated to claims administration.

Email and Postcard Notice will be sent 30 days from the date of the
Order.  The last day for opt-outs will be 90 days from the date of
the Order.  A list of opt-outs will be filed with the Court 104
days from the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3qbsg4x from Leagle.com.


JIMMY JOHNS LLC: Erwin Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Heather Erwin and Ashley Price, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated current Illinois
citizens, Plaintiffs v. Jimmy John's LLC and Jimmy John's
Franchise, LLC, Defendants, was transferred from the Circuit Court
of St. Clair County, IL with the assigned Case No. 20-L-0759 to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St.
Louis) on Nov. 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01268.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to Diversity-(Citizenship).

Jimmy John's LLC is an American franchised sandwich fast food
restaurant chain owned by Inspire Brands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.

The Defendants are represented by:

   Kyle P Seelbach, Esq.
   Husch Blackwell LLP - St. Louis
   190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
   St. Louis, MO 63105-3433
   Tel: (314) 480-1500
   Fax: (314) 480-1505
   Email: kyle.seelbach@huschblackwell.com



JONES POTATO CHIP: Paguada Assert Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jones Potato Chip Co. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jones Potato Chip Co., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09957 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Jones Potato Chip Co is a food production company based out of 1125
National Pkwy, Mansfield, Ohio, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com




KEY FIRE: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Parham FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM PARHAM and CHRISTOPHER STEPHENS, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. KEY
FIRE PROTECTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-180
(S.D. Ga.), Judge J. Randall Hall of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, granted in part
and denied without prejudice in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

The Plaintiffs initiated the present action proposing collective
and class actions alleging insufficient compensation during
employment with the Defendant.  The Defendant is a small business
generally contracted to install and repair fire protection systems
in new or existing businesses.  At the outset of the action,
Plaintiffs Parham and Stephens -- both former employees of the
Defendant -- were the only claimants seeking recovery.  

The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of the collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), an order requiring the
Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with contact information of
current and former employees, and approval of their proposed notice
plan.  According to them, the Defendant routinely undercompensated
foremen, helpers, and fitters for the time they worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

According to the Defendant, it properly compensated all employees
based upon the information supplied in their time sheets.  Its
owner asserts that the Defendant never instructed employees to omit
time from their time sheets, including travel time to and from job
sites, preparation time at the facility prior to the day's work,
and time worked during designated breaks.  The Defendant contends
that when employees arrived at its facility before travelling to
the day's job site, the work vehicles generally already contained
the necessary tools and materials to perform the day's work.   If
the project lasted longer than one day, the Defendant permitted
employees to leave the tools and materials at the job site, rather
than mandating that they unload the work vehicle at the end of the
day and reload the vehicle the following morning.  It maintains it
relied on the honesty of employees to report the time worked and
refrained from deducting time for lunch breaks and other shorter
breaks exceeding the normal schedule's permissible breaktime.
Moreover, employees of the Defendant received both performance- and
nonperformance-based bonuses throughout the calendar year.

The Defendant further states that several of the putative class
members violated various company policies.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members all work for a competitor
of the Defendant.

At the conditional certification stage, the district court neither
resolves factual disputes nor determines the merits of the
plaintiff's case.   Likewise, the availability of individual
defenses to individual plaintiffs is better left to
decertification.

With the foregoing in mind, Judge Hall determines whether the
Plaintiffs satisfy the two necessary elements for conditional
certification: (1) employee desire to opt-in and (2) similarly
situated employees.

The Plaintiffs attempt to represent the proposed conditional class.
They also filed five consents to join on behalf of David Drew,
Jerry Peters, Charles Rogers, Michael McKinnon, and Jason Hughes,
former employees of the Defendant.  Overall, seven individuals seek
to participate in the proposed collective action at this time.

There is no magic number of plaintiffs that will show enough
interest.  The determination is made based upon the number of
persons interested, the size and geographic breadth of the
employer, and the publicity of the suit.   Generally speaking, the
more plaintiffs who have already opted in, the less additional
evidence of interest needs to be shown.  According to Plaintiff
Parham, the Defendant employs approximately 30 to 40 crewmembers at
any given time and operates primarily in the geographic area
forming the Southern District of Georgia.  The Defendant also
recognizes itself as a small fire protection business.  

As the Plaintiffs correctly argue, two putative representatives and
five employees desiring to opt-in satisfies the Plaintiffs' low bar
at this stage considering the Defendant's size and geographic
reach.  Further, notwithstanding the Defendant's claims that none
of its current employees desire to opt-in at this stage, the record
contains little evidence the action has received meaningful
publicity.  For these reasons, the Plaintiffs establish the
employee desire to opt-in prong for conditional certification.

Next, to establish that they are representing other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs need show only that their
positions are similar, not identical, to the positions held by the
putative class members, and a reasonable basis for their claim.
The Defendant highlights that the Plaintiffs and current opt-in
participants are all its former employees and, therefore, not
similarly situated to current employees of the Defendant.  The FLSA
claims serving as the nucleus for the motion for conditional
certification indicate that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
and improperly deducted breaks from time worked.   The Plaintiffs'
declarations sufficiently engage the Defendant's affidavits and
provide a reasonable basis for collective classwide claims under
the FLSA.

The Judge also finds that (i) the Plaintiffs and the putative
conditional class members all held at least one of the three job
titles; (ii) the Plaintiffs and all the putative conditional class
members worked or work in the same geographic location during their
respective employments with the Defendant; (iii) the Plaintiffs
limit the action to violations occurring within Oct. 15, 2016
through Oct. 15, 2019; and (iv) although the materials do not point
to any specific decision maker that deprived the Plaintiffs and the
putative conditional class members of pay, the same persons oversaw
the putative class members' work and approved their submitted
timesheets. Overall, the factor slightly favors granting
conditional certification.  Consequently, in examining all of the
factors, the Plaintiffs satisfy their relatively low burden of
showing similarly situated former and current employees eligible to
join the collective action.

Finding the conditional class proper for certification, the Judge
turns to the issue of notice.  The Plaintiffs initially requested
contact information for all current and former employees employed
by the Defendant within three years prior to them filing the
present action.  The Defendant argues that the Court should not
require notice to the individuals it employed outside of the three
years prior to the date of the Order.  The Judge agrees with the
Parties.  The Defendant must produce contact information for
individuals it employed at any point within three years preceding
the date of the Order.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Randall garnted in part and denied
without prejudice in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.  The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion as to its
request for conditional certification as a collective action and
that the Defendant provide contact information of putative
conditional class members.  The Judge ordered the Defendant to
provide the Plaintiffs witht a list of full names, last known
addresses, all known phone numbers, all known email addresses, and
employment dates with Defendant for persons employed by the
Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the date of
the Order.  The Defendant will furnish the list of information to
the Plaintiffs within 14 days of the date of the Order.

Pursuant to the Parties' agreement that the notice must be revised,
the Judge denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion as to its
request that the Court approve their notice plan.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5vhztxc from Leagle.com.


KITCHEN COOKED: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Kitchen Cooked, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kitchen Cooked, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09956 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Kitchen Cooked Inc is a food production company based out of 632 N
Main St, Farmington, Illinois, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


KROGER CO: Court Narrows Claims in Solano UTPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael W. Mosman entered an Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the class action lawsuit styled as ELISHA SOLANO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of other customers v. THE KROGER CO.,
doing business as Fred Meyer, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AC (D. Ore.).

On July 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his
Amended Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.), which recommended
that Judge Mosman grant in part and deny in part Defendant Fred
Meyer's Motion to Dismiss. Judge Acosta also recommended that Judge
Mosman give the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to cure
any deficiencies. Both the Plaintiffs and Fred Meyer filed lengthy
objections.

Upon review, Judge Mosman adopts in part Judge Acosta's F. & R.,
and grants in part and denies in part Fred Meyer's Motion to
Dismiss. Judge Mosman rejects Fred Meyer's objections to the F. &
R. and declines to adopt Judge Acosta's recommendations as to
ascertainable loss, causation, and scienter under Oregon's Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("UTPA").

Judge Mosman opines that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
ascertainable loss caused by the alleged unfair trade practices
based on a "diminished value" theory, and the Plaintiffs have
alleged enough to survive a motion to dismiss on the scienter
issue.

Judge Mosman grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure any
remaining deficiencies. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend
their complaint to add additional factual details as to certain
named parties, consistent with Judge Acosta's F. & R.

Background

In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs claim that Fred Meyer
impermissibly charged a ten-cent bottle deposit on purchases of
certain orange juice beverages that were exempt from Oregon's
Bottle Bill. The Plaintiffs allege that Fred Meyer violated seven
subparts of the UTPA, along with an Oregon law prohibiting elder
abuse. Plaintiffs also allege that Fred Meyer was unjustly
enriched. Fred Meyer has moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) this
Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) the Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). On the latter ground, Fred Meyer argues that
Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard applies.

Judge Acosta recommends that the Court denies Fred Meyer's Motion
to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He further
recommends that the Court applies Rule 8's pleading standard rather
than Rule 9(b)'s and grant in part and deny in part Fred Meyer's
Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.

In light of Judge Acosta's F. & R., the Plaintiffs have agreed to
drop five of their seven UTPA challenges and their elder-abuse
claim. The Plaintiffs have also agreed to add additional factual
details as to certain named parties, consistent with Judge Acosta's
F. & R.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated November
30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53vagh6 from
Leagle.com.

LANNETT CO: Bid to Nix Contaminated Ranitidine Related 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 motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint related to
contaminated ranitidine, is pending.

On June 1, 2020, a class action complaint was served upon the
Company and approximately 45 other companies asserting claims for
personal injury arising from the presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA") in Ranitidine products.

The complaint is consolidated in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL")
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  

A similar complaint was filed in state court in New Mexico and
served upon the Company by the State of Mexico in July 2020.  

The Company has learned that several other similar class action
complaints naming the Company and others were filed but, to date,
none of those complaints have been served upon the Company.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed in
the MDL and has filed a motion to transfer the complaint filed in
the New Mexico state court to the MDL.   

The Company has placed its insurance carrier on notice of the claim
and the carrier has appointed counsel to defend the Company.  

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.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit vs Subsidiary 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's subsidiary, The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York ("LLANY"), continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous
defense of the class action suit styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life
and Annuity Company of New York and Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company.

Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification for the breach of
contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust
enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the
court issued an order approving the parties' joint stipulation of
dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed
LLANY as a defendant in the case.  

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case.  

On September 30, 2020, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.  

Lincoln  said, "The court has not yet set a trial date, and we
continue to vigorously defend this action."

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: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company (LNL) continues to defend itself
against a putative class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff 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 own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors 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.  

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: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still 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 Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York remains a defendant in a
putative class action initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff 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 which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in  the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

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.

LIONS GATE: Continues to Seek Added Reimbursement from Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. 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 continuing to seek additional insurance reimbursement against
certain insurers related to the settlement in the settled putative
class suit initiated by purported Starz Networks stockholders.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Fiduciary
Litigation").

On August 22, 2018, the parties to the Fiduciary Litigation reached
an agreement in principle providing for the settlement of the
Fiduciary Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in an
executed term sheet. On October 9, 2018, the parties to the
Litigation executed a stipulation of settlement, which was filed
with the court. The Stipulation provided for, among other things,
the final dismissal of the Fiduciary Litigation in exchange for a
settlement payment made in the amount of $92.5 million, of which
$37.8 million was reimbursed by insurance.

The Fiduciary Litigation settlement was approved by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and the settlement amount and
insurance reimbursement were paid during the quarter ended December
31, 2018.

The Company is continuing to seek additional insurance
reimbursement, including pursuant to a lawsuit filed by the Company
on November 7, 2018 against certain insurers.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production
and distribution, television programming and syndication, home
entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based
entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally.
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Appeals Order in Aronstein Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jesse
Aronstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. and C.M. Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-12864-MGM, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Springfield.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' bait
and switch scheme, specifically by advertising, marketing, and
selling fixed annuities and receiving and retaining funds, on the
basis that they had a Minimum Guaranteed Interest Rate, but then
unilaterally reducing that rate below the guaranteed rate.

On November 12, 2020, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order
denying Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.'s motion for
reconsideration. The exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's
opposition reaffirm the court's conclusion that the parties'
agreement as to the form of judgment was informal, as does a review
of the transcript of the November 3, 2020 hearing, at which
Defendant's counsel declined to press for specific enforcement of
the agreement but instead argued it would be "entirely fair for the
court to hold plaintiff to his agreement." In addition, as the
Plaintiff argues, the Defendant had never made its argument
regarding equitable relief prior to the parties' simultaneous
briefs on prejudgment interest. Thus, given the Defendant's
last-minute attempt to use the form of judgment against Plaintiff,
the court finds Plaintiff had good cause to seek to walk away from
that informal agreement after its legal implications (under
Defendant's theory) became clear.    

The Defendant is seeking a review of the District Court's Order
dated November 12, 2020, denying its motion for reconsideration.
The Defendant, in the court's view, has not met its burden of
demonstrating reconsideration is appropriate in the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Aronstein v. Mass. Mutual Life
Ins. Co., Case No. 20-2135, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, December 1, 2020.

The appellate briefing schedule states that the Appearance form,
Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order form are due on
December 15, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE PA
          7301 SW 57th Ct Suite 515
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East, 2 Seaport Ln
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com    

               - and -

          Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq.
          The Law Office Of Timothy J. O'Connor
          29 Wards Ln
          Albany, NY 12204
          Telephone: (518) 426-7700
          E-mail: tjo@tjolaw.com

Defendants-Appellants MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
          Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
          Stephen W. McInerney, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 S Dearborn St., Ste 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com
                  emattson@sidley.com
                  smcinerney@sidley.com

               - and -

          Jodi Kim Miller, Esq.
          John P. Pucci, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main St., Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6249
          E-mail: jmiller@bulkley.com   
                  jpucci@bulkley.com

MDL 2983: Seeks Transfer of Dickey's Data Breach Suits to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs, in the lawsuit captioned Diczhazy, et al. v.
Dickey's Barbecue Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-02189-LMDD (S.D. Cal.), submitted to the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on November 20, 2020, a
motion to transfer related actions to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California under MDL No. 2983, with
regards to Dickey's Barbeque Restaurant, Inc. Consumer Data
Security Breach Litigation, for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The motion seeks to:

     (i) transfer, consolidate for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings Kostka v. Dickey's Barbeque Restaurants, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-03424, pending in the Northern District of Texas;

    (ii) consolidate for coordinated pre-trial proceedings Marquez
v. Dickey's Restaurants Inc., et al., '20CV2251 BEN MSB, pending in
the Southern District of California; and

   (iii) transfer and consolidate for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings all future Actions asserting common factual allegations
and involving overlapping claims, classes, and legal issues to the
Southern District of California.

All pending Actions are premised on the same data breach, first
publicly disclosed on October 15, 2020, in which approximately 3
million individuals' sensitive personal and financial information
was ex-filtrated and sold on the dark web by a computer hacker
group, the motion says.

Specifically, the lawsuits allege that the Defendants breached
their duty of care and disregarded Plaintiffs' and class members'
privacy rights in the personal identifying information (PII) by
failing to implement reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect Plaintiffs' and class members' PII, which included
neglecting to (i) implement security systems and practices
consistent with federal and state guidelines; (ii) implement
security systems and practices consistent with industry norms;
(iii) timely detect the data breach; and (iv) timely disclose the
data breach to impacted customers.

Dickey's Barbeque Restaurant, Inc. is a BBQ chain eatery featuring
house-smoked meats, stuffed baked potatoes and classic sides. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  joliver@moginrubin.com
                  tlacomb@moginrubin.com

               - and -

          Alex Schack, Esq.
          Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
          Shannon F. Nocon, Esq.
          SCHACK LAW GROUP
          16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 485-6535
          Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
          E-mail: alexschack@schacklawgroup.com
                  natashaserino@schacklawgroup.com
                  shannonnocon@schacklawgroup.com

MERIT MEDICAL: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merit Medical Systems, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On December 3, 2019, the Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund
filed a complaint against Merit, the company's Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, individually
and on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock
between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019.

On February 24, 2020, the court appointed the City of Atlanta
Police Pension Fund, the Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and
the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and
Parish of East Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiffs. This action is now
captioned In re Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 8:19-cv-02326-DOC-ADS).

On June 30, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint for violations of federal securities laws against Merit,
the compnay's Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, individually and on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock between February 26, 2019
and October 30, 2019.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.

The company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit and
have filed a motion to dismiss the action.

Merit Medical said, "We have not recorded an expense related to
this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or
reasonably estimable. Additionally, we cannot presently estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from the matter. It is
possible that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing matter, or
other similar matters, if resolved in a manner unfavorable to us,
may be materially adverse to our business, financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity."

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. manufactures and markets products used
in diagnostic and interventional cardiology and radiology
procedures. The Company's primary products include inflation
devices, guide wires, thrombolytic catheters and fluid dispensing
systems, and angiography accessories, among others. Merit's
products are sold worldwide. The company is based in South Jordan,
Utah.

METLIFE PET INSURANCE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Metlife Pet Insurance Solutions LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Metlife Pet Insurance Solutions
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09940 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Metlife Pet Insurance Solutions LLC offers and administers pet
insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology 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 putative class action suit entitled, Jackson v.
Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT.

Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the
Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed.  

The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative class.  

On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April
1, 2019, which motion was granted in part and denied in part on
March 11, 2020.

Defendants filed their answer on April 24, 2020.

Discovery is ongoing.

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

Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Arteaga Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Noriel Arteaga,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00939-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. provides debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi, LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Email: yosef@cml.legal


MIKES HOT: Faces Monegro Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MIKES HOT HONEY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10097
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in October of 2020, Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
Website, www.mikeshothoney.com, to make a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety
of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to determine what specific products were offered for
sale.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of the unlawful conduct, and
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Mikes Hot Honey, Inc. is a honey manufacturing company that owns
and operates the Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Jones Sues Over Unpaid OT and Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYZA JONES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04743-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's unlawful labor practices that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified her and
other similarly situated persons as independent contractors, and
willfully failed to pay them overtime wages mandated by the FLSA
for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. She further
asserts that the Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 by discriminating against her because of her pregnancy
and/or related medical condition.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver from
approximately November 11, 2019 until February 20, 2020.

National Delivery Solutions, LLC is a full-service logistics
company serving the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Southeast regions
of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590  
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com

NEW YORK BLACK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order in Kasiotis Suit to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund,
Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October
23, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH KASIOTIS,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York
consumers, v. New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation
Fund, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-8057, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant,
asserting a claim for unjust enrichment arising from the
Defendant's imposition of a surcharge of 2.5% on voluntary,
non-cash tips and gratuities paid by passengers in connection with
the use of black car services.

The Defendant seeks a review from the District Court's Order where
its motion for summary judgment was denied and the Plaintiff's
cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

The appellate case is captioned as Kasiotis v. New York Black Car
Operators', Case No. 20-3955, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, November 20, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Kasiotis, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated New York consumers, is represented
by:

          Jeffrey Ian Carton, Esq.
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          2 Westchester Park Drive
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 920-7400
          E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com

Defendant-Appellant New York Black Car Operators' Injury
Compensation Fund, Inc. is represented by:

          Bradley J. Nash, Esq.
          SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
          26 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-5400
          E-mail: bnash@schlamstone.com

NEW YORK: Matzell Files Prisoner Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The case is
styled as Michael Matzell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acting Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,
Anthony J. Annucci, Deputy DOCCS Commissioner Jeffrey McKoy,
Superintendent Bruce Yelich, Deputy Superintendent of Programs
Stanley Barton, Coordinator Kay Heading Smith, Coordinator
Elizabeth Laramay, Coordinator "Jane" Boyea and John/Jane Does
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09963 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants are government officials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Esq.
   Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP
   600 Fifth Avenue
   10th Floor
   New York, NY 10020
   Tel: (212) 763-5000
   Email: krosenfeld@ecbawm.com

NEWELL BRANDS: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Fund's Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: NEWELL BRANDS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AS ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PENSION FUND, Appellant, v. NEWELL BRANDS
INC; MICHAEL B. POLK; RALPH J. NICOLETTI; JAMES L. CUNNINGHAM, III
(3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's decision to grant the Defendants-Appellees'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Consolidated
Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff, a pension fund, brought a federal securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Newell stock between Feb. 6,
2017, and Jan. 24, 2018.  The Plaintiff sued Newell, as well as
three senior officers, Polk, Nicoletti, and Cunningham, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming material
misrepresentation and fraud.

Newell manufactures and markets consumer products.  Newell acquired
Jarden Corp. in April 2016 for approximately $15.3 billion, which
more than doubled the size of Newell.  Newell reported strong
financial results in the first three quarters of 2016.  According
to the Plaintiff, by all accounts, the momentum behind Newell and
its integration of Jarden was building entering the Class Period.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Newell was
suffering from various operational problems that had a material
adverse impact on Newell's financial performance.  The Plaintiff
averred that Newell embarked on a scheme to conceal these issues
from investors, and later chose to actively mislead investors about
the true reasons behind the downturn in its business.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' issued and reaffirmed
false and misleading 2017 financial guidance to investors without a
reasonable basis.  The Complaint alleges that the Defendants
deceived investors by misrepresenting or failing to disclose three
categories of information: 1) excess inventory levels, 2) pricing
conflicts between Newell's E-Commerce and Brick-and-Mortar
divisions, and 3) operational issues relating to Newell's
acquisition of Jarden.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, contending that the
Plaintiff failed to state a claim pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

The District Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The District
Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead the
first element of a Section 10(b) claim in that the Plaintiff failed
to adequately allege a false representation of material fact or
omission that makes a disclosed statement materially misleading.
Because Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is contingent upon
sufficiently pleading an underlying violation of Section 10(b) by
the controlled person, the District Court also dismissed the
Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim against Defendants Polk, Nicoletti,
and Cunningham.

The District Court provided the Plaintiff 30 days of leave to file
an amended pleading, but the Plaintiff did not file an amended
pleading.  The District Court ordered that the Plaintiff's First
Amended Consolidated Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.  The
Plaintiff timely appealed.

Regarding false and misleading statements, the Third Circuit finds
that the District Court correctly found that the Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently plead an actionable material
misrepresentation or omission.  The Plaintiff's claim involves
representations related to 1) Newell's excess inventory levels, 2)
pricing conflicts between the Brick and Mortar and the E-Commerce
Divisions, and 3) operational issues related to the Jarden
integration.  The Plaintiff's allegations fail to refer to
contemporaneous sources showing that the Defendants' statements
were false or misleading.

The Third Circuit states that the District Court also correctly
decided that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the
pricing conflicts had a material financial impact on Newell.
Without information to support that the pricing conflicts had a
material financial effect on Newell, the Third Circuit cannot say
that it would alter the total mix of relevant information available
to a reasonable investor, the Third Circuit notes citing EP
Medsystems, Inc., 235 F.3d at 872.

The Third Circuit further agrees with the District Court that the
Plaintiff has not alleged how the resulting promotional discounting
suggests fraud.  Absent a contemporaneous financial impact, the
Plaintiff has failed to show how the pricing conflicts and
resulting discounting render the Defendants' statements
misleading.

Finally, the Appellate Court finds that the District Court rightly
concluded that the Plaintiff failed to allege any false or
misleading statement related to the Jarden integration.  The
Plaintiff cites integration failures that rely on hindsight rather
than contemporaneous sources, which is insufficient.  Bad business
decisions, without more, do not constitute federal securities
fraud.  The Plaintiff's allegations fail on the lack of falsity and
materiality, the Third Circuit opines.

Turning to the Plaintiff's control person liability assertion
against the individual Defendants under Section 20(a), liability
under Section 20(a) is derivative of an underlying violation of
Section 10(b) by the controlled person.  Because the District Court
found that the Plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged a violation
of Section 10(b), the Third Circuit dismissed the Section 20(a)
claims.  The Appellate Court affirms the District Court's
conclusion and finds that the Section 20(a) claims were properly
dismissed as well.

For these reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
order granting the Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxosawh9 from Leagle.com.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, 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
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint filed in the
putative class action suit initiated by The Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) are currently
pending.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20,
2012.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters
of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In
addition, among other things, the amended complaint extended the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's
motion for leave to amend again and SEPTA filed its second amended
complaint that same day.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to
dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA has not yet filed a motion
for class certification.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 30, 2018, the
FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Action for the
purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel. On February 12, 2019,
the Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on
the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies.

On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks
to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that
the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016.

On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered
an Order partially granting Orrstown's motion for protective order,
ruling that all deposition discovery in the case was stayed pending
a decision on SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. Party and non-party document discovery in the case has
largely been completed.

On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK
and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case
on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the
previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown
Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants.

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the third amended
complaint on April 24, 2020. SEPTA's opposition was filed on July
8, 2020, and Orrstown's reply brief was filed on August 12, 2020.
The motions to dismiss the third amended complaint are currently
pending.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, 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
seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa
John's International, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The District Court appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System to lead the case. An amended complaint was filed
on February 13, 2019, which the Company moved to dismiss. On March
16, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, on the
ground that the complaint failed to state any viable cause of
action.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on
April 30, 2020, which the Company moved to dismiss.  

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
the second amended complaint and intends to vigorously defend
against the case.  

Papa John's said, "The Company has not recorded any liability
related to this lawsuit as of September 27, 2020 as it does not
believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable."

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

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.

PARSLEY ENERGY: Gupta Challenges Proposed $4.5-Bil. Sale to Pioneer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TUHIN GUPTA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
PARSLEY ENERGY, INC., BRYAN SHEFFIELD, MATT GALLAGHER, A.R.
ALAMEDDINE, RONALD BROKMEYER, WILLIAM L. BROWNING, HEMANG DESAI,
KAREN HUGHES, JAMES J. KLECKNER, DAVID SMITH, S. WIL VANLOH, JR.,
JERRY WINDLINGER, PEARL FIRST MERGER SUB INC., PEARL SECOND MERGER
SUB LLC, PEARL OPCO MERGER SUB LLC, and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
COMPANY, Case No. 656659/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 1,
2020) arises from an all stock proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Pioneer Natural Resources will acquire Parsley Energy at
approximately $4.5 billion.

The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in an
October 20, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan
of merger. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Parsley will
become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, a subsidiary
of Pioneer. Parsley public stockholders will receive, in exchange
for each share of Parsley common stock they own, 0.1252 shares of
Pioneer. This implies a per share value of $10.89 for Parsley based
on Pioneer's closing price on October 19, 2020 of $87.05 per
share.

According to the complaint, dubious nature of the proposed
transaction is laid bare considering that the merger consideration
is comprised entirely of Pioneer common stock exchanged at a fixed
exchange ratio of 0.1252 which means that Parsley stockholders will
receive 0.1252 shares of Pioneer common stock as a portion of the
merger consideration in exchange for each of their Parsley shares,
regardless of Pioneer's stock price at the close of the
transaction.

In approving the proposed transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Parsley
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the proposed transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Pioneer without regard for Parsley public
stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to properly
exercise their fiduciary duties to Parsley stockholders, the suit
says.

In further violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Registration Statement
on November 23, 2020 with SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders
to vote their Parsley shares in favor of the proposed transaction.
The Registration Statement omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process
and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b)
the financial projections for Parsley and Pioneer, provided by
Parsley and Pioneer to the Company's financial advisors Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and to
Pioneer's financial advisors Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC for use in their financial analyses; and (c) the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's
financial advisors Credit Suisse and Wells Fargo and Pioneer's
financial advisors Goldman and Morgan Stanley.

Parsley Energy, Inc, is an oil and natural gas company. The Company
focused on the acquisition, development, and exploitation of
unconventional oil and natural gas reserves. Parsley Energy serves
customers in the State of Texas.

Pioneer Natural Resources Company operates as an independent oil
and gas exploration and production company. The Company engages in
onshore oil and gas drilling, exploration, and production in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626

PETS BEST INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09942 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC offers pet insurance plans for
dogs and cats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
PPL 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
the plaintiffs in the Cane Run Environmental Claims class action
suit remains pending in the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and
all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common
law tort claims.

In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a
defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and
in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its
entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.

On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals with oral arguments scheduled for November 17,
2020.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

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

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------
PPL 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 court granted
PPL defendants' alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings in
Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL
Corporation et al.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of a November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the
sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors. Plaintiff
asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both
actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees;
civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly
fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive
damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief.


In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division.

In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In
September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the case back to state court.

Although, the PPL defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision, in November
2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in
December 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended
Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of
Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a
plaintiff.

In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of the Delaware Action. The
Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motion to
dismiss.

On September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants'
alternative Motion for a Stay of the proceedings.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

PUMPKIN INSURANCE: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Pumpkin Insurance Services Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pumpkin Insurance Services Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09946 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Pumpkin Insurance Services Inc. is an insurance company in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



RAUSCH STURM ISRAEL: Greenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rausch, Sturm,
Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP. The case is styled as Elimelech
Greenfeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09975 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

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

Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP is a Law firm in
Brookfield, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


RAW GENERATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Slade Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. RAW GENERATION INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-10043 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Slade contends that the Defendant is denying him and other
blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States
with equal access to the goods and services Raw Generation provides
to non-disabled customers like her through
http//www.Rawgeneration.com. She alleges that the Defendant engaged
in acts of intentional discrimination because of the many access
barriers on its Website when she was having numerous attempts to
complete a purchase on the Website, most recently on November 19,
2020.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Raw
Generation's policies, practices, and procedures to that its
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the suit says.

Raw Generation Inc. provides to the public a Website known as
Rawgeneration.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view the various
lines of fresh, raw and unpasteurized plant-based juices, make
one-time or subscription purchases, and learn about the benefits of
the products, among other features.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Broom Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real time Resolutions
LLC. The case is styled as Wayne Broom, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Real Time
Resolutions LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01341 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2020).

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

Real Time Resolutions is a full-service loan servicing and recovery
company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and
other consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com

RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICK DOTAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 2020466, was removed from the
California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov.
20, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02471-VAP-KK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices and
policies that violate the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code.

Rentokil North America, Inc. provides pest control services. The
Company offers fumigation, termite treatment and prevention
services, bed bugs, household pests control services, occasional
invaders solutions, rat control services, and other pest control
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
          Brett Greving, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-1700
          Facsimile: (619) 234-7831
          E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com
                  bgreving@cozen.com

RMG ACQUISITION: Bushansky Challenges Proposed Merger With Romeo
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RMG ACQUISITION CORP., D. JAMES CARPENTER, ROBERT S.
MANCINI, CRAIG W. BRODERICK, W. GRANT GREGORY, PHILIP KASSIN, W.
THADDEUS MILLER, and STEVEN P. BUFFONE, Case No. 656651/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 1, 2020) arises out of the Defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties under the New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules in connection with the Company's proposed
merger with Romeo Systems, Inc.

The lawsuit is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff
on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of RMG
Acquisition Corp. against RMG and the members of its Board of
Directors.

According to the complaint, RMG and Romeo issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated October 5, 2020. Pursuant to the terms of the
merger agreement, RMG Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
RMG, will merge with and into Romeo, with Romeo surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of RMG and the security holders of Romeo
becoming security holders of RMG. In connection with the merger,
RMG has entered into subscription agreements with certain
investors, pursuant to which such investors have agreed to purchase
an aggregate of 16 million shares of RMG common stock for an
aggregate of $160 million in gross cash proceeds.

The Plaintiff contends that the Board and Company insiders entered
into the proposed transaction to secure unique benefits for
themselves, not available to RMG's public stockholders. The
Plaintiff asserts that the value to RMG stockholders contemplated
in the proposed transaction and the process by which Defendants
propose to consummate the proposed transaction are fundamentally
unfair to him and the other public stockholders of the Company. He
also added that the Individual Defendants' conduct constitutes a
breach of their fiduciary duties owed to RMG stockholders, and a
violation of applicable legal standards governing the Individual
Defendants' conduct.

Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15,
2020, which recommends that RMG stockholders vote in favor of the
proposed transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Romeo's projections and the
financial analyses relied upon by the Board in connection with its
decision to approve the proposed transaction; (ii) potential
conflicts of interest faced by the Company's financial advisors
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Nomura Greentech Capital Advisors LLC
and Company insiders; and (iii) the background process leading to
the proposed transaction.

RMG Acquisition Corp. is a New York-based energy technology company
focused on designing and manufacturing lithium-ion battery modules
and packs for commercial electric vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Cota Suit Alleges ADA Violation in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sequential Brands Group, Inc.
doing business as: Joe's Jeans, a Delaware corporation and Does 1
to 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02310-WQH-MSB (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
25, 2020).

Sequential Brands Group, Inc. owns, promotes, and markets a
portfolio of consumer brand to retailers, wholesalers, and
distributors. The Company licenses apparel, fashion accessories,
eyewear, and footwear brands. Sequential Brands Group operates in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SHAVE MOB LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Shave Mob, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Shave Mob, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09947
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Shave Mob, LLC offers shaving razers and blades.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



SONIC CORP: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review in Bogard FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sonic Corp., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-md-02807, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, between April
7, 2017, and October 28, 2017, hackers used malware installed on
point-of-sale systems at 762 Sonic restaurants to steal sales
transaction payment card data. Sonic required franchise restaurants
to use only certain types of point-of-sale systems. In 2017, many
Sonic restaurants used obsolete technology that was vulnerable to
hacking.

The hackers targeted Sonic franchises that used a particular
point-of-sale system and were able to obtain cardholder data. The
Plaintiffs claim the industry standard requires encryption of
stored credit card data, but Sonic's franchisees used outdated
technology -- mandated by Sonic corporate policy -- and did not
encrypt the stolen card data.

A following investigation revealed that the stolen data had been
sold online. The hackers were able to steal credit card data with
impunity for more than six months because Sonic had set up security
alerts using an invalid e-mail address. Five million payment cards'
data were sold online.

The Plaintiffs allege that "Visa and other card brands determined"
that the compromised cards had all been used at Sonic restaurants.

Defendants Sonic Corp., et al., file a petition for permission to
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) from the November 13, 2020
District Court's Amended Opinion and Order, granting Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

In the Amended Opinion and order, the Court certified the following
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure class: All
banks, credit unions, and financial institutions in the United
States that received notice and took action to reissue credit cards
or debit cards or reimbursed a compromised account involved in the
Sonic Data Breach.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 20-305, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, November 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents, CORNELIUS BOGARD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION and ARKANSAS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, are represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539

               - and -

          Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
          BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
          3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1100
          Atlanta, GA 30305-6400  

Defendants-Petitioners SONIC CORP., nka Sonic LLC; SONIC
FRANCHISING LLC; SONIC INDUSTRIES SERVICES INCORPORATED; SONIC
INDUSTRIES LLC; SONIC RESTAURANTS, INC.; and SONIC CAPITAL LLC are
represented by:
    
          David Mitchell Poell, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6349
          E-mail: dpoell@sheppardmullin.com

SPOT PET INSURANCE: Cruz Files Suit under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Spot Pet Insurance Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Spot Pet Insurance Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09949 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Spot Pet Insurance Services, LLC is an insurance company in West
Palm Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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
seeking dismissal of lawsuits initiated by plaintiffs that have
opted out of a securities class action.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, which was subsequently amended.

As amended, the complaint purported to assert claims on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between
February 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018, inclusive, and all those
who purchased securities in the Company's public offering of
depository shares on or around September 15, 2015.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the
underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purported to
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its
customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to
disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other
statements issued during the proposed class period.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Before the court had ruled on
the pending motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in discussions
through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution
of the matter and reached a settlement agreement as previously
disclosed.

The court held a final fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which
it granted final approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement
and took under advisement the amount of attorneys' fees to be
awarded to plaintiffs' counsel from the settlement fund.

Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement, the
Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered
into the Securities Class Action Settlement to avoid the cost and
uncertainty of litigation.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Securities
Class Action Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company. On
March 6, 2020, the Company filed motions to dismiss these actions,
which motions remain pending.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously and resolve
them as appropriate. The Company has made an accrual in respect of
these lawsuits consistent with its accrual policies described
above, which is not material.

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.

STRIPE INC: Illegally Collects Consumer's Private Info, Silver Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jasen Silver, Jill Lienhard, Patricia Tysinger, Victoria Waters and
Alaina Jones, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated
v. Stripe, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-08196-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20,
2020) arises from the Defendant's practice of obtaining, storing,
and evaluating the consumer's sensitive communications and
information.

The Defendant achieved commercial success by creating software code
designed to enable merchants to easily integrate Stripe's payment
platform into their applications. One of Stripe's most popular
offerings is Stripe Elements. When a merchant successfully
integrates the Stripe software code into a Website or mobile
application, consumers who desire to pay for a product or service
are presented with Stripe Elements payment forms created by Stripe
and rendered by the user's browser or mobile application executing
the Stripe code. The payment forms require the consumer to provide
a variety of sensitive information, such as name and address,
telephone number, email address, and, of course, complete credit
card information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant does not use consumers'
private information simply for the purposes of processing the
payments in question. Instead, Stripe indefinitely stores the
information, correlates all payments from the consumer made across
its entire platform, and then -- without informing the consumer --
provides much of it to its other merchants.

At no time does Stripe inform consumers, including the Plaintiffs,
who use its Elements payment forms: (i) that Stripe will intercept
communications that consumers believe are being sent exclusively to
merchants; (ii) that its software code is causing their devices to
connect to Stripe's computer servers; (iii) that Stripe is placing
tracking cookies on consumers' computers; (iv) that its software
code is rendering the payment forms that are displayed to
consumers; (v) that the sensitive information in the payment forms
will be sent to Stripe; (vi) that sensitive information not
expressly inputted by the consumer -- such as IP address, operating
system, and geolocation data -- will also be collected from the
consumer by Stripe; (vii) that Stripe will indefinitely store that
sensitive information; (viii) that Stripe will use consumers'
information to assign Risk Scores to consumers, which could
subsequently be communicated to other merchants and used to deny
consumers' future payment attempts; (ix) that Stripe will track
consumers' behavior across millions of Website and mobile
applications; and (x) that Stripe will make consumers' sensitive
information available to any of its millions of customers who will
accept payment -- or who have already accepted payment -- from
those consumers, the suit says.

Stripe is an American financial services and software as a service
company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Company
primarily offers payment processing software and application
programming interfaces for e-commerce Websites and mobile
applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP  
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com

TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Lidoderm-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 and Watson have moved to dismiss the amended complaint
related to Lidoderm (R), and their motion remains pending.

Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed
against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that
Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches)
violated the antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated as a
multidistrict litigation in federal court in California and were
settled in 2018.

The Federal Trade Commission also filed suit to challenge the
Lidoderm(R) settlement, although in February 2019, the FTC
dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for
Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree. In July
2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of
California.

On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit
against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court.

Defendants moved to dismiss that lawsuit on June 5, 2020, and those
motions were granted in part and denied in part on October 16,
2020.

On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint
against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which it
subsequently amended on June 12, 2020.

Teva and Watson have moved to dismiss that amended complaint, and
their motion remains pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert. Bid in Ontario Teachers Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 and appointment of class
representatives and class counsel filed by the plaintiffs in the
Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation, are pending.

On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an
amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended
complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws
in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing
strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by
making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering
materials.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees,
interest, and costs.

In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Between August 2017 and June 2020, nineteen complaints were filed
against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees,
costs and expenses.

The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the plaintiffs' class if
one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. The case is now in discovery.

Pursuant to that consolidation order, plaintiffs in several of the
"opt-out" cases filed amended complaints on May 28, 2020. On July
8, 2020, Teva and other defendants moved to dismiss certain of the
claims brought by certain of the "opt-out" plaintiffs. Those
motions are pending.

The Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel on June 19, 2020, which the
defendants opposed. That motion is pending.

Motions to approve securities class actions were also filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court in Israel with similar allegations to those
made in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Lamictal(R) Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 together with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), continues to defend a
class action suit related to Lamictal(R).

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva in New Jersey
federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving
lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)) entered into in February 2005.

The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully
delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages.

In December 2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and
remanded for further proceedings.

In December 2018, the district court granted the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but on April 22, 2020,
the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded for further
class certification proceedings.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately $950 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately $2.3 billion at the time
Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal(R) in July 2008.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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
court denied the indirect purchasers' motion for class
certification.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end
payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005, to resolve patent litigation
over the product.

A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout
2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser
opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly
identical to those of the direct purchasers' class.

In August 2019, the district court certified the direct-purchaser
class, but in June 2020, the court denied the indirect purchasers'
motion for class certification.

In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County,
California, filed a similar complaint in California state court,
which has since been amended, alleging violations of state law.

Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for
restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to
alleged activity occurring in Orange County. The Superior Court
denied that motion.

The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the decision and in June
2020, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals'
decision, allowing the District Attorney's claims to proceed.

Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately $416 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time
Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan(R) in September 2013.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 more
than 3,000 complaints have been filed since May 2014 with respect
to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates,
along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of
cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies, tribes and
private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of
individuals) in both state and federal courts.

Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio  and many
of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal
court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding.

Two cases that were in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were recently
transferred back to federal district court for additional
discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial.

Those cases are: City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No.
14-cv-04361 (N.D. Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v.
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

Other cases remain pending in various states. In some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases
have been transferred to a single court within their respective
state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R).

The complaints also assert claims related to Teva's generic opioid
products. In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs,
including various putative class actions of individuals, have
asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600
complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.

Furthermore, approximately 700 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the
entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of
opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify
multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages.
The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic
damages.

In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several
damages among all defendants.

Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several
states in 2021. A court in New York had set a date, for a liability
trial only, to start in March 2020. However, that trial has been
postponed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and
rescheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2021.

Teva said, "It is difficult to predict when or if trials will occur
in 2020 given the current impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
United States and the U.S. judicial system."

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.

TIESTA TEA CO: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiesta Tea Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tiesta Tea Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09959 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Tiesta Tea offers loose leaf tea blends online: black tea, green
tea, herbal tea, rooibos tea, gifts and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com

TRUPANION INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Trupanion, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Trupanion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09950
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Trupanion is a pet insurance provider based in Seattle, Washington,
that offers and administers cat and dog insurance in the United
States, Canada, Australia, and Puerto Rico. Trupanion is
self-underwritten by the American Pet Insurance Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal




UNITED STATES: Appeals Order in Personal Injury Suit to D.C. Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled 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, Plaintiff, v. CHAD
WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02245-EGS-GMH, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
challenges the government's unprecedented new system for
restricting immigration along the Canadian and Mexican borders in
the name of public health and under the purported authority of 42
U.S.C. Section 265. This system is established in a set of agency
documents -- a new regulation, several orders, and an
implementation memo -- which Plaintiff collectively refers to as
the "Title 42 Process."

Plaintiff P.J.E.S. is a 16-year-old boy from Guatemala who came to
the United States unaccompanied. P.J.E.S. was forced to flee to the
United States to escape severe persecution in Guatemala. His father
currently lives in the United States and is awaiting immigration
proceedings. After P.J.E.S. came to the United States, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended him and subjected him to
the Title 42 Process. He is currently in CBP custody in the
McAllen, Texas, area. Prior to the Title 42 Process, and pursuant
to longstanding immigration statutes protecting children and those
seeking protection, the Plaintiff should have been given shelter in
a children's facility until he could be released to his father or
another suitable sponsor in the United States, and is entitled to a
full hearing, and appeals, to determine his right to remain in the
United States with his father.

Under the regular operation of the immigration laws, unaccompanied
children, like the Plaintiff, are transferred to the custody of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health
and Human Services, within 72 hours of the child's apprehension.
Instead, under the Title 42 Process, unaccompanied minors are
regularly being held at hotels for multiple days -- and frequently
for more than 72 hours -- as Defendants arrange for their
deportation.

The Defendants are seeking a review of the District Court's Order
and Memorandum Opinion dated November 18, 2020, provisionally
granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and granting
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants
further request that the court reconsider its denial of a stay of
its preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b).

The appellate case is captioned as P.J.E.S. v. Chad Wolf, et al.,
Case No. 20-5357, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, November 30, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee 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, is represented by:

          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          915 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 457-0800

Defendants-Appellants Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; Mark A. Morgan, Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official
capacity; Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, CBP
Office of Field Operations, in his official capacity; Rodney S.
Scott, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, in his official capacity;
Matthew T. Albence, Deputy Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; Alex M. Azar, II, Secretary
of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; Robert R.
Redfield, Dr., Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, in his official capacity; and Heidi Stirrup, Acting
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, in his official
capacity, are represented by:

          DOJ Appellate Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

VILLA SOTA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Tips, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS RODRIGUEZ v. VILLA SOTA CORAL WAY, LLC (d/b/a LA
BOULANGERIE BOUL'MICH), Case No. 117013835 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade
Cty., Nov. 20, 2020) is an action by the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated individuals for damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and tip credit
applied to her hourly wage due to the Defendant's use of an illegal
tip pool, thus resulting in sub-minimum wage pay, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

The lawsuit is also an action for retaliatory discharge as the
Plaintiff was constructively discharged by the Defendant after
making complaints regarding not being properly paid for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about March
2018 through on or about March 2019, as a non-exempt server.

Villa Sota Coral Way, LLC is a French artisanal bakery that has
been in existence for over 20 years in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Sergio J. Fernandez-Soto, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC  
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  sfs@rgpattorneys.com

VISALUS INC: Loses Statutory Damages Dispute in Wakefield TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VISALUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H.
Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied
the Defendant's Post-Trial Motion Challenging Statutory Damages as
Unconstitutionally Excessive.

Wakefield, on behalf of herself and a certified class of similarly
situated individuals, sued ViSalus, alleging that ViSalus violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  ViSalus is a
multi-level marketing company that sells weight-loss products and
other nutritional dietary supplements.  Individual members enroll
with ViSalus to be "promoters," and promoters purchase products
from ViSalus for resale to end users or other customers of the
promoters.

In late 2012, Wakefield enrolled as a promoter with ViSalus but did
not sell any ViSalus products.  After two months, she decided to
cancel her ViSalus "membership" or enrollment.

Although Wakefield cancelled her account in early 2013, she
received telephone solicitation calls from ViSalus in April 2015.
Wakefield sued ViSalus, alleging that she and others received
telephone calls promoting ViSalus products or services using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without their consent, in violation
of the TCPA.  

In June 2017, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, who initially
presided over the lawsuit, granted certification of a class
consisting of: All individuals in the United States who received a
telephone call made by or on behalf of ViSalus: (1) promoting
ViSalus' products or services; (2) where such call featured an
artificial or prerecorded voice; and (3) where neither ViSalus nor
its agents had any current record of prior express written consent
to place such call at the time such call was made.

The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial.  The jury received
evidence about ViSalus' Progressive Outreach Manager system that
its outbound marketing department used to make telephone calls
automatically.  The jury returned a special verdict, finding that:
(1) Wakefield had proven that ViSalus made or initiated four
telemarketing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice and
that those calls were made to a residential landline telephone
belonging or registered to Wakefield, in violation of the TCPA; and
(2) Wakefield, as the  class representative, also had proven that
ViSalus made or initiated 1,850,436 telemarketing calls using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to either a cellular telephone or a
residential landline, belonging or registered to one or more class
members, other than Ms. Wakefield, in violation of the TCPA.

The jury also concluded that it could not tell from the evidence
presented exactly how many of the 1,850,436 violative calls were
specifically made to cellular phones and how many were made to
residential landlines.  In other words, the jury found that a total
of 1,850,436 violative calls were made to either cellular phones or
residential landlines but could not be more precise about how many
calls were made to each.  Because the TCPA's minimum statutory
penalty is $500 per violation, ViSalus faces $925.225 million in
damages.

ViSalus challenges the award as unconstitutionally excessive.
Instead of challenging the statutory framework or an individual
award, ViSalus argues that an aggregate award of $925.22 million
violates due process because it is so severe and oppressive as to
be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously
unreasonable.  It argues by analogy to due process limits that the
Supreme Court has placed on punitive damages.

Judge opines that the case presents the issue of whether due
process limits the aggregate statutory damages that can be awarded
in a class action lawsuit under the TCPA.  The Ninth Circuit has
not yet answered the question.  Both the First Circuit and the
Eight Circuit, however, have rejected Visalus' analogy and rejected
extending these factors to aggregate awards of statutory damages.
The Eighth Circuit in Capitol Records, however, noted that the
absolute amount of the award, not just the amount per violation, is
relevant to whether the award is so severe and oppressive as to be
wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.

In the case, Wakefield prevailed at trial.  She seeks $925.225
million in damages for herself and the class based on 1,850,440
separate violations of the TCPA.  Thus, it is no longer "unduly
speculative" to evaluate the due process implications of ViSalus'
massive liability.

The Judge declines to conclude that ViSalus' aggregate damages
award should be reduced simply because it committed almost 2
million violations of the TCPA.  Its understanding of the
limitations on damages imposed by due process implies that a
constitutional penalty for a single violation becomes
unconstitutional if the defendant commits the violation enough
times.  That proposition is at odds with the Supreme Court's
decision in St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams and would
effectively immunize illegal conduct if a defendant's bad acts
crossed a certain threshold.  Someone whose maximum penalty reaches
the mesosphere only because the number of violations reaches the
stratosphere can't complain about the consequences of its own
extensive misconduct.  In the case, the jury found that ViSalus
committed a stratospheric number of TCPA violations.  It is no
surprise that the TCPA's constitutionally-valid minimum penalty of
$500 for each violation has catapulted ViSalus' penalty into the
mesosphere.

It is also useful to analyze the TCPA in the context of other
developments in class action law.  Congress enacted the TCPA in
1991, well after the Supreme Court created the presumption that
class actions are available absent express congressional intent to
the contrary.  Thus, Congress expected class actions to be
available when it enacted the statutory damages provision of the
TCPA.  It follows that Congress did not intend to cap TCPA damages
in class action lawsuits.

ViSalus insists that it is "not a $100 million dollar-case," "not
even a $10 million dollar-case," but "barely a $2 million dollar-
case."  ViSalus, however, does not explain why it is a $2 million
dollar-case by tying that amount to the harm suffered by the class
members.  It also fails to explain why the Court should reduce
damages to $2 million, rather than to some other figure.  For these
reasons, the Judge declines to apply the approach described by the
Seventh Circuit in United States v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Finally, at trial, the Plaintiffs presented evidence of how they
filtered out non-residential landline telephones from residential
landline telephones.  From the evidence presented at trial, the
jury concluded that ViSalus made 1,850,440 prerecorded calls in
violation of the TCPA to either residential landline telephones or
to cellular telephones, although the jury could not distinguish
between the two based on the evidence presented.  The jury,
however, did not need to make that distinction because both types
of calls are prohibited by the TCPA and subject to the same
statutory minimum penalty per violation.  If the jury verdict is
supported by 'ubstantial evidence,' the reviewing court must let it
stand.  The Plaintiff presented at trial evidence that reasonable
minds might accept as adequate to support the jury's conclusion
that ViSalus made 1,850,440 calls that violated the TCPA.  This
ends the Court's inquiry on the issue.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Simon denied the Defendant's
Post-Trial Motion, and denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike Defendant's Promotion Declarations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy3yo7xc from
Leagle.com.

Gregory S. Dovel -- greg@dovel.com -- Simon Franzini --
simon@dovel.com -- and Jonas Jacobson, DOVEL & LUNER LLP, 201 Santa
Monica Boulevard, Suite 600, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Scott F.
Kocher and Stephen J. Voorhees, FORUM LAW GROUP, 811 SW Naito
Parkway, Suite 420, Portland, OR 97204; and Rafey S. Balabanian,
Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, and Lily E. Hough, EDELSON PC, 123 Townsend
Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94107. Of Attorneys for
Plaintiff and Class Counsel.

Joshua M. Sasaki -- josh.sasaki@millernash.com -- and Nicholas H.
Pyle -- nicholas.pyle@millernash.com -- MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN
LLP, 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower, 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR
97204; John M. O'Neal and Zachary S. Foster --
zachary.foster@quarles.com -- QUARLES & BRADY LLP, Two N. Central
Avenue, One Renaissance Square, Phoenix, AZ 85004; and Benjamin G.
Shatz, Christine M. Reilly, and John W. McGuinness MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS LLP, 11355 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064. Of
Attorneys for Defendant.


WEEE INC: Paguada Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
WEEE! Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Dilenia
Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WEEE! Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09954 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020).

Weee is a Fremont, California-based tech startup that offers an
online grocery site and app for Asian specialty products and
staples.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review in Alvarez Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order dated November 18, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Angel Alvarez, et al. v. XPO Logistics Cartage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 30,
2020, Defendants XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and XPO Logistics, Inc.
ssk the Court for reconsideration of its September 16, 2020 order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification.

The Defendants contend that the Court's Order reflects that it
failed to consider material facts demonstrating the Plaintiffs'
failure to establish commonality and predominance with respect to
the right-to-control factor under S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v.
Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989) (and failed to
properly weigh the other Borello factors as a result) and
demonstrating the individual inquiries necessary to resolve the
Plaintiffs' minimum wage and meal and rest break claims.

Defendants XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC, et al., seek court review
from the District Court's Nov. 16, 2020 Order denying their motion
for reconsideration of the court's previous order granting in part
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification.

The District Court denied Defendants' motion since they failed to
establish that reconsideration of the court's order certifying the
Plaintiff's class is warranted because Defendants point no facts
that the court did not consider in deciding Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Angel Alvarez, et al. v. XPO
Logistics Cartage, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-80163, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 1,
2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ; ALBERTO RIVERA; FERNANDO
RAMIREZ; JUAN ROMERO; and JOSE PAZ, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated drivers, are represented by:

          Hector De Haro, Esq.
          Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Estephanie Villalpando, Esq.
          Julie Gutman Gutman Dickinson, Esq.  
          BUSH GOTTLIEB, A LAW CORPORATION
          801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          E-mail: hdeharo@bushgottlieb.com
                  igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com
                  evillalpando@bushgottlieb.com
                  jgutmandickinson@bushgottlieb.com
                  

               - and -

          C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR.
          500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 291-0088
          E-mail: cjs@joesayaslaw.com  

Defendants-Petitioners XPO LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC, DBA XPO
Logistics, a Delaware limited Liability Company; XPO CARTAGE, INC.,
DBA XPO Logistics; XPO LOGISTICS, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS, LLC; XPO
INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation, DBA XPO Logistics;
XPO INTERMODAL SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
DBA XPO Logistics; and JEFFREY TRAUNER, an individual, are
represented by:

          Sophia Tarazi, Esq.
          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-7836
          E-mail: starazi@omm.com
                  svoelz@omm.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***